PDF herunterladen
Appl Clin Inform 2022; 13(05): 1223-1236
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1759513
Review Article

A Scoping Review of Integrated Medical Devices and Clinical Decision Support in the Acute Care Setting

Jennifer B. Withall
1   Department of Nursing, Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, New York, United States
,
Jessica M. Schwartz
1   Department of Nursing, Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, New York, United States
,
John Usseglio
2   Augustus C. Long Health Sciences Library, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, United States
,
Kenrick D. Cato
1   Department of Nursing, Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, New York, United States
3   Department of Emergency Medicine, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York, United States
› Institutsangaben Funding J.W. is supported through training grants from the National Institute for Nursing Research (NINR; grant number: 5T32NR007969). J.S. was supported by this training grant (grant number: 5T32NR007969) at the inception of this work and was subsequently supported by a National Library of Medicine training grant (grant number: 5T15LM007079).
› Weitere Informationen
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Background Seamless data integration between point-of-care medical devices and the electronic health record (EHR) can be central to clinical decision support systems (CDSS).

Objective The objective of this scoping review is to (1) examine the existing evidence related to integrated medical devices, primarily medication pump devices, and associated clinical decision support (CDS) in acute care settings and (2) to identify how acute care clinicians may use device CDS in clinical decision-making. The rationale for this review is that integrated devices are ubiquitous in the acute care setting, and they generate data that may help to contribute to the situational awareness of the clinical team necessary to provide individualized patient care.

Methods This scoping review was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Extensions for Scoping Review guidelines. PubMed, CINAHL, IEEE Xplore, and Scopus databases were searched for scholarly, peer-reviewed journals indexed between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2020. A priori inclusion criteria were established.

Results Of the 1,924 articles screened, 18 were ultimately included for synthesis, and primarily included articles on devices such as intravenous medication pumps and vital signs machines. Clinical alarm burden was mentioned in most of the articles, and despite not including the term “medication” there were many articles about smart pumps being integrated with the EHR. The Revised Technology, Nursing & Patient Safety Conceptual Model provided the organizational framework. Ten articles described patient assessment, monitoring, or surveillance use. Three articles described patient protection from harm. Four articles described direct care use scenarios, all of which described insulin administration. One article described a hybrid situation of patient communication and monitoring. Most of the articles described devices and decision support primarily used by registered nurses (RNs).

Conclusion The articles in this review discussed devices and the associated CDSS that are used by clinicians, primarily RNs, in the daily provision of care for patients. Integrated device data provide insight into user–device interactions and help to illustrate health care processes, especially the activities when providing direct care to patients in an acute care setting. While there are CDSS designed to support the clinician while working with devices, RNs and providers may disregard this guidance, and defer to their own expertise. Additionally, if clinicians perceive CDSS as intrusive, they are at risk for alarm and alert fatigue if CDSS are not tailored to sync with the workflow of the end-user. Areas for future research include refining inclusion criteria to examine the evidence for devices and their CDS that are most likely used by other groups' health care professionals (i.e., doctors and therapists), using integrated device metadata and deep learning analytics to identify patterns in care delivery, and decision support tools for patients using their own personal data.

Keywords

integrated devices - clinical decision support - interoperability

Authors' Contributions

J.W. and K.C. conceptualized the review. J.U. advised on the scoping review protocol and search strategy. J.W. and K.C. conducted the title/abstract screening and full-text screening. J.S. resolved screening discrepancies between J.W. and K.C. J.W. conducted data extraction. K.C. verified extracted data. All authors participated in the writing of the manuscript.


Data Availability

All data are incorporated into the article and its online [supplementary material].


Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests with respect to this publication.


Human Subjects Research Approval

This work did not involve human subjects and is exempt from requiring Institutional Review Board approval.


