Identification of acute brain failure using electronic medical records

Dereddi Raja Shekar Reddy, Tarun D. Singh, Pramod K. Guru, Amra Sakusic, Ognjen Gajic, John C. O'Horo, Alejandro Rabinstein

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: Up to 80% of critically ill patients have acute neurologic dysfunction syndromes. We evaluated interrater reliability between the examination by the investigator and the charted assessment by the nurse because the accuracy and reliability of detailed data sets extracted from the electronic medical records represents a keystone for creating EMR-based definitions. Materials and methods: We conducted a prospective observational study of intensive care unit (ICU) patients to assess the reliability of charted Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU, Glasgow Coma Scale (GSC), Full Outline of Unresponsiveness, and Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) scores, and a composite measure of ABF defined as new-onset coma or delirium. Trained investigator blinded to nursing assessments performed the neurologic evaluations that were compared with nursing documentation. Results: A total of 202 observations were performed in 55 ICU patients. Excellent correlation was noted for GCS and Full Outline of Unresponsiveness scores on Bland-Altman plots (Pearson correlation 0.87 and 0.92, respectively). Correlation for Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU was also high (κ= 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-1.01). Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale had good agreement when scores were dichotomized as oversedated (less than - 2) vs not oversedated, with κ= 0.76 (95% CI, 0.54-0.98). Investigator assessment and nurse charting were highly concordant (κ= 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-0.99). Conclusion: Neurologic assessments documented on the EMR are reliable.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)12-16
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Critical Care
Volume34
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2016

Fingerprint

Electronic Health Records
Intensive Care Units
Confusion
Research Personnel
Brain
Confidence Intervals
Nervous System
Nurses
Nursing Assessment
Glasgow Coma Scale
Delirium
Coma
Neurologic Manifestations
Critical Illness
Documentation
Observational Studies
Nursing
Prospective Studies

Keywords

  • Acute brain failure
  • Coma
  • Delirium
  • Electronic digital signature
  • ICU

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Cite this

Identification of acute brain failure using electronic medical records. / Reddy, Dereddi Raja Shekar; Singh, Tarun D.; Guru, Pramod K.; Sakusic, Amra; Gajic, Ognjen; O'Horo, John C.; Rabinstein, Alejandro.

In: Journal of Critical Care, Vol. 34, 01.08.2016, p. 12-16.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Reddy, Dereddi Raja Shekar ; Singh, Tarun D. ; Guru, Pramod K. ; Sakusic, Amra ; Gajic, Ognjen ; O'Horo, John C. ; Rabinstein, Alejandro. / Identification of acute brain failure using electronic medical records. In: Journal of Critical Care. 2016 ; Vol. 34. pp. 12-16.
@article{9328273890244144a2b01a89123325a8,
title = "Identification of acute brain failure using electronic medical records",
