Dataset Information

Electronic nudge tool technology used in the critical care and peri-anaesthetic setting: a scoping review protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Electronic clinical decision support (eCDS) tools are used to assist clinical decision making. Using computer-generated algorithms with evidence-based rule sets, they alert clinicians to events that require attention. eCDS tools generating alerts using nudge principles present clinicians with evidence-based clinical treatment options to guide clinician behaviour without restricting freedom of choice. Although eCDS tools have shown beneficial outcomes, challenges exist with regard to their acceptability most likely related to implementation. Furthermore, the pace of progress in this field has allowed little time to effectively evaluate the experience of the intended user. This scoping review aims to examine the development and implementation strategies, and the impact on the end user of eCDS tools that generate alerts using nudge principles, specifically in the critical care and peri-anaesthetic setting.

Methods and analysis

This review will follow the Arksey and O'Malley framework. A search will be conducted of literature published in the last 15 years in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Web of Science and SAGE databases. Citation screening and data extraction will be performed by two independent reviewers. Extracted data will include context, e-nudge tool type and design features, development, implementation strategies and associated impact on end users.

Ethics and dissemination

This scoping review will synthesise published literature therefore ethical approval is not required. Review findings will be published in topic relevant peer-reviewed journals and associated conferences.

SUBMITTER: McIlmurray L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9277380 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundElectrical cardioversion is an effective procedure for restoring normal sinus rhythm in the hearts of patients with irregular heart rhythms. It is important that the patient is not fully conscious during the procedure, as it can be painful and distressing. The drug used to make patients unaware of the procedure should rapidly achieve the desired level of sedation, should wear off quickly and should not cause cardiovascular or respiratory side effects.ObjectivesWe aimed to compare the safety, effectiveness and adverse events associated with various anaesthetic or sedative agents used in direct current cardioversion for cardiac arrhythmia in both elective and emergency settings.We sought answers to the following specific questions.• Which drugs deliver the best outcomes for patients undergoing electrical cardioversion?• Does using a particular agent confer advantages or disadvantages?• Is additional analgesic necessary to prevent pain?Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) on 27 March 2014. Our search terms were relevant to the review question and were not limited by outcomes. We also carried out searches of clinical trials registers and forward and backward citation tracking.Selection criteriaWe considered all randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized and cluster-randomized studies with adult participants undergoing electrical cardioversion procedures in the elective or emergency setting.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data, consulting with a third review author for disagreements. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures, including assessment of risk of bias for all studies.Main resultsWe included 23 studies with 1250 participants that compared one drug with one or more other drugs. Of these comparisons, 19 studies compared propofol with another drug. Seven of these compared propofol with etomidate (four of which combined the drugs with remifentanil or fentanyl), five midazolam, six thiopentone and two sevoflurane. Three studies compared etomidate with thiopentone, and three etomidate with midazolam. Two studies compared thiopentone with midazolam, one thiopentone with diazepam and one midazolam with diazepam. Drug doses and the time over which the drugs were given varied between studies. Although all studies were described as randomized, limited information was provided about the methods used for selection and group allocation. A high level of performance bias was observed across studies, as study authors had not attempted to blind the anaesthetist to group allocation. Similarly, study authors had rarely provided sufficient information on whether outcome assessors had been blinded.Included studies presented outcome data for hypotension, apnoea, participant recall, success of cardioversion, minor adverse events of nausea and vomiting, pain at injection site and myoclonus, additional analgesia and participant satisfaction. We did not pool the data from different studies in view of the multiple drug comparisons, differences in definitions and reporting of outcomes, variability of endpoints and high or unclear risk of bias across studies.Authors' conclusionsFew studies reported statistically significant results for our relevant outcomes, and most study authors concluded that both, or all, agents compared in individual studies were adequate for cardioversion procedures. It is our opinion that at present, there is no evidence to suggest that current anaesthetic practice for cardioversion should change.

Project description:ObjectiveTo map the extant literature evaluating the use of technology for goal setting in adult rehabilitation and the impact of technology for patient outcomes.DesignScoping review.MethodsMEDLINE (via Ovid), CINAHL (via EBSCO), AMED and Scopus were searched for articles describing observational or interventional studies. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database were searched for grey literature. Two review authors independently screened all titles and abstracts for potentially relevant articles. We included articles describing studies that had evaluated the development or application of technology to facilitate goal setting in rehabilitation for adults. Articles were excluded if the technology described did not include features to facilitate goal setting or were not in English. Narrative reviews, opinion pieces and editorials were also excluded.ResultsAfter screening 1640 publications of potential interest, we identified 27 studies for inclusion. These 27 articles described studies involving a total of 16 different technologies including, seven mobile apps, three websites, two mobile apps/website hybrids, two apps and two websites connected to a pedometer. We found that most technologies described were designed to facilitate self-management with goal setting as a feature and that only five included a shared decision moment around goal setting. Only six of the 16 technologies had research providing evidence of effectiveness in terms of improved patient outcomes, with the best evidence of beneficial effects associated with technologies that linked goal setting to pedometer use.ConclusionsThe identified technologies for use in adult rehabilitation that included goal setting as a feature were largely accepted and valued by patients and health professionals. The limited data suggest that there is a need for further research; specific foci may include the impact of incorporation of a shared decision-making moment and evaluation of effectiveness on patient outcomes.

