Do Medical Practitioners Trust Automated Interpretation of Electrocardiograms?

The objective is to study the way physicians use the ECG computerized interpretation (ECG-CI). Anonymous questionnaires were mailed to 282 primary care physicians (PCPs) and 140 cardiologists in France. 225 complete surveys were analyzed. PCPs performed a median of 5 ECGs per month, vs. 200 ECGs for cardiologists. Among PCPs with ECG, 57% felt confident about their skills in interpreting ECGs. Whereas 91.7% of cardiologists first interpreted the ECG by themselves, 27.9% of PCPs first read the computerized interpretation. PCPs found that ECG-CI was more reliable than cardiologists did for atrial or ventricular hypertrophy. PCPs and cardiologists agreed that ECG-CI was reliable for conduction troubles and "normal ECG" statement, but was not for other rhythm or repolarization troubles. PCPs are less experienced with ECG interpretation, but are also more likely to trust the computerized interpretation, whereas those interpreters are not fully reliable.