L. Samuels et Jn. Gordon, UTILITY OF A SOFTWARE ASSISTANT IN CRITICAL CARE CASE REVIEW, The American journal of emergency medicine, 15(1), 1997, pp. 43-48
A computer program (the Audit Assistant) was developed to help physici
ans review the care of critically ill emergency department (ED) patien
ts. The program is an example of a new class of decision aids that ser
ves to remind physicians to consider possibilities, not an artificial
intelligence program that actually attempts to simulate clinical reaso
ning. The goal of such programs is to enable physicians to reduce erro
rs--in this case to enable reviewers to notice more of the errors in c
are in the cases they are reviewing. The objective of this study was t
o demonstrate on a small set of complex cases that the tested computer
program enables the physician to perform a better quality review. The
issue of what constitutes improved case review is addressed. In the f
irst part of the study, reviewers reviewed two mock charts without usi
ng the Audit Assistant and then immediately reviewed the charts again
with the assistance of the program. The reviews were compared. In the
second part of the study, a second reviewer also compared the utility
of the review of the first reviewer alone and the Audit Assistant outp
ut as an aid to review, using an additional mock chart. Six emergency
physicians participated; each was a quality assurance director for the
ED of one Cleveland area hospital. For the physicians reviewing witho
ut the Audit Assistant, 41% of critical actions were listed by three o
r four reviewers. For those using the Audit Assistant, 83% of critical
actions were listed by three or four reviewers. All reviewers preferr
ed the Audit Assistant-suggested list to the critical action list gene
rated by a previous reviewer not using the Audit Assistant (P < .02).
Use of the Audit Assistant improved the completeness and the consisten
cy of physician review of mock charts of critically ill ED patients in
a small series of cases. The critical actions added for review were i
mportant, as demonstrated by the preferential addition of critical act
ions chosen by other reviewers who were not using the computer program
. Copyright (C) 1997 by W.B. Saunders Company