Data Representation Structure to Support Clinical Decision-Making in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit: Interview Study and Preliminary Decision Support Interface Design
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Clinical decision-making is a complex cognitive process that relies on the interpretation of a large variety of data from different sources and involves the use of knowledge bases and scientific recommendations. The representation of clinical data plays a key role in the speed and efficiency of its interpretation. In addition, the increasing use of clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) provides assistance to clinicians in their practice, allowing them to improve patient outcomes. In the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU), clinicians must process high volumes of data and deal with ever-growing workloads. As they use multiple systems daily to assess patients' status and to adjust the health care plan, including electronic health records (EHR), clinical systems (eg, laboratory, imaging and pharmacy), and connected devices (eg, bedside monitors, mechanical ventilators, intravenous pumps, and syringes), clinicians rely mostly on their judgment and ability to trace relevant data for decision-making. In these circumstances, the lack of optimal data structure and adapted visual representation hinder clinician's cognitive processes and clinical decision-making skills. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we designed a prototype to optimize the representation of clinical data collected from existing sources (eg, EHR, clinical systems, and devices) via a structure that supports the integration of a home-developed CDSS in the PICU. This study was based on analyzing end user needs and their clinical workflow. METHODS: First, we observed clinical activities in a PICU to secure a better understanding of the workflow in terms of staff tasks and their use of EHR on a typical work shift. Second, we conducted interviews with 11 clinicians from different staff categories (eg, intensivists, fellows, nurses, and nurse practitioners) to compile their needs for decision support. Third, we structured the data to design a prototype that illustrates the proposed representation. We used a brain injury care scenario to validate the relevance of integrated data and the utility of main functionalities in a clinical context. Fourth, we held design meetings with 5 clinicians to present, revise, and adapt the prototype to meet their needs. RESULTS: We created a structure with 3 levels of abstraction-unit level, patient level, and system level-to optimize clinical data representation and display for efficient patient assessment and to provide a flexible platform to host the internally developed CDSS. Subsequently, we designed a preliminary prototype based on this structure. CONCLUSIONS: The data representation structure allows prioritizing patients via criticality indicators, assessing their conditions using a personalized dashboard, and monitoring their courses based on the evolution of clinical values. Further research is required to define and model the concepts of criticality, problem recognition, and evolution. Furthermore, feasibility tests will be conducted to ensure user satisfaction.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,012 | 0,040 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».