Supplementary Material



Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 22. März 2022

Angenommen: 17. Oktober 2022

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
28. Dezember 2022

© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America, Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS, eds. To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. Washington, DC: National Academies Press (US); 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Patient safety 101. Accessed June 24, 2021, at: https://psnet.ahrq.gov/primer/patient-safety-101
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Gluck PA. Patient safety: some progress and many challenges. Obstet Gynecol 2012; 120 (05) 1149-1159
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kronick R, Arnold S, Brady J. Improving safety for hospitalized patients: much progress but many challenges remain. JAMA 2016; 316 (05) 489-490
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Thirukumaran CP, Glance LG, Temkin-Greener H, Rosenthal MB, Li Y. Impact of Medicare's nonpayment program on hospital-acquired conditions. Med Care 2017; 55 (05) 447-455
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Makary MA, Daniel M. Medical error-the third leading cause of death in the US. BMJ 2016; 353: i2139
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Li J, Carayon P. Health Care 4.0: a vision for smart and connected health care. IISE Trans Healthc Syst Eng 2021; 11 (03) 171-180
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Marques da Rosa V, Saurin TA, Tortorella GL, Fogliatto FS, Tonetto LM, Samson D. Digital technologies: an exploratory study of their role in the resilience of healthcare services. Appl Ergon 2021; 97: 103517
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Klarich A, Noonan TZ, Reichlen C, Barbara SMJ, Cullen L, Pennathur PR. Usability of smart infusion pumps: a heuristic evaluation. Appl Ergon 2022; 98: 103584
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Soegaard Ballester JM, Bass GD, Urbani R. et al. A mobile, electronic health record-connected application for managing team workflows in inpatient care. Appl Clin Inform 2021; 12 (05) 1120-1134
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 St John A, Price CP. Existing and emerging technologies for point-of-care testing. Clin Biochem Rev 2014; 35 (03) 155-167
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Sim I, Gorman P, Greenes RA. et al. Clinical decision support systems for the practice of evidence-based medicine. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2001; 8 (06) 527-534
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Sutton RT, Pincock D, Baumgart DC, Sadowski DC, Fedorak RN, Kroeker KI. An overview of clinical decision support systems: benefits, risks, and strategies for success. NPJ Digit Med 2020; 3: 17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Peters MDJ, Godfrey C, McInerney P, Munn Z, Tricco AC, Khalil H. Scoping reviews (2020 version). In: Aromataris E, Munn Z. eds. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI; 2020
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W. et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018; 169 (07) 467-473
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Protection P, Act AC. Patient protection and affordable care act. Public Law 2010; 111 (48) 759-762
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Powell-Cope G, Nelson AL, Patterson ES. Patient Care Technology and Safety. In: Hughes RG. ed. Patient Safety and Quality: An Evidence-Based Handbook for Nurses. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2008
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Donabedian A. Evaluating the quality of medical care. 1966. Milbank Q 2005; 83 (04) 691-729
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Baig MM, GholamHosseini H, Connolly MJ. Multiple physical signs detection and decision support system for hospitalized older adults. Physiol Meas 2015; 36 (10) 2069-2088
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Barasch N, Romig MC, Demko ZO. et al. Automation and interoperability of a nurse-managed insulin infusion protocol as a model to improve safety and efficiency in the delivery of high-alert medications. J Patient Saf Risk Manag 2020; 25 (01) 5-14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Bosque EM. Development of an alarm algorithm, with nanotechnology multimodal sensor, to predict impending infusion failure and improve safety of peripheral intravenous catheters in neonates. Adv Neonatal Care 2020; 20 (03) 233-243
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Campion Jr. TR, Waitman LR, Lorenzi NM, May AK, Gadd CS. Barriers and facilitators to the use of computer-based intensive insulin therapy. Int J Med Inform 2011; 80 (12) 863-871
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Colopy GW, Roberts SJ, Clifton DA. Bayesian optimization of personalized models for patient vital-sign monitoring. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform 2018; 22 (02) 301-310
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Flohr L, Beaudry S, Johnson KT. et al. Clinician-driven design of VitalPAD-an intelligent monitoring and communication device to improve patient safety in the intensive care unit. IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med 2018; 6: 3000114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Ni Y, Lingren T, Huth H, Timmons K, Melton K, Kirkendall E. Integrating and evaluating the data quality and utility of smart pump information in detecting medication administration errors: evaluation study. JMIR Med Inform 2020; 8 (09) e19774
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Singh H, Kaur R, Gangadharan A. et al. Neo-bedside monitoring device for integrated neonatal intensive care unit (iNICU). IEEE Access 2019; 7: 7803-7813
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Stultz JS, Nahata MC. Preventability of voluntarily reported or trigger tool-identified medication errors in a pediatric institution by information technology: a retrospective cohort study. Drug Saf 2015; 38 (07) 661-670
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Yoo J, Soh JY, Lee WH, Chang DK, Lee SU, Cha WC. Experience of emergency department patients with using the talking pole device: prospective interventional descriptive study. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2018; 6 (11) e191
