State-of-the-art Dashboards on Clinical Indicator Data to Support Reflection on Practice: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is an increasing interest in using routinely collected eHealth data to support reflective practice and long-term professional learning. Studies have evaluated the impact of dashboards on clinician decision-making, task completion time, user satisfaction, and adherence to clinical guidelines. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to summarize the literature on dashboards based on patient administrative, medical, and surgical data for clinicians to support reflective practice. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted using the Arksey and O'Malley framework. A search was conducted in 5 electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, ACM Digital Library, and Web of Science) to identify studies that met the inclusion criteria. Study selection and characterization were performed by 2 independent reviewers (BB and CP). One reviewer extracted the data that were analyzed descriptively to map the available evidence. RESULTS: A total of 18 dashboards from 8 countries were assessed. Purposes for the dashboards were designed for performance improvement (10/18, 56%), to support quality and safety initiatives (6/18, 33%), and management and operations (4/18, 22%). Data visualizations were primarily designed for team use (12/18, 67%) rather than individual clinicians (4/18, 22%). Evaluation methods varied among asking the clinicians directly (11/18, 61%), observing user behavior through clinical indicators and use log data (14/18, 78%), and usability testing (4/18, 22%). The studies reported high scores on standard usability questionnaires, favorable surveys, and interview feedback. Improvements to underlying clinical indicators were observed in 78% (7/9) of the studies, whereas 22% (2/9) of the studies reported no significant changes in performance. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review maps the current literature landscape on dashboards based on routinely collected clinical indicator data. Although there were common data visualization techniques and clinical indicators used across studies, there was diversity in the design of the dashboards and their evaluation. There was a lack of detail regarding the design processes documented for reproducibility. We identified a lack of interface features to support clinicians in making sense of and reflecting on their personal performance data.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.065 | 0.240 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.039 | 0.038 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".