scholarly journals Wearable technology to inform the prediction and diagnosis of cardiorespiratory events: a scoping review

PeerJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. e12598
Author(s):  
Hamzeh Khundaqji ◽  
Wayne Hing ◽  
James Furness ◽  
Mike Climstein
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Cardiac Arrhythmias ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Physiological Data ◽  
Clinical Decisions ◽  
Control Series ◽  
The Impact

Background The need for health systems that allow for continuous monitoring and early adverse event detection in individuals outside of the acute care setting has been highlighted by the global rise in chronic cardiorespiratory diseases and the recent COVID-19 pandemic. Currently, it is unclear what type of evidence exists concerning the use of physiological data collected from commercially available wrist and textile wearables to assist in clinical decision making. The aim of this review was therefore to systematically map and summarize the scientific literature surrounding the use of these wearables in clinical decision making as well as identify knowledge gaps to inform further research. Methodology Six electronic bibliographic databases were systematically searched (Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus, and SportsDiscus). Publications from database inception to May 6, 2020 were reviewed for inclusion. Non-indexed literature relevant to this review was also searched systematically. Results were then collated, summarized and reported. Results A total of 107 citations were retrieved and assessed for eligibility with 31 citations included in the final analysis. A review of the 31 papers revealed three major study designs which included (1) observational studies (n = 19), (2) case control series and reports (n = 8), and (3) reviews (n = 2). All papers examined the use of wearable monitoring devices for clinical decisions in the cardiovascular domain, with cardiac arrhythmias being the most studied. When compared to electrocardiogram (ECG) the performance of the wearables in facilitating clinical decisions varied depending upon the type of wearable, user’s activity levels and setting in which they were employed. Observational studies collecting data in the inpatient and outpatient settings were equally represented. Eight case control series and reports were identified which reported on the use of wrist wearables in patients presenting to an emergency department or clinic to aid in the clinical diagnosis of a cardiovascular event. Two narrative reviews were identified which examined the impact of wearable devices in monitoring cardiovascular disease as well as potential challenges they may pose in the future. Conclusions To date, studies employing wearables to facilitate clinical decisions have largely focused upon the cardiovascular domain. Despite the ability of some wearables to collect physiological data accurately, there remains a need for a specialist physician to retrospectively review the raw data to make a definitive diagnosis. Analysis of the results has also highlighted gaps in the literature such as the absence of studies employing wearables to facilitate clinical decisions in the respiratory domain. The disproportionate study of wearables in atrial fibrillation detection in comparison to other cardiac arrhythmias and conditions, as well as the lack of diversity in the sample populations used prevents the generalizability of results.

AAC Assessment and Clinical-Decision Making: The Impact of Experience

2012 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 148-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aimee Dietz ◽  
Wendy Quach ◽  
Shelley K. Lund ◽  
Miechelle McKelvey
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
The Impact

Standardized Synoptic Cancer Pathology Reports — So What and Who Cares?: A Population-Based Satisfaction Survey of 970 Pathologists, Surgeons, and Oncologists

2013 ◽  
Vol 137 (11) ◽  
pp. 1599-1602 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Lankshear ◽  
John Srigley ◽  
Thomas McGowan ◽  
Marta Yurcan ◽  
Carol Sawka
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Physician Satisfaction ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Cancer Pathology ◽  
Report Turnaround Time ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Pathology Reporting ◽  
The Impact

Context.—Cancer Care Ontario implemented synoptic pathology reporting across Ontario, impacting the practice of pathologists, surgeons, and medical and radiation oncologists. The benefits of standardized synoptic pathology reporting include enhanced completeness and improved consistency in comparison with narrative reports, with reported challenges including increased workload and report turnaround time. Objective.—To determine the impact of synoptic pathology reporting on physician satisfaction specific to practice and process. Design.—A descriptive, cross-sectional design was utilized involving 970 clinicians across 27 hospitals. An 11-item survey was developed to obtain information regarding timeliness, completeness, clarity, and usability. Open-ended questions were also employed to obtain qualitative comments. Results.—A 51% response rate was obtained, with descriptive statistics reporting that physicians perceive synoptic reports as significantly better than narrative reports. Correlation analysis revealed a moderately strong, positive relationship between respondents' perceptions of overall satisfaction with the level of information provided and perceptions of completeness for clinical decision making (r = 0.750, P < .001) and ease of finding information for clinical decision making (r = 0.663, P < .001). Dependent t tests showed a statistically significant difference in the satisfaction scores of pathologists and oncologists (t169 = 3.044, P = .003). Qualitative comments revealed technology-related issues as the most frequently cited factor impacting timeliness of report completion. Conclusion.—This study provides evidence of strong physician satisfaction with synoptic cancer pathology reporting as a clinical decision support tool in the diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment of cancer patients.

scholarly journals Clinicians’ experiences of using and implementing a medical mobile phone app (QUiPP V2) designed to predict the risk of preterm birth and aid clinical decision making

