↓ Skip to main content

Assessment of the Feasibility of automated, real-time clinical decision support in the emergency department using electronic health record data

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Emergency Medicine, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Assessment of the Feasibility of automated, real-time clinical decision support in the emergency department using electronic health record data
Published in
BMC Emergency Medicine, July 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12873-018-0170-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Warren M. Perry, Rubayet Hossain, Richard A. Taylor

Abstract

The use of big data and machine learning within clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) has the potential to transform medicine through better prognosis, diagnosis and automation of tasks. Real-time application of machine learning algorithms, however, is dependent on data being present and entered prior to, or at the point of, CDSS deployment. Our aim was to determine the feasibility of automating CDSSs within electronic health records (EHRs) by investigating the timing, data categorization, and completeness of documentation of their individual components of two common Clinical Decision Rules (CDRs) in the Emergency Department. The CURB-65 severity score and HEART score were randomly selected from a list of the top emergency medicine CDRs. Emergency department (ED) visits with ICD-9 codes applicable to our CDRs were eligible. The charts were reviewed to determine the categorization components of the CDRs as structured and/or unstructured, median times of documentation, portion of charts with all data components documented as structured data, portion of charts with all structured CDR components documented before ED departure. A kappa score was calculated for interrater reliability. The components of the CDRs were mainly documented as structured data for the CURB-65 severity score and HEART score. In the CURB-65 group, 26.8% of charts had all components documented as structured data, and 67.8% in the HEART score. Documentation of some CDR components often occurred late for both CDRs. Only 21 and 11% of patients had all CDR components documented as structured data prior to ED departure for the CURB-65 and HEART score groups, respectively. The interrater reliability for the CURB-65 score review was 0.75 and 0.65 for the HEART score. Our study found that EHRs may be unable to automatically calculate popular CDRs-such as the CURB-65 severity score and HEART score-due to missing components and late data entry.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 86 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 15%
Researcher 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Student > Postgraduate 5 6%
Other 5 6%
Other 17 20%
Unknown 31 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 31%
Computer Science 10 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 35 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 July 2018.
All research outputs
#13,266,732
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from BMC Emergency Medicine
#378
of 763 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#162,344
of 327,912 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Emergency Medicine
#6
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 763 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,912 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.