MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293661949 · doi:10.2196/39234

Electronic Diagnostic Support in Emergency Physician Triage: Qualitative Study With Thematic Analysis of Interviews

2022· article· en· W4293661949 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Matthew Sibbald, Bashayer Abdulla, Amy Keuhl, Geoff Norman, Sandra Monteiro, Jonathan Sherbino

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Human Factors · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Canadian institutionsImpactMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTriageEmergency departmentThematic analysisMedical diagnosisContext (archaeology)Medical emergencyQualitative researchMedicinePsychologyNursingSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Not thinking of a diagnosis is a leading cause of diagnostic error in the emergency department, resulting in delayed treatment, morbidity, and excess mortality. Electronic differential diagnostic support (EDS) results in small but significant reductions in diagnostic error. However, the uptake of EDS by clinicians is limited. OBJECTIVE: We sought to understand physician perceptions and barriers to the uptake of EDS within the emergency department triage process. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study using a research associate to rapidly prototype an embedded EDS into the emergency department triage process. Physicians involved in the triage assessment of a busy emergency department were provided the output of an EDS based on the triage complaint by an embedded researcher to simulate an automated system that would draw from the electronic medical record. Physicians were interviewed immediately after their experience. Verbatim transcripts were analyzed by a team using open and axial coding, informed by direct content analysis. RESULTS: In all, 4 themes emerged from 14 interviews: (1) the quality of the EDS was inferred from the scope and prioritization of the diagnoses present in the EDS differential; (2) the trust of the EDS was linked to varied beliefs around the diagnostic process and potential for bias; (3) clinicians foresaw more benefit to EDS use for colleagues and trainees rather than themselves; and (4) clinicians felt strongly that EDS output should not be included in the patient record. CONCLUSIONS: The adoption of an EDS into an emergency department triage process will require a system that provides diagnostic suggestions appropriate for the scope and context of the emergency department triage process, transparency of system design, and affordances for clinician beliefs about the diagnostic process and addresses clinician concern around including EDS output in the patient record.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.155

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0100.012
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.378 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Human FactorsSame topicClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsFrench-language works237,207