Thomas J Reese1, Guilherme Del Fiol1, Joseph E Tonna2, Kensaku Kawamoto1, Noa Segall3, Charlene Weir1, Brekk C Macpherson4, Polina Kukhareva1, Melanie C Wright5. 1. Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. 2. Division of Emergency Medicine and Cardiothoracic Surgery, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. 3. Department of Anesthesiology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA. 4. School of Nursing, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA. 5. College of Pharmacy, Idaho State University, Pocatello, Idaho, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of a graphical information display on diagnosing circulatory shock. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an experimental study comparing integrated and conventional information displays. Participants were intensivists or critical care fellows (experts) and first-year medical residents (novices). RESULTS: The integrated display was associated with higher performance (87% vs 82%; P < .001), less time (2.9 vs 3.5 min; P = .008), and more accurate etiology (67% vs 54%; P = .048) compared to the conventional display. When stratified by experience, novice physicians using the integrated display had higher performance (86% vs 69%; P < .001), less time (2.9 vs 3.7 min; P = .03), and more accurate etiology (65% vs 42%; P = .02); expert physicians using the integrated display had nonsignificantly improved performance (87% vs 82%; P = .09), time (2.9 vs 3.3; P = .28), and etiology (69% vs 67%; P = .81). DISCUSSION: The integrated display appeared to support efficient information processing, which resulted in more rapid and accurate circulatory shock diagnosis. Evidence more strongly supported a difference for novices, suggesting that graphical displays may help reduce expert-novice performance gaps.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of a graphical information display on diagnosing circulatory shock. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was an experimental study comparing integrated and conventional information displays. Participants were intensivists or critical care fellows (experts) and first-year medical residents (novices). RESULTS: The integrated display was associated with higher performance (87% vs 82%; P < .001), less time (2.9 vs 3.5 min; P = .008), and more accurate etiology (67% vs 54%; P = .048) compared to the conventional display. When stratified by experience, novice physicians using the integrated display had higher performance (86% vs 69%; P < .001), less time (2.9 vs 3.7 min; P = .03), and more accurate etiology (65% vs 42%; P = .02); expert physicians using the integrated display had nonsignificantly improved performance (87% vs 82%; P = .09), time (2.9 vs 3.3; P = .28), and etiology (69% vs 67%; P = .81). DISCUSSION: The integrated display appeared to support efficient information processing, which resulted in more rapid and accurate circulatory shock diagnosis. Evidence more strongly supported a difference for novices, suggesting that graphical displays may help reduce expert-novice performance gaps.
Authors: Anthony Holley; William Lukin; Jennifer Paratz; Tracey Hawkins; Robert Boots; Jeffrey Lipman Journal: Emerg Med Australas Date: 2012-01-17 Impact factor: 2.151
Authors: Rosalie G Waller; Melanie C Wright; Noa Segall; Paige Nesbitt; Thomas Reese; Damian Borbolla; Guilherme Del Fiol Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Yasser Sakr; Konrad Reinhart; Jean-Louis Vincent; Charles L Sprung; Rui Moreno; V Marco Ranieri; Daniel De Backer; Didier Payen Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: S Blake Wachter; Ken Johnson; Robert Albert; Noah Syroid; Frank Drews; Dwayne Westenskow Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2006-08-23 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Michael D Howell; Michael Donnino; Peter Clardy; Daniel Talmor; Nathan I Shapiro Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2007-07-06 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Melanie C Wright; Damian Borbolla; Rosalie G Waller; Guilherme Del Fiol; Thomas Reese; Paige Nesbitt; Noa Segall Journal: J Biomed Inform X Date: 2019-06-22