Use of electronic self‐administered bleeding assessment tool in diagnosis of paediatric bleeding disorders

Introduction In the era of electronic medical records, pen‐and‐paper‐based physician‐administered bleeding assessment tools (BAT) remain under‐utilized in the clinical setting, as they are noted to be time‐consuming. Aim The current study reviews the use of an electronic self‐administered bleeding a...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia 2021-09, Vol.27 (5), p.710-716
Main Authors: Kaur, Dominder, Kerlin, Bryce A., Stanek, Joseph R., O'Brien, Sarah H.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Bleeding
Blood Coagulation Disorders
Child
children
Electronic medical records
Electronics
haemorrhage
Hematology
Hemorrhage - diagnosis
Humans
Mass Screening
Patients
Pediatrics
questionnaire
screening tool
Surveys and Questionnaires
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Introduction In the era of electronic medical records, pen‐and‐paper‐based physician‐administered bleeding assessment tools (BAT) remain under‐utilized in the clinical setting, as they are noted to be time‐consuming. Aim The current study reviews the use of an electronic self‐administered bleeding assessment tool (eBAT) prospectively in a paediatric haematology clinic and in comparison with a physician administered BAT (pBAT). Materials and Methods This was reviewed and approved in the current form because the aims statement includes the method regarding comparison of 2 groups. So no additional section required. Results A total of 94 BAT response pairs were available for analysis. The median time required for patients or parents to complete the eBAT was 8 min, with less than a third of the patients requiring over 10 min. The median bleeding scores noted in this study were 4 for both the BATs, with strong positive correlation between the eBAT and the physician administered bleeding questionnaire. The eBAT had a sensitivity of 93.8% (95% CI 82.8%–98.7%), a specificity of 34.8% (95% CI 21.4%–50.3%), a positive predictive value (PV) of 60.0% (95% CI 54.5%–65.2%) and a negative PV of 84.2% (95% CI 62.5%–94.5%) for identifying a bleeding disorder. Conclusions Findings indicate that eBAT is a valid and time‐efficient screening tool for evaluating patients’ bleeding symptoms, which can improve clinical applicability of BATs by reducing time for bleeding history review.
ISSN:1351-8216
1365-2516
DOI:10.1111/hae.14349