Project description:ObjectiveThis scoping review aims to characterize the current literature on electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) in rheumatology and assess the feasibility and utility of ePROMs and mobile health technology in the management of rheumatic disease.IntroductionPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are commonly used in rheumatology as they are important markers of disease activity and overall function, encourage shared decision-making, and are associated with high rates of patient satisfaction. With the widespread use of mobile devices, there is increasing interest in the use of mobile health technology to collect electronic PROMs (ePROM).Inclusion criteriaAll primary studies that involve the collection of ePROMs using mobile devices by individuals with a rheumatic disease were included. Articles were excluded if ePROMs were measured during clinic appointments.MethodsA scoping review was performed using Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL with index terms and key words related to "patient-reported outcome measures", "rheumatic diseases", and "mobile health technology".ResultsA total of 462 records were identified after duplicates were removed. Of the 70 studies selected for review, 43% were conference proceedings and 57% were journal articles, with the majority published in 2016 or later. Inflammatory arthritis was the most common rheumatic disease studied. Generic ePROMs were used over three times more often than disease-specific ePROMs. A total of 39 (56%) studies directly evaluated the feasibility of ePROMs in clinical practice, 19 (27%) were clinical trials that used ePROMs as study endpoints, 9 (13%) were focus groups or surveys on smartphone application development, and 3 (4%) did not fit into one defined category.ConclusionThe use of ePROMs in rheumatology is a growing area of research and shows significant utility in clinical practice, particularly in inflammatory arthritis. Further research is needed to better characterize the feasibility of ePROMs in rheumatology and their impact on patient outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundMultiple policy initiatives encourage more cautious prescribing of opioids in light of their risks. Electronic health record (EHR) redesign can influence prescriber choices, but some redesigns add to workload.ObjectiveTo estimate the effect of an EHR prescribing redesign on both opioid prescribing choices and keystrokes.DesignQuality improvement quasi-experiment, analyzed as interrupted time series.ParticipantsAdult patients of an academic multispecialty practice and a federally qualified health center (FQHC) who received new prescriptions for short-acting opioids, and their providers.InterventionIn the redesign, new prescriptions of short-acting opioids defaulted to the CDC-recommended minimum for opioid-naïve patients, with no alerts or hard stops, such that 9 keystrokes were required for a guideline-concordant prescription and 24 for a non-concordant prescription.Main measuresProportion of guideline-concordant prescriptions, defined as new prescriptions with a 3-day supply or less, calculated per 2-week period. Number of mouse clicks and keystrokes needed to place prescriptions.Key resultsAcross the 2 sites, 22,113 patients received a new short-acting opioid prescription from 821 providers. Before the intervention, both settings showed secular trends toward smaller-quantity prescriptions. At the academic practice, the intervention was associated with an immediate increase in guideline-concordant prescriptions from an average of 12% to 31% of all prescriptions. At the FQHC, about 44% of prescriptions were concordant at the time of the intervention, which was not associated with an additional significant increase. However, total keystrokes needed to place the concordant prescriptions decreased 62.7% from 3552 in the 6 months before the intervention to 1323 in the 6 months afterwards.ConclusionsAutocompleting prescription forms with guideline-recommended values was associated with a large increase in guideline concordance in an organization where baseline concordance was low, but not in an organization where it was already high. The redesign markedly reduced the number of keystrokes needed to place orders, with important implications for EHR-related stress.Trial registrationwww.ClinicalTrials.gov protocol 1710018646.

Project description:ObjectivesAssessing outcomes after pediatric critical illness is imperative to evaluate practice and improve recovery of patients and their families. We conducted a scoping review of the literature to identify domains and instruments previously used to evaluate these outcomes.DesignScoping review.SettingWe queried PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials Registry for studies evaluating pediatric critical care survivors or their families published between 1970 and 2017. We identified articles using key words related to pediatric critical illness and outcome domains. We excluded articles if the majority of patients were greater than 18 years old or less than 1 month old, mortality was the sole outcome, or only instrument psychometrics or procedural outcomes were reported. We used dual review for article selection and data extraction and categorized outcomes by domain (overall health, emotional, physical, cognitive, health-related quality of life, social, family).SubjectsManuscripts evaluating outcomes after pediatric critical illness.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsOf 60,349 citations, 407 articles met inclusion criteria; 87% were published after 2000. Study designs included observational (85%), interventional (7%), qualitative (5%), and mixed methods (3%). Populations most frequently evaluated were traumatic brain injury (n = 96), general pediatric critical illness (n = 87), and congenital heart disease (n = 72). Family members were evaluated in 74 studies (18%). Studies used a median of 2 instruments (interquartile range 1-4 instruments) and evaluated a median of 2 domains (interquartile range 2-3 domains). Social (n = 223), cognitive (n = 183), and overall health (n = 161) domains were most frequently studied. Across studies, 366 unique instruments were used, most frequently the Wechsler and Glasgow Outcome Scales. Individual domains were evaluated using a median of 77 instruments (interquartile range 39-87 instruments).ConclusionsA comprehensive, generalizable understanding of outcomes after pediatric critical illness is limited by heterogeneity in methodology, populations, domains, and instruments. Developing assessment standards may improve understanding of postdischarge outcomes and support development of interventions after pediatric critical illness.