Bowles Kathryn H, Ratcliffe Sarah, Potashnik Sheryl, Topaz Maxim, Holmes John, Shih Nai-Wei, Naylor Mary D
University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia, PA; Visiting Nurse Service of New York.
University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine , Philadelphia, PA.
Appl Clin Inform. 2016 May 18;7(2):368-79. doi: 10.4338/ACI-2015-11-RA-0161. eCollection 2016.
Eliciting knowledge from geographically dispersed experts given their time and scheduling constraints, while maintaining anonymity among them, presents multiple challenges.
Describe an innovative, Internet based method to acquire knowledge from experts regarding patients who need post-acute referrals. Compare, 1) the percentage of patients referred by experts to percentage of patients actually referred by hospital clinicians, 2) experts' referral decisions by disciplines and geographic regions, and 3) most common factors deemed important by discipline.
De-identified case studies, developed from electronic health records (EHR), contained a comprehensive description of 1,496 acute care inpatients. In teams of three, physicians, nurses, social workers, and physical therapists reviewed case studies and assessed the need for post-acute care referrals; Delphi rounds followed when team members did not agree. Generalized estimating equations (GEEs) compared experts' decisions by discipline, region of the country and to the decisions made by study hospital clinicians, adjusting for the repeated observations from each expert and case. Frequencies determined the most common case characteristics chosen as important by the experts.
The experts recommended referral for 80% of the cases; the actual discharge disposition of the patients showed referrals for 67%. Experts from the Northeast and Midwest referred 5% more cases than experts from the West. Physicians and nurses referred patients at similar rates while both referred more often than social workers. Differences by discipline were seen in the factors identified as important to the decision.
The method for eliciting expert knowledge enabled national dispersed expert clinicians to anonymously review case summaries and make decisions about post-acute care referrals. Having time and a comprehensive case summary may have assisted experts to identify more patients in need of post-acute care than the hospital clinicians. The methodology produced the data needed to develop an expert decision support system for discharge planning.
鉴于地理上分散的专家存在时间和日程安排限制,在保持他们之间匿名的同时获取其知识面临多重挑战。
描述一种基于互联网的创新方法,以获取专家关于需要急性后转诊患者的知识。比较:1)专家转诊患者的百分比与医院临床医生实际转诊患者的百分比;2)按学科和地理区域划分的专家转诊决策;3)各学科认为重要的最常见因素。
从电子健康记录(EHR)中开发的去识别化案例研究包含1496例急性护理住院患者的全面描述。医生、护士、社会工作者和物理治疗师以三人小组形式审查案例研究并评估急性后护理转诊的需求;当小组成员意见不一致时进行德尔菲轮询。广义估计方程(GEEs)按学科、国家地区比较专家的决策与研究医院临床医生的决策,并针对每个专家和案例的重复观察进行调整。频率确定了专家选择的作为重要因素的最常见案例特征。
专家建议对80%的案例进行转诊;患者的实际出院处置显示转诊率为67%。来自东北部和中西部的专家比来自西部的专家多转诊5%的案例。医生和护士转诊患者的比例相似,且两者转诊频率均高于社会工作者。在确定对决策重要的因素方面存在学科差异。
获取专家知识的方法使全国分散的专家临床医生能够匿名审查案例摘要并就急性后护理转诊做出决策。有时间和全面的案例摘要可能有助于专家识别出比医院临床医生更多的需要急性后护理的患者。该方法产生了开发出院计划专家决策支持系统所需的数据。