Jennifer C Ginestra1, Heather M Giannini1, William D Schweickert2,3, Laurie Meadows4, Michael J Lynch4, Kimberly Pavan5, Corey J Chivers3, Michael Draugelis3, Patrick J Donnelly6, Barry D Fuchs2,3, Craig A Umscheid3,7,8. 1. Department of Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. 2. Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. 3. University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA. 4. Department of Nursing, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. 5. Department of Clinical Informatics, Penn Presbyterian Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA. 6. Pennsylvania Hospital, Philadelphia, PA. 7. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. 8. Center for Evidence-based Practice, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess clinician perceptions of a machine learning-based early warning system to predict severe sepsis and septic shock (Early Warning System 2.0). DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: Tertiary teaching hospital in Philadelphia, PA. PATIENTS: Non-ICU admissions November-December 2016. INTERVENTIONS: During a 6-week study period conducted 5 months after Early Warning System 2.0 alert implementation, nurses and providers were surveyed twice about their perceptions of the alert's helpfulness and impact on care, first within 6 hours of the alert, and again 48 hours after the alert. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: For the 362 alerts triggered, 180 nurses (50% response rate) and 107 providers (30% response rate) completed the first survey. Of these, 43 nurses (24% response rate) and 44 providers (41% response rate) completed the second survey. Few (24% nurses, 13% providers) identified new clinical findings after responding to the alert. Perceptions of the presence of sepsis at the time of alert were discrepant between nurses (13%) and providers (40%). The majority of clinicians reported no change in perception of the patient's risk for sepsis (55% nurses, 62% providers). A third of nurses (30%) but few providers (9%) reported the alert changed management. Almost half of nurses (42%) but less than a fifth of providers (16%) found the alert helpful at 6 hours. CONCLUSIONS: In general, clinical perceptions of Early Warning System 2.0 were poor. Nurses and providers differed in their perceptions of sepsis and alert benefits. These findings highlight the challenges of achieving acceptance of predictive and machine learning-based sepsis alerts.
OBJECTIVE: To assess clinician perceptions of a machine learning-based early warning system to predict severe sepsis and septic shock (Early Warning System 2.0). DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: Tertiary teaching hospital in Philadelphia, PA. PATIENTS: Non-ICU admissions November-December 2016. INTERVENTIONS: During a 6-week study period conducted 5 months after Early Warning System 2.0 alert implementation, nurses and providers were surveyed twice about their perceptions of the alert's helpfulness and impact on care, first within 6 hours of the alert, and again 48 hours after the alert. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: For the 362 alerts triggered, 180 nurses (50% response rate) and 107 providers (30% response rate) completed the first survey. Of these, 43 nurses (24% response rate) and 44 providers (41% response rate) completed the second survey. Few (24% nurses, 13% providers) identified new clinical findings after responding to the alert. Perceptions of the presence of sepsis at the time of alert were discrepant between nurses (13%) and providers (40%). The majority of clinicians reported no change in perception of the patient's risk for sepsis (55% nurses, 62% providers). A third of nurses (30%) but few providers (9%) reported the alert changed management. Almost half of nurses (42%) but less than a fifth of providers (16%) found the alert helpful at 6 hours. CONCLUSIONS: In general, clinical perceptions of Early Warning System 2.0 were poor. Nurses and providers differed in their perceptions of sepsis and alert benefits. These findings highlight the challenges of achieving acceptance of predictive and machine learning-based sepsis alerts.
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: Craig A Umscheid; Joel Betesh; Christine VanZandbergen; Asaf Hanish; Gordon Tait; Mark E Mikkelsen; Benjamin French; Barry D Fuchs Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2014-09-26 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Bristol N Brandt; Amanda B Gartner; Michael Moncure; Chad M Cannon; Elizabeth Carlton; Carol Cleek; Chris Wittkopp; Steven Q Simpson Journal: Am J Med Qual Date: 2014-06-26 Impact factor: 1.852
Authors: Linda L Humphrey; Mark Deffebach; Miranda Pappas; Christina Baumann; Kathryn Artis; Jennifer Priest Mitchell; Bernadette Zakher; Rongwei Fu; Christopher G Slatore Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2013-09-17 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Heather M Giannini; Jennifer C Ginestra; Corey Chivers; Michael Draugelis; Asaf Hanish; William D Schweickert; Barry D Fuchs; Laurie Meadows; Michael Lynch; Patrick J Donnelly; Kimberly Pavan; Neil O Fishman; C William Hanson; Craig A Umscheid Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Ceara Tess Cunningham; Hude Quan; Brenda Hemmelgarn; Tom Noseworthy; Cynthia A Beck; Elijah Dixon; Susan Samuel; William A Ghali; Lindsay L Sykes; Nathalie Jetté Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2015-04-09 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Gabriel J Escobar; Arona Ragins; Peter Scheirer; Vincent Liu; Jay Robles; Patricia Kipnis Journal: Med Care Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Roy Adams; Katharine E Henry; Anirudh Sridharan; Hossein Soleimani; Andong Zhan; Nishi Rawat; Lauren Johnson; David N Hager; Sara E Cosgrove; Andrew Markowski; Eili Y Klein; Edward S Chen; Mustapha O Saheed; Maureen Henley; Sheila Miranda; Katrina Houston; Robert C Linton; Anushree R Ahluwalia; Albert W Wu; Suchi Saria Journal: Nat Med Date: 2022-07-21 Impact factor: 87.241
Authors: Santiago Romero-Brufau; Daniel Whitford; Matthew G Johnson; Joel Hickman; Bruce W Morlan; Terry Therneau; James Naessens; Jeanne M Huddleston Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-06-12 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Jessica M Schwartz; Amanda J Moy; Sarah C Rossetti; Noémie Elhadad; Kenrick D Cato Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Anoop Mayampurath; Priti Jani; Yangyang Dai; Robert Gibbons; Dana Edelson; Matthew M Churpek Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 3.971