Evaluation of Digital Health Strategy to Support Clinician-Led Critically Ill Patient Population Management: A Randomized Crossover Study

• Published in: Critical care explorations 2023-05, Vol.5 (5), p.e0909-e0909
• Main Authors: Herasevich, Svetlana, Pinevich, Yuliya, Lipatov, Kirill, Barwise, Amelia K, Lindroth, Heidi L, LeMahieu, Allison M, Dong, Yue, Herasevich, Vitaly, Pickering, Brian W
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Original Clinical Report
• ISSN: 2639-8028; 2639-8028
• DOI: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000000909

To investigate whether a novel acute care multipatient viewer (AMP), created with an understanding of clinician information and process requirements, could reduce time to clinical decision-making among clinicians caring for populations of acutely ill patients compared with a widely used commercial electronic medical record (EMR). Single center randomized crossover study. Quaternary care academic hospital. Attending and in-training critical care physicians, and advanced practice providers. AMP. We compared ICU clinician performance in structured clinical task completion using two electronic environments-the standard commercial EMR (Epic) versus the novel AMP in addition to Epic. Twenty subjects (10 pairs of clinicians) participated in the study. During the study session, each participant completed the tasks on two ICUs (7-10 beds each) and eight individual patients. The adjusted time for assessment of the entire ICU and the adjusted total time to task completion were significantly lower using AMP versus standard commercial EMR (-6.11; 95% CI, -7.91 to -4.30 min and -5.38; 95% CI, -7.56 to -3.20 min, respectively; < 0.001). The adjusted time for assessment of individual patients was similar using both the EMR and AMP (0.73; 95% CI, -0.09 to 1.54 min; = 0.078). AMP was associated with a significantly lower adjusted task load (National Aeronautics and Space Administration-Task Load Index) among clinicians performing the task versus the standard EMR (22.6; 95% CI, -32.7 to -12.4 points; < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in adjusted total errors when comparing the two environments (0.68; 95% CI, 0.36-1.30; = 0.078). When compared with the standard EMR, AMP significantly reduced time to assessment of an entire ICU, total time to clinical task completion, and clinician task load. Additional research is needed to assess the clinicians' performance while using AMP in the live ICU setting.