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Carlisle ◽  
H. A. Watson ◽  
J. Carter ◽  
K. Kuhrt ◽  
P. T. Seed ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Preterm Birth ◽  
Cultural Context ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Qualitative Interviews ◽  
Scale Up ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Clinical Trial Registry ◽  
Support Tool ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background As the vast majority of women who present in threatened preterm labour (TPTL) will not deliver early, clinicians need to balance the risks of over-medicalising the majority of women, against the potential risk of preterm delivery for those discharged home. The QUiPP app is a free, validated app which can support clinical decision-making as it produces individualised risks of delivery within relevant timeframes. Recent evidence has highlighted that clinicians would welcome a decision-support tool that accurately predicts preterm birth. Methods Qualitative interviews were undertaken as part of the EQUIPTT study (The Evaluation of the QUiPP app for Triage and Transfer) (REC: 17/LO/1802) which aimed to evaluate the impact of the QUiPP app on management of TPTL. Individual semi-structured telephone interviews were used to explore clinicians’ (obstetricians’ and midwives’) experiences of using the QUiPP app and how it was implemented at their hospital sites. Thematic analysis was chosen to explore the meaning of the data, through a framework approach. Results Nineteen participants from 10 hospital sites in England took part. Data analysis revealed three overarching themes which were: ‘experience of using the app’, ‘how QUiPP risk changes practice’ and ‘successfully adopting QUiPP: context is everything’. With these final themes we appeared to have achieved our aim of exploring the clinicians’ experiences of using and implementing the QUiPP app. Conclusion This study explored different clinician’s experiences of implementing the app. The organizational and cultural context at different sites appeared to have a large impact on how well the QUiPP app was implemented. Future work needs to be undertaken to understand how best to embed the intervention within different settings. This will inform scale up of QUiPP app use across the UK and ensure that clinicians have access to this free, easy-to-use tool which can positively aid clinical decision making when caring for women in TPTL. Clinical trial registry and registration number ISRCTN 17846337, registered 08th January 2018, https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN17846337.

scholarly journals Exploring the role of the Care and Health Information Exchange (CHIE) in clinical decision-making: a realist evaluation

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip Scott ◽  
Elisavet Andrikopoulou ◽  
Haythem Nakkas ◽  
Paul Roderick
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Information ◽  
Information Exchange ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Social Care ◽  
Health Information Exchange ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
The Impact

Background: The overall evidence for the impact of electronic information systems on cost, quality and safety of healthcare remains contested. Whilst it seems intuitively obvious that having more data about a patient will improve care, the mechanisms by which information availability is translated into better decision-making are not well understood. Furthermore, there is the risk of data overload creating a negative outcome. There are situations where a key information summary can be more useful than a rich record. The Care and Health Information Exchange (CHIE) is a shared electronic health record for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight that combines key information from hospital, general practice, community care and social services. Its purpose is to provide clinical and care professionals with complete, accurate and up-to-date information when caring for patients. CHIE is used by GP out-of-hours services, acute hospital doctors, ambulance service, GPs and others in caring for patients. Research questions: The fundamental question was How does awareness of CHIE or usage of CHIE affect clinical decision-making? The secondary questions were What are the latent benefits of CHIE in frontline NHS operations? and What is the potential of CHIE to have an impact on major NHS cost pressures? The NHS funders decided to focus on acute medical inpatient admissions as the initial scope, given the high costs associated with hospital stays and the patient complexities (and therefore information requirements) often associated with unscheduled admissions. Methods: Semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals to explore their experience about the utility of CHIE in their clinical scenario, whether and how it has affected their decision-making practices and the barriers and facilitators for their use of CHIE. The Framework Method was used for qualitative analysis, supported by the software tool Atlas.ti. Results: 21 healthcare professionals were interviewed. Three main functions were identified as useful: extensive medication prescribing history, information sharing between primary, secondary and social care and access to laboratory test results. We inferred two positive cognitive mechanisms: knowledge confidence and collaboration assurance, and three negative ones: consent anxiety, search anxiety and data mistrust. Conclusions: CHIE gives clinicians the bigger picture to understand the patient's health and social care history and circumstances so as to make confident and informed decisions. CHIE is very beneficial for medicines reconciliation on admission, especially for patients that are unable to speak or act for themselves or who cannot remember their precise medication or allergies. We found no clear evidence that CHIE has a significant impact on admission or discharge decisions. We propose the use of recommender systems to help clinicians navigate such large volumes of patient data, which will only grow as additional data is collected.

scholarly journals QOLP-03. MEASURING CHANGE IN HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE: THE ADDED VALUE OF ANALYSIS ON THE INDIVIDUAL PATIENT LEVEL IN GLIOMA PATIENTS IN CLINICAL DECISION MAKING

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (Supplement_6) ◽  
pp. vi197-vi198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marijke Coomans ◽  
Martin Taphoorn ◽  
Neil Aaronson ◽  
Brigitta Baumert ◽  
Martin van den Bent ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Scale Item ◽  
Individual Patient Level ◽  
Patient Level ◽  
Related Quality ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Over Time

