Effect of Digital Early Warning Scores on Hospital Vital Sign Observation Protocol Adherence: Stepped-Wedge Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Early warning scores (EWS) are routinely used in hospitals to assess a patient's risk of deterioration. EWS are traditionally recorded on paper observation charts but are increasingly recorded digitally. In either case, evidence for the clinical effectiveness of such scores is mixed, and previous studies have not considered whether EWS leads to changes in how deteriorating patients are managed. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine whether the introduction of a digital EWS system was associated with more frequent observation of patients with abnormal vital signs, a precursor to earlier clinical intervention. METHODS: We conducted a 2-armed stepped-wedge study from February 2015 to December 2016, over 4 hospitals in 1 UK hospital trust. In the control arm, vital signs were recorded using paper observation charts. In the intervention arm, a digital EWS system was used. The primary outcome measure was time to next observation (TTNO), defined as the time between a patient's first elevated EWS (EWS ≥3) and subsequent observations set. Secondary outcomes were time to death in the hospital, length of stay, and time to unplanned intensive care unit admission. Differences between the 2 arms were analyzed using a mixed-effects Cox model. The usability of the system was assessed using the system usability score survey. RESULTS: We included 12,802 admissions, 1084 in the paper (control) arm and 11,718 in the digital EWS (intervention) arm. The system usability score was 77.6, indicating good usability. The median TTNO in the control and intervention arms were 128 (IQR 73-218) minutes and 131 (IQR 73-223) minutes, respectively. The corresponding hazard ratio for TTNO was 0.99 (95% CI 0.91-1.07; P=.73). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated strong clinical engagement with the system. We found no difference in any of the predefined patient outcomes, suggesting that the introduction of a highly usable electronic system can be achieved without impacting clinical care. Our findings contrast with previous claims that digital EWS systems are associated with improvement in clinical outcomes. Future research should investigate how digital EWS systems can be integrated with new clinical pathways adjusting staff behaviors to improve patient outcomes.

Medical Mobile App Classification Using the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Evidence Standards Framework for Digital Health Technologies: Interrater Reliability Study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical governance of medical mobile apps is challenging, and there is currently no standard method for assessing the quality of such apps. In 2018, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) developed a framework for assessing the required level of evidence for digital health technologies (DHTs), as determined by their clinical function. The framework can potentially be used to assess mobile apps, which are a subset of DHTs. To be used reliably in this context, the framework must allow unambiguous classification of an app's clinical function. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine whether mobile health apps could be reliably classified using the NICE evidence standards framework for DHTs. METHODS: We manually extracted app titles, screenshots, and content descriptions for all apps listed on the National Health Service (NHS) Apps Library website on July 12, 2019; none of the apps were downloaded. Using this information, 2 mobile health (mHealth) researchers independently classified each app to one of the 4 functional tiers (ie, 1, 2, 3a, and 3b) described in the NICE digital technologies evaluation framework. Coders also answered contextual questions from the framework to identify whether apps were deemed to be higher risk. Agreement between coders was assessed using Cohen κ statistic. RESULTS: In total, we assessed 76 apps from the NHS Apps Library. There was classification agreement for 42 apps. Of these, 0 apps were unanimously classified into Tier 1; 24, into Tier 2; 15, into Tier 3a; and 3, into Tier 3b. There was disagreement between coders in 34/76 cases (45%); interrater agreement was poor (Cohen κ=0.32, 95% CI 0.16-0.47). Further investigation of disagreements highlighted 5 main explanatory themes: apps that did not correspond to any tier, apps that corresponded to multiple tiers, ambiguous tier descriptions, ambiguous app descriptions, and coder error. CONCLUSIONS: The current iteration of the NICE evidence standards framework for DHTs did not allow mHealth researchers to consistently and unambiguously classify digital health mobile apps listed on the NHS app library according to their functional tier.