Data Representation Structure to Support Clinical Decision-Making in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit: Interview Study and Preliminary Decision Support Interface Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.012 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".