Abstract BACKGROUND: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important outcome in glioma research, reflecting the impact of disease and treatment on a patient’s functioning and wellbeing. Data on changes in HRQoL scores provide important information for clinical decision-making, but different analytical methods may lead to different interpretations of the impact of treatment on HRQoL. This study aimed to study whether different methods to evaluate change in HRQoL result in different interpretations. Methods: HRQoL and sociodemographical/clinical data from 15 randomized clinical trials were combined. Change in HRQoL scores was analyzed: (1)at the group level, comparing mean changes in scale/item scores between treatment arms over time, (2)at the patient level per scale/item by calculating the percentage of patients that deteriorated, improved or remained stable on a scale/item per scale/item, and (3)at the individual patient level combining all scales/items. Results: Data were available for 3727 patients. At the group scale/item level (method 1), only the item ‘hair loss’ showed a significant and clinically relevant change (i.e. ≥10 points) over time, whereas change scores on the other scales/items showed a statistically significant change only (all p< .001, range in change score:0.1–6.2). Analyses on the patient level per scale (method 2) indicated that, while a large proportion of patients had stable HRQoL over time (range:27–84%), many patients deteriorated (range:6–43%) or improved (range:8–32%) on a specific scale/item. At the individual patient level (method 3), the majority of patients (86%) showed both deterioration and improvement, while only 1% of the patients remained stable on all scales. Conclusion: Different analytical methods of changes in HRQoL result in distinct interpretations of treatment effects, all of which may be relevant for clinical decision-making. Additional information about the joint impact of treatment on all outcomes may help patients and physicians to make the best treatment decision.

Clinical decision-making and its place in paramedic practice

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Samantha Murdoch
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Outcome ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Hospital Environment ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Clinical Decisions ◽  
Correct Treatment ◽  
Health And Wellbeing

In the pre-hospital environment, paramedics are required to make clinical decisions, often rapidly to ensure correct treatment and care is provided. Decisions made by paramedics majorly impacts on the life, clinical outcome, safety, health and wellbeing of their patients. With the introduction of the Newly Qualified Paramedic Framework, it potentially has never been more pertinent to examine the decision-making process-an integral part of paramedicine. The implementation of the NQP framework has prompted an exploration into clinical decision making and its place in an ever-evolving profession. Through examination of theories and frameworks, this article aims to identify the underpinning evidence that enables a paramedic to reach a competent decision and the barriers experienced in the process.

scholarly journals Impact of 123I-MIBG Scintigraphy on Clinical Decision-Making in Pheochromocytoma and Paraganglioma

2019 ◽  
Vol 104 (9) ◽  
pp. 3812-3820 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dipti Rao ◽  
Anouk van Berkel ◽  
Ianthe Piscaer ◽  
William F Young ◽  
Lucinda Gruber ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Diagnostic Value ◽  
Mibg Scintigraphy ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
First Choice ◽  
Cross Sectional Imaging ◽  
The Cost ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Context Cross-sectional imaging with CT or MRI is regarded as a first-choice modality for tumor localization in patients with pheochromocytoma and paraganglioma (PPGL). 123I-labeled metaiodobenzylguanidine (123I-MIBG) is widely used for functional imaging but the added diagnostic value is controversial. Objective To establish the virtual impact of adding 123I-MIBG scintigraphy to CT or MRI on diagnosis and treatment of PPGL. Design International multicenter retrospective study. Intervention None. Patients Two hundred thirty-six unilateral adrenal, 18 bilateral adrenal, 48 unifocal extra-adrenal, 12 multifocal, and 26 metastatic PPGL. Main Outcome Measures Patients underwent both anatomical imaging (CT and/or MRI) and 123I-MIBG scintigraphy. Local imaging reports were analyzed centrally by two independent observers who were blinded to the diagnosis. Imaging-based diagnoses determined by CT/MRI only, 123I-MIBG only, and CT/MRI combined with 123I-MIBG scintigraphy were compared with the correct diagnoses. Results The rates of correct imaging-based diagnoses determined by CT/MRI only versus CT/MRI plus 123I-MIBG scintigraphy were similar: 89.4 versus 88.8%, respectively (P = 0.50). Adding 123I-MIBG scintigraphy to CT/MRI resulted in a correct change in the imaging-based diagnosis and ensuing virtual treatment in four cases (1.2%: two metastatic instead of nonmetastatic, one multifocal instead of single, one unilateral instead of bilateral adrenal) at the cost of an incorrect change in seven cases (2.1%: four metastatic instead of nonmetastatic, two multifocal instead of unifocal and one bilateral instead of unilateral adrenal). Conclusions For the initial localization of PPGL, the addition of 123I-MIBG scintigraphy to CT/MRI rarely improves the diagnostic accuracy at the cost of incorrect interpretation in others, even when 123I-MIBG scintigraphy is restricted to patients who are at risk for metastatic disease. In this setting, the impact of 123I-MIBG scintigraphy on clinical decision-making appears very limited.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document