Dataset Information

Characterizing rescue performance in a tertiary care medical center: a systems approach to provide management decision support.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Allocation of limited resources to improve quality, patient safety, and outcomes is a decision-making challenge health care leaders face every day. While much valuable health care management research has concentrated on administrative data analysis, this approach often falls short of providing actionable information essential for effective management of specific system implementations and complex systems. This comprehensive performance analysis of a hospital-wide system illustrates application of various analysis approaches to support understanding specific system behaviors and identify leverage points for improvement. The study focuses on performance of a hospital rescue system supporting early recognition and response to patient deterioration, which is essential to reduce preventable inpatient deaths.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of tertiary care hospital inpatient and rescue data was conducted using a systems analysis approach to characterize: patient demographics; rescue activation types and locations; temporal patterns of activation; and associations of patient factors, including complications, with post-rescue care disposition and outcomes.

Results

Increases in bedside consultations (20% per year) were found with increased rescue activations during periods of resource limitations and changes (e.g., shift changes, weekends). Cardiac arrest, respiratory failure, and sepsis complications present the highest risk for rescue and death. Distributions of incidence of rescue and death by day of patient stay may suggest opportunities for earlier recognition.

Conclusions

Specific findings highlight the potential of using rescue-related risk and targeted resource deployment strategies to improve early detection of deterioration. The approach and methods applied can be used by other institutions to understand performance and allow rational incremental improvements to complex care delivery systems.

SUBMITTER: McGrath SP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8379722 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Computerized decision support systems (CDSSs) are software programs that support the decision making of practitioners and other staff. Other reviews have analyzed the relationship between CDSSs, practitioner performance, and patient outcomes. These reviews reported positive practitioner performance in over half the articles analyzed, but very little information was found for patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this review was to analyze the relationship between CDSSs, practitioner performance, and patient medical outcomes. PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were queried. METHODS:Articles were chosen based on year published (last 10 years), high quality, peer-reviewed sources, and discussion of the relationship between the use of CDSS as an intervention and links to practitioner performance or patient outcomes. Reviewers used an Excel spreadsheet (Microsoft Corporation) to collect information on the relationship between CDSSs and practitioner performance or patient outcomes. Reviewers also collected observations of participants, intervention, comparison with control group, outcomes, and study design (PICOS) along with those showing implicit bias. Articles were analyzed by multiple reviewers following the Kruse protocol for systematic reviews. Data were organized into multiple tables for analysis and reporting. RESULTS:Themes were identified for both practitioner performance (n=38) and medical outcomes (n=36). A total of 66% (25/38) of articles had occurrences of positive practitioner performance, 13% (5/38) found no difference in practitioner performance, and 21% (8/38) did not report or discuss practitioner performance. Zero articles reported negative practitioner performance. A total of 61% (22/36) of articles had occurrences of positive patient medical outcomes, 8% (3/36) found no statistically significant difference in medical outcomes between intervention and control groups, and 31% (11/36) did not report or discuss medical outcomes. Zero articles found negative patient medical outcomes attributed to using CDSSs. CONCLUSIONS:Results of this review are commensurate with previous reviews with similar objectives, but unlike these reviews we found a high level of reporting of positive effects on patient medical outcomes.

Project description:ImportanceAn increasing number of machine learning (ML)-based clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) are described in the medical literature, but this research focuses almost entirely on comparing CDSS directly with clinicians (human vs computer). Little is known about the outcomes of these systems when used as adjuncts to human decision-making (human vs human with computer).ObjectivesTo conduct a systematic review to investigate the association between the interactive use of ML-based diagnostic CDSSs and clinician performance and to examine the extent of the CDSSs' human factors evaluation.Evidence reviewA search of MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and grey literature was conducted for the period between January 1, 2010, and May 31, 2019. Peer-reviewed studies published in English comparing human clinician performance with and without interactive use of an ML-based diagnostic CDSSs were included. All metrics used to assess human performance were considered as outcomes. The risk of bias was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) and Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies-Intervention (ROBINS-I). Narrative summaries were produced for the main outcomes. Given the heterogeneity of medical conditions, outcomes of interest, and evaluation metrics, no meta-analysis was performed.FindingsA total of 8112 studies were initially retrieved and 5154 abstracts were screened; of these, 37 studies met the inclusion criteria. The median number of participating clinicians was 4 (interquartile range, 3-8). Of the 107 results that reported statistical significance, 54 (50%) were increased by the use of CDSSs, 4 (4%) were decreased, and 49 (46%) showed no change or an unclear change. In the subgroup of studies carried out in representative clinical settings, no association between the use of ML-based diagnostic CDSSs and improved clinician performance could be observed. Interobserver agreement was the commonly reported outcome whose change was the most strongly associated with CDSS use. Four studies (11%) reported on user feedback, and, in all but 1 case, clinicians decided to override at least some of the algorithms' recommendations. Twenty-eight studies (76%) were rated as having a high risk of bias in at least 1 of the 4 QUADAS-2 core domains, and 6 studies (16%) were considered to be at serious or critical risk of bias using ROBINS-I.Conclusions and relevanceThis systematic review found only sparse evidence that the use of ML-based CDSSs is associated with improved clinician diagnostic performance. Most studies had a low number of participants, were at high or unclear risk of bias, and showed little or no consideration for human factors. Caution should be exercised when estimating the current potential of ML to improve human diagnostic performance, and more comprehensive evaluation should be conducted before deploying ML-based CDSSs in clinical settings. The results highlight the importance of considering supported human decisions as end points rather than merely the stand-alone CDSSs outputs.

