Katherine M Richardson1, Sarah D Fouquet2, Ellen Kerns3, Russell J McCulloh3. 1. Departments of Pediatrics (KM Richardson, E Kerns, and RJ McCulloh). Electronic address: kmrichardson@cmh.edu. 2. Medical Informatics and Telemedicine (SD Fouquet), Children's Mercy Kansas City, Mo. 3. Departments of Pediatrics (KM Richardson, E Kerns, and RJ McCulloh).
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the individual-level impact of an electronic clinical decision support (ECDS) tool, PedsGuide, on febrile infant clinical decision making and cognitive load. METHODS: A counterbalanced, prospective, crossover simulation study was performed among attending and trainee physicians. Participants performed simulated febrile infant cases with use of PedsGuide and with standard reference text. Cognitive load was assessed using the NASA-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX), which determines mental, physical, temporal demand, effort, frustration, and performance. Usability was assessed with the System Usability Scale (SUS). Scores on cases and NASA-TLX scores were compared between condition states. RESULTS: A total of 32 participants completed the study. Scores on febrile infant cases using PedsGuide were greater compared with standard reference text (89% vs 72%, P = .001). NASA-TLX scores were lower (ie, more optimal) with use of PedsGuide versus control (mental 6.34 vs 11.8, P < .001; physical 2.6 vs 6.1, P = .001; temporal demand 4.6 vs 8.0, P = .003; performance 4.5 vs 8.3, P < .001; effort 5.8 vs 10.7, P < .001; frustration 3.9 vs 10, P < .001). The SUS had an overall score of 88 of 100 with rating of acceptable on the acceptability scale. CONCLUSIONS: Use of PedsGuide led to increased adherence to guidelines and decreased cognitive load in febrile infant management when compared with the use of a standard reference tool. This study employs a rarely used method of assessing ECDS tools using a multifaceted approach (medical decision-making, assessing usability, and cognitive workload,) that may be used to assess other ECDS tools in the future.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the individual-level impact of an electronic clinical decision support (ECDS) tool, PedsGuide, on febrile infant clinical decision making and cognitive load. METHODS: A counterbalanced, prospective, crossover simulation study was performed among attending and trainee physicians. Participants performed simulated febrile infant cases with use of PedsGuide and with standard reference text. Cognitive load was assessed using the NASA-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX), which determines mental, physical, temporal demand, effort, frustration, and performance. Usability was assessed with the System Usability Scale (SUS). Scores on cases and NASA-TLX scores were compared between condition states. RESULTS: A total of 32 participants completed the study. Scores on febrile infant cases using PedsGuide were greater compared with standard reference text (89% vs 72%, P = .001). NASA-TLX scores were lower (ie, more optimal) with use of PedsGuide versus control (mental 6.34 vs 11.8, P < .001; physical 2.6 vs 6.1, P = .001; temporal demand 4.6 vs 8.0, P = .003; performance 4.5 vs 8.3, P < .001; effort 5.8 vs 10.7, P < .001; frustration 3.9 vs 10, P < .001). The SUS had an overall score of 88 of 100 with rating of acceptable on the acceptability scale. CONCLUSIONS: Use of PedsGuide led to increased adherence to guidelines and decreased cognitive load in febrile infant management when compared with the use of a standard reference tool. This study employs a rarely used method of assessing ECDS tools using a multifaceted approach (medical decision-making, assessing usability, and cognitive workload,) that may be used to assess other ECDS tools in the future.
Authors: Laura G Militello; Julie B Diiulio; Morgan R Borders; Christen E Sushereba; Jason J Saleem; Donald Haverkamp; Thomas F Imperiale Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Andrew W Cairns; Raymond R Bond; Dewar D Finlay; Daniel Guldenring; Fabio Badilini; Guido Libretti; Aaron J Peace; Stephen J Leslie Journal: J Electrocardiol Date: 2017-08-09 Impact factor: 1.438
Authors: Joshua M Colvin; Jared T Muenzer; David M Jaffe; Avraham Smason; Elena Deych; William D Shannon; Max Q Arens; Richard S Buller; Wai-Ming Lee; Erica J Sodergren Weinstock; George M Weinstock; Gregory A Storch Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2012-11-05 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Amy Sarah Ginsburg; Jaclyn Delarosa; Waylon Brunette; Shahar Levari; Mitch Sundt; Clarice Larson; Charlotte Tawiah Agyemang; Sam Newton; Gaetano Borriello; Richard Anderson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-10-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Russell J McCulloh; Sarah D Fouquet; Joshua Herigon; Eric A Biondi; Brandan Kennedy; Ellen Kerns; Adrienne DePorre; Jessica L Markham; Y Raymond Chan; Krista Nelson; Jason G Newland Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Oliver Maassen; Sebastian Fritsch; Julia Gantner; Saskia Deffge; Julian Kunze; Gernot Marx; Johannes Bickenbach Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-12-21 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Russell James McCulloh; Paul Darden; Jessica Snowden; Songthip Ounpraseuth; Jeannette Lee; Martina Clarke; Sophia R Newcomer; Linda Fu; DeAnn Hubberd; Jaime Baldner; Maryam Garza; Ellen Kerns Journal: Res Sq Date: 2022-10-10