Kristen Miller1, Rebecca Kowalski2, Muge Capan2, Pan Wu2, Danielle Mosby1, Ryan Arnold2. 1. National Center for Human Factors in Healthcare, MedStar Institute for Innovation, Washington DC. 2. Value Institute, John H. Ammon Education Center, Christiana Care Health System, Newark, Delaware.
Abstract
Background: An information technology solution to provide a real-time alert to the nursing staff is necessary to assist in identifying patients who may have sepsis and avoid the devastating effects of its late recognition. The objective of this study is to evaluate the perception and adoption of sepsis clinical decision support. Methods: A cross-sectional survey over a three-week period in 2015 was conducted in a major tertiary care facility. A sepsis alert was launched into five pilot units (including: surgery, medical-ICU, step-down, general medicine, and oncology). The pilot unit providers consisted of nurses from five inpatient units. Frequency, summary statistics, Chi-square, and nonparametric Kendall tests were used to determine the significance of the association and correlation between six evaluation domains. Results: A total of 151 nurses responded (53% response rate). Questions included in the survey addressed the following domains: usability, accuracy, impact on workload, improved performance, provider preference, and physician response. The level of agreeability regarding physician response was significantly different between units (p=0.0136). There were significant differences for improved performance (p=0.0068) and physician response (p=0.0503) across levels of exposure to the alert. The strongest correlations were between questions related to usability and the domains of: accuracy (τ=0.64), performance (τ=0.66), and provider preference (τ=0.62), as well as, between the domains of: provider performance and provider preference (τ=0.67). Discussion: Performance and preference of providers were evaluated to identify strengths and weaknesses of the sepsis alert. Effective presentation of the alert, including how and what is displayed, may offer better cognitive support in identifying and treating septic patients.
Background: An information technology solution to provide a real-time alert to the nursing staff is necessary to assist in identifying patients who may have sepsis and avoid the devastating effects of its late recognition. The objective of this study is to evaluate the perception and adoption of sepsis clinical decision support. Methods: A cross-sectional survey over a three-week period in 2015 was conducted in a major tertiary care facility. A sepsis alert was launched into five pilot units (including: surgery, medical-ICU, step-down, general medicine, and oncology). The pilot unit providers consisted of nurses from five inpatient units. Frequency, summary statistics, Chi-square, and nonparametric Kendall tests were used to determine the significance of the association and correlation between six evaluation domains. Results: A total of 151 nurses responded (53% response rate). Questions included in the survey addressed the following domains: usability, accuracy, impact on workload, improved performance, provider preference, and physician response. The level of agreeability regarding physician response was significantly different between units (p=0.0136). There were significant differences for improved performance (p=0.0068) and physician response (p=0.0503) across levels of exposure to the alert. The strongest correlations were between questions related to usability and the domains of: accuracy (τ=0.64), performance (τ=0.66), and provider preference (τ=0.62), as well as, between the domains of: provider performance and provider preference (τ=0.67). Discussion: Performance and preference of providers were evaluated to identify strengths and weaknesses of the sepsis alert. Effective presentation of the alert, including how and what is displayed, may offer better cognitive support in identifying and treating septicpatients.
Entities:
Keywords:
Sepsis; alert; clinical decision support tool; usability testing
Authors: I Sim; P Gorman; R A Greenes; R B Haynes; B Kaplan; H Lehmann; P C Tang Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2001 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Mitchell M Levy; Mitchell P Fink; John C Marshall; Edward Abraham; Derek Angus; Deborah Cook; Jonathan Cohen; Steven M Opal; Jean-Louis Vincent; Graham Ramsay Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Vincent Liu; Gabriel J Escobar; John D Greene; Jay Soule; Alan Whippy; Derek C Angus; Theodore J Iwashyna Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-07-02 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Dean F Sittig; Michael A Krall; Richard H Dykstra; Allen Russell; Homer L Chin Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2006-02-01 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Laura Schubel; Danielle L Mosby; Joseph Blumenthal; Muge Capan; Ryan Arnold; Rebecca Kowalski; F Jacob Seagull; Ken Catchpole; J Sanford Schwartz; Ella Franklin; Robin Littlejohn; Kristen E Miller Journal: Health Informatics J Date: 2019-05-13 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Khalia Ackermann; Jannah Baker; Malcolm Green; Mary Fullick; Hilal Varinli; Johanna Westbrook; Ling Li Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2022-02-23 Impact factor: 7.076