Project description:BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) has developed rapidly, and its application extends to clinical decision support system (CDSS) for improving healthcare quality. However, the interpretability of AI-driven CDSS poses significant challenges to widespread application.ObjectiveThis study is a review of the knowledge-based and data-based CDSS literature regarding interpretability in health care. It highlights the relevance of interpretability for CDSS and the area for improvement from technological and medical perspectives.MethodsA systematic search was conducted on the interpretability-related literature published from 2011 to 2020 and indexed in the five databases: Web of Science, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Cochrane, and Scopus. Journal articles that focus on the interpretability of CDSS were included for analysis. Experienced researchers also participated in manually reviewing the selected articles for inclusion/exclusion and categorization.ResultsBased on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 20 articles from 16 journals were finally selected for this review. Interpretability, which means a transparent structure of the model, a clear relationship between input and output, and explainability of artificial intelligence algorithms, is essential for CDSS application in the healthcare setting. Methods for improving the interpretability of CDSS include ante-hoc methods such as fuzzy logic, decision rules, logistic regression, decision trees for knowledge-based AI, and white box models, post hoc methods such as feature importance, sensitivity analysis, visualization, and activation maximization for black box models. A number of factors, such as data type, biomarkers, human-AI interaction, needs of clinicians, and patients, can affect the interpretability of CDSS.ConclusionsThe review explores the meaning of the interpretability of CDSS and summarizes the current methods for improving interpretability from technological and medical perspectives. The results contribute to the understanding of the interpretability of CDSS based on AI in health care. Future studies should focus on establishing formalism for defining interpretability, identifying the properties of interpretability, and developing an appropriate and objective metric for interpretability; in addition, the user's demand for interpretability and how to express and provide explanations are also the directions for future research.

Project description:BackgroundComputerized clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) are essential components of modern health system service delivery, particularly within acute care settings such as hospitals. Theories, models, and frameworks may assist in facilitating the implementation processes associated with CDSS innovation and its use within these care settings. These processes include context assessments to identify key determinants, implementation plans for adoption, promoting ongoing uptake, adherence, and long-term evaluation. However, there has been no prior review synthesizing the literature regarding the theories, models, and frameworks that have informed the implementation and adoption of CDSSs within hospitals.ObjectiveThis scoping review aims to identify the theory, model, and framework approaches that have been used to facilitate the implementation and adoption of CDSSs in tertiary health care settings, including hospitals. The rationales reported for selecting these approaches, including the limitations and strengths, are described.MethodsA total of 5 electronic databases were searched (CINAHL via EBSCOhost, PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO, and Embase) to identify studies that implemented or adopted a CDSS in a tertiary health care setting using an implementation theory, model, or framework. No date or language limits were applied. A narrative synthesis was conducted using full-text publications and abstracts. Implementation phases were classified according to the "Active Implementation Framework stages": exploration (feasibility and organizational readiness), installation (organizational preparation), initial implementation (initiating implementation, ie, training), full implementation (sustainment), and nontranslational effectiveness studies.ResultsA total of 81 records (42 full text and 39 abstracts) were included. Full-text studies and abstracts are reported separately. For full-text studies, models (18/42, 43%), followed by determinants frameworks (14/42,33%), were most frequently used to guide adoption and evaluation strategies. Most studies (36/42, 86%) did not list the limitations associated with applying a specific theory, model, or framework.ConclusionsModels and related quality improvement methods were most frequently used to inform CDSS adoption. Models were not typically combined with each other or with theory to inform full-cycle implementation strategies. The findings highlight a gap in the application of implementation methods including theories, models, and frameworks to facilitate full-cycle implementation strategies for hospital CDSSs.