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Amrein K, Kachel N, Fries H. et al. Glucose control in intensive care: usability, efficacy and safety of Space GlucoseControl in two medical European intensive care units. BMC Endocr Disord 2014; 14: 62
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Li K, Warren S, Natarajan B. Onboard tagging for real-time quality assessment of photoplethysmograms acquired by a wireless reflectance pulse oximeter. IEEE Trans Biomed Circuits Syst 2012; 6 (01) 54-63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Subbian V, Ratcliff JJ, Meunier JM, Korfhagen JJ, Beyette Jr. FR, Shaw GJ. Integration of new technology for research in the emergency department: feasibility of deploying a robotic assessment tool for mild traumatic brain injury evaluation. IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med 2015; 3: 3200109
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Wang S, Zhang Q, Huang W. et al. A new smart mobile system for chronic wound care management. IEEE Access 2018; 6: 52355-52365
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 McGrath SP, Perreard IM, Garland MD, Converse KA, Mackenzie TA. Improving patient safety and clinician workflow in the general care setting with enhanced surveillance monitoring. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform 2019; 23 (02) 857-866
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Koutkias VG, McNair P, Kilintzis V. et al. From adverse drug event detection to prevention. A novel clinical decision support framework for medication safety. Methods Inf Med 2014; 53 (06) 482-492
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Clifton DA, Wong D, Clifton L. et al. A large-scale clinical validation of an integrated monitoring system in the emergency department. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform 2013; 17 (04) 835-842
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Mathioudakis N, Jeun R, Godwin G. et al. Development and implementation of a subcutaneous insulin clinical decision support tool for hospitalized patients. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2019; 13 (03) 522-532
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Stead WW. Clinical implications and challenges of artificial intelligence and deep learning. JAMA 2018; 320 (11) 1107-1108
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Hospital: 2023 National Patient Safety Goals. Accessed November 14, 2022, at: https://www.jointcommission.org/standards/national-patient-safety-goals/hospital-national-patient-safety-goals/
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Reducing the Safety Hazards of Monitor Alert and Alarm Fatigue. Accessed November 14, 2022, at: https://psnet.ahrq.gov/perspective/reducing-safety-hazards-monitor-alert-and-alarm-fatigue#ref2
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Bach TA, Berglund LM, Turk E. Managing alarm systems for quality and safety in the hospital setting. BMJ Open Qual 2018; 7 (03) e000202
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Meghan W, Bacon O. Alarm fatigue. In: Hall KK, Shoemaker-Hunt S, Hoffman L. et al. Making Healthcare Safer III: A Critical Analysis of Existing and Emerging Patient Safety Practices. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2020
    Google Scholar
  • 42 van der Sijs H. Errors related to alert fatigue. In: Safety of Health IT. Springer Cham; 2016: 41-54
    Google Scholar
  • 43 Digital health and patient safety. . Accessed November 14, 2022, at: https://psnet.ahrq.gov/issue/digital-health-and-patient-safety
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Agboola SO, Bates DW, Kvedar JC. Digital health and patient safety. JAMA 2016; 315 (16) 1697-1698
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Hartigan S, Brooks M, Hartley S, Miller RE, Santen SA, Hemphill RR. Review of the basics of cognitive error in emergency medicine: still no easy answers. West J Emerg Med 2020; 21 (06) 125-131
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Badawy R, Hameed F, Bataille L. et al. Metadata concepts for advancing the use of digital health technologies in clinical research. Digit Biomark 2019; 3 (03) 116-132
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Rossetti SC, Knaplund C, Albers D. et al. Healthcare process modeling to phenotype clinician behaviors for exploiting the signal gain of clinical expertise (HPM-ExpertSignals): development and evaluation of a conceptual framework. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2021; 28 (06) 1242-1251
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Adler-Milstein J, Adelman JS, Tai-Seale M, Patel VL, Dymek C. EHR audit logs: a new goldmine for health services research?. J Biomed Inform 2020; 101: 103343
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Davenport T, Kalakota R. The potential for artificial intelligence in healthcare. Future Healthc J 2019; 6 (02) 94-98
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Asan O, Bayrak AE, Choudhury A. Artificial intelligence and human trust in healthcare: focus on clinicians. J Med Internet Res 2020; 22 (06) e15154
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Habli I, Lawton T, Porter Z. Artificial intelligence in health care: accountability and safety. Bull World Health Organ 2020; 98 (04) 251-256
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Nagendran M, Chen Y, Lovejoy CA. et al. Artificial intelligence versus clinicians: systematic review of design, reporting standards, and claims of deep learning studies. BMJ 2020; 368: m689
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Shinners L, Aggar C, Grace S, Smith S. Exploring healthcare professionals' understanding and experiences of artificial intelligence technology use in the delivery of healthcare: an integrative review. Health Informatics J 2020; 26 (02) 1225-1236
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2005; 8 (01) 19-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Khalil H, Peters MD, Tricco AC. et al. Conducting high quality scoping reviews-challenges and solutions. J Clin Epidemiol 2021; 130: 156-160
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Pham MT, Rajić A, Greig JD, Sargeant JM, Papadopoulos A, McEwen SA. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synth Methods 2014; 5 (04) 371-385
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Williams PA, Woodward AJ. Cyber security vulnerabilities in medical devices: a complex environment and multifaceted problem. Med Devices (Auckl) 2015; 8: 305-316
    PubMedGoogle Scholar