↓ Skip to main content

Simulated case management of home telemonitoring to assess the impact of different alert algorithms on work-load and clinical decisions

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Simulated case management of home telemonitoring to assess the impact of different alert algorithms on work-load and clinical decisions
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12911-016-0398-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Illapha Cuba Gyllensten, Amanda Crundall-Goode, Ronald M. Aarts, Kevin M. Goode

Abstract

Home telemonitoring (HTM) of chronic heart failure (HF) promises to improve care by timely indications when a patient's condition is worsening. Simple rules of sudden weight change have been demonstrated to generate many alerts with poor sensitivity. Trend alert algorithms and bio-impedance (a more sensitive marker of fluid change), should produce fewer false alerts and reduce workload. However, comparisons between such approaches on the decisions made and the time spent reviewing alerts has not been studied. Using HTM data from an observational trial of 91 HF patients, a simulated telemonitoring station was created and used to present virtual caseloads to clinicians experienced with HF HTM systems. Clinicians were randomised to either a simple (i.e. an increase of 2 kg in the past 3 days) or advanced alert method (either a moving average weight algorithm or bio-impedance cumulative sum algorithm). In total 16 clinicians reviewed the caseloads, 8 randomised to a simple alert method and 8 to the advanced alert methods. Total time to review the caseloads was lower in the advanced arms than the simple arm (80 ± 42 vs. 149 ± 82 min) but agreements on actions between clinicians were low (Fleiss kappa 0.33 and 0.31) and despite having high sensitivity many alerts in the bio-impedance arm were not considered to need further action. Advanced alerting algorithms with higher specificity are likely to reduce the time spent by clinicians and increase the percentage of time spent on changes rated as most meaningful. Work is needed to present bio-impedance alerts in a manner which is intuitive for clinicians.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 98 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 15%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 10%
Researcher 6 6%
Other 4 4%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 41 42%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 12%
Computer Science 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 15 15%
Unknown 46 47%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 January 2017.
All research outputs
#18,525,776
of 22,947,506 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#1,579
of 2,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#309,103
of 418,156 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#21
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,947,506 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,001 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 418,156 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.