Literature DB >> 35864251

Factors driving provider adoption of the TREWS machine learning-based early warning system and its effects on sepsis treatment timing.

Katharine E Henry1,2, Roy Adams2,3, Cassandra Parent4, Hossein Soleimani5, Anirudh Sridharan6, Lauren Johnson7, David N Hager8, Sara E Cosgrove8, Andrew Markowski9, Eili Y Klein10, Edward S Chen8, Mustapha O Saheed10, Maureen Henley7, Sheila Miranda11, Katrina Houston7, Robert C Linton6, Anushree R Ahluwalia7, Albert W Wu12,13,14,15, Suchi Saria16,17,18,19,20.   

Abstract

Machine learning-based clinical decision support tools for sepsis create opportunities to identify at-risk patients and initiate treatments at early time points, which is critical for improving sepsis outcomes. In view of the increasing use of such systems, better understanding of how they are adopted and used by healthcare providers is needed. Here, we analyzed provider interactions with a sepsis early detection tool (Targeted Real-time Early Warning System), which was deployed at five hospitals over a 2-year period. Among 9,805 retrospectively identified sepsis cases, the early detection tool achieved high sensitivity (82% of sepsis cases were identified) and a high rate of adoption: 89% of all alerts by the system were evaluated by a physician or advanced practice provider and 38% of evaluated alerts were confirmed by a provider. Adjusting for patient presentation and severity, patients with sepsis whose alert was confirmed by a provider within 3 h had a 1.85-h (95% CI 1.66-2.00) reduction in median time to first antibiotic order compared to patients with sepsis whose alert was either dismissed, confirmed more than 3 h after the alert or never addressed in the system. Finally, we found that emergency department providers and providers who had previous interactions with an alert were more likely to interact with alerts, as well as to confirm alerts on retrospectively identified patients with sepsis. Beyond efforts to improve the performance of early warning systems, efforts to improve adoption are essential to their clinical impact and should focus on understanding providers' knowledge of, experience with and attitudes toward such systems.
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature America, Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35864251     DOI: 10.1038/s41591-022-01895-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Nat Med        ISSN: 1078-8956            Impact factor:   87.241


  36 in total

1.  From Annoying to Appreciated: Turning clinical decision support systems into a medical professional's best friend.

Authors:  Leslie Mertz
Journal:  IEEE Pulse       Date:  2015 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 0.924

Review 2.  Clinical decision support models and frameworks: Seeking to address research issues underlying implementation successes and failures.

Authors:  Robert A Greenes; David W Bates; Kensaku Kawamoto; Blackford Middleton; Jerome Osheroff; Yuval Shahar
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2017-12-12       Impact factor: 6.317

3.  The value of vital sign trends for detecting clinical deterioration on the wards.

Authors:  Matthew M Churpek; Richa Adhikari; Dana P Edelson
Journal:  Resuscitation       Date:  2016-02-16       Impact factor: 5.262

4.  An awakening in medicine: the partnership of humanity and intelligent machines.

Authors:  Leo Anthony Celi; Benjamin Fine; David J Stone
Journal:  Lancet Digit Health       Date:  2019-09-26

Review 5.  Grand challenges in clinical decision support.

Authors:  Dean F Sittig; Adam Wright; Jerome A Osheroff; Blackford Middleton; Jonathan M Teich; Joan S Ash; Emily Campbell; David W Bates
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2007-09-21       Impact factor: 6.317

6.  Lessons Learned About Autonomous AI: Finding a Safe, Efficacious, and Ethical Path Through the Development Process.

Authors:  Michael D Abràmoff; Danny Tobey; Danton S Char
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2020-03-12       Impact factor: 5.258

7.  A targeted real-time early warning score (TREWScore) for septic shock.

Authors:  Katharine E Henry; David N Hager; Peter J Pronovost; Suchi Saria
Journal:  Sci Transl Med       Date:  2015-08-05       Impact factor: 17.956

Review 8.  High-performance medicine: the convergence of human and artificial intelligence.

Authors:  Eric J Topol
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2019-01-07       Impact factor: 53.440

9.  Quick Sequential [Sepsis-Related] Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) and St. John Sepsis Surveillance Agent to Detect Patients at Risk of Sepsis: An Observational Cohort Study.

Authors:  Robert C Amland; Bharat B Sutariya
Journal:  Am J Med Qual       Date:  2017-02-01       Impact factor: 1.852

10.  A clinically applicable approach to continuous prediction of future acute kidney injury.

Authors:  Trevor Back; Christopher Nielson; Joseph R Ledsam; Shakir Mohamed; Nenad Tomašev; Xavier Glorot; Jack W Rae; Michal Zielinski; Harry Askham; Andre Saraiva; Anne Mottram; Clemens Meyer; Suman Ravuri; Ivan Protsyuk; Alistair Connell; Cían O Hughes; Alan Karthikesalingam; Julien Cornebise; Hugh Montgomery; Geraint Rees; Chris Laing; Clifton R Baker; Kelly Peterson; Ruth Reeves; Demis Hassabis; Dominic King; Mustafa Suleyman
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2019-07-31       Impact factor: 49.962

View more
  2 in total

1.  Human-machine teaming is key to AI adoption: clinicians' experiences with a deployed machine learning system.

Authors:  Bilge Mutlu; Suchi Saria; Katharine E Henry; Rachel Kornfield; Anirudh Sridharan; Robert C Linton; Catherine Groh; Tony Wang; Albert Wu
Journal:  NPJ Digit Med       Date:  2022-07-21

2.  A sepsis early warning system is associated with improved patient outcomes.

Authors:  Jason N Kennedy; Kristina E Rudd
Journal:  Cell Rep Med       Date:  2022-09-20
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.