User experience of self-reported computerized medical history taking for acute chest pain: The Clinical Expert Operating System Chest Pain Danderyd Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Chest pain is one of the most common complaints in emergency departments (EDs). Self-reported computerized history taking (CHT) programmes can be used for interpretation of the clinical significance of medical information coming directly from patients. The adoption of CHT in clinical practice depends on reactions and attitudes to the technology from patients and their belief that the technology will have benefits for their medical care. The study objective was to explore the user experience of the self-reported CHT programme Clinical Expert Operating System (CLEOS) in the setting of patients visiting an ED for acute chest pain. METHODS: This qualitative interview study is part of the ongoing CLEOS-Chest Pain Danderyd Study. A subset (n = 84) of the larger sample who had taken part in self-reported history taking during waiting times at the ED were contacted by telephone and n = 54 (64%) accepted participation. An interview guide with open-ended questions was used and the text was analysed using directed content analysis. RESULTS: The patients' experiences of the CLEOS programme were overall positive although some perceived it as extensive. The programme was well accepted and despite the busy environment, patients were highly motivated and deemed it helpful to make a diagnosis. Six categories of user experience emerged: The clinical context, The individual context, Time aspect, Acceptability of the programme, Usability of the programme and Perceptions of usefulness in a clinical setting. CONCLUSIONS: The programme was well accepted by most patients in the stressful environment at ED although some found it difficult to answer all the questions. Adjustments to the extent of an interview to better suit the context of the clinical use should be a future development of the programme. The findings suggest that CHT programmes can be integrated as a standard process for collecting self-reported medical history data in the ED setting.

Use of Self-Reported Computerized Medical History Taking for Acute Chest Pain in the Emergency Department - the Clinical Expert Operating System Chest Pain Danderyd Study (CLEOS-CPDS): Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Chest pain is one of the most common chief complaints in emergency departments (EDs). Collecting an adequate medical history is challenging but essential in order to use recommended risk scores such as the HEART score (based on history, electrocardiogram, age, risk factors, and troponin). Self-reported computerized history taking (CHT) is a novel method to collect structured medical history data directly from the patient through a digital device. CHT is rarely used in clinical practice, and there is a lack of evidence for utility in an acute setting. OBJECTIVE: This substudy of the Clinical Expert Operating System Chest Pain Danderyd Study (CLEOS-CPDS) aimed to evaluate whether patients with acute chest pain can interact effectively with CHT in the ED. METHODS: Prospective cohort study on self-reported medical histories collected from acute chest pain patients using a CHT program on a tablet. Clinically stable patients aged 18 years and older with a chief complaint of chest pain, fluency in Swedish, and a nondiagnostic electrocardiogram or serum markers for acute coronary syndrome were eligible for inclusion. Patients unable to carry out an interview with CHT (eg, inadequate eyesight, confusion or agitation) were excluded. Effectiveness was assessed as the proportion of patients completing the interview and the time required in order to collect a medical history sufficient for cardiovascular risk stratification according to HEART score. RESULTS: During 2017-2018, 500 participants were consecutively enrolled. The age and sex distribution (mean 54.3, SD 17.0 years; 213/500, 42.6% women) was similar to that of the general chest pain population (mean 57.5, SD 19.2 years; 49.6% women). Common reasons for noninclusion were language issues (182/1000, 18.2%), fatigue (158/1000, 15.8%), and inability to use a tablet (152/1000, 15.2%). Sufficient data to calculate HEART score were collected in 70.4% (352/500) of the patients. Key modules for chief complaint, cardiovascular history, and respiratory history were completed by 408 (81.6%), 339 (67.8%), and 291 (58.2%) of the 500 participants, respectively, while 148 (29.6%) completed the entire interview (in all 14 modules). Factors associated with completeness were age 18-69 years (all key modules: Ps<.001), male sex (cardiovascular: P=.04), active workers (all key modules: Ps<.005), not arriving by ambulance (chief complaint: P=.03; cardiovascular: P=.045), and ongoing chest pain (complete interview: P=.002). The median time to collect HEART score data was 23 (IQR 18-31) minutes and to complete an interview was 64 (IQR 53-77) minutes. The main reasons for discontinuing the interview prior to completion (n=352) were discharge from the ED (101, 28.7%) and tiredness (95, 27.0%). CONCLUSIONS: A majority of patients with acute chest pain can interact effectively with CHT on a tablet in the ED to provide sufficient data for risk stratification with a well-established risk score. The utility was somewhat lower in patients 70 years and older, in patients arriving by ambulance, and in patients without ongoing chest pain. Further studies are warranted to assess whether CHT can contribute to improved management and prognosis in this large patient group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03439449; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03439449. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031871.

Data collection as a barrier to personalized medicine.

Basic life science research holds the promise of personalizing medical care. However, translation steps from the laboratory to the bedside are not trivial. Results from clinical research are difficult to replicate in part because study cohorts are poorly defined phenotypically. Here, we discuss how computer technology can improve the collection of clinical data to enable translation of insights from basic science to validated clinical guidelines.

Computerized history-taking as a tool to manage dyslipidemia.

BACKGROUND: Validated guidelines to manage low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol are utilized inconsistently or not at all even though their application lowers the incidence of coronary events. New approaches are needed, therefore, to implement these guidelines in everyday practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared an automated method for applying The National Cholesterol Education Panel (NCEP) guidelines with results from routine care for managing LDL-cholesterol. The automated method comprised computerized history-taking and analysis of historical data without physician input. Results from routine care were determined for 213 unselected patients and compared with results from interviews of the same 213 patients by a computerized history-taking program. Data extracted from hospital charts showed that routine care typically did not collect sufficient information to stratify risk and assign treatment targets for LDL-cholesterol and that there were inconsistencies in identifying patients with normal or elevated levels of LDL-cholesterol in relation to risk. The computerized interview program outperformed routine care in collecting historical data relevant to stratifying risk, assigning treatment targets, and clarifying the presence of hypercholesterolemia relative to risk. CONCLUSIONS: Computerized history-taking coupled with automated analysis of the clinical data can outperform routine medical care in applying NCEP guidelines for stratifying risk and identifying patients with hypercholesterolemia in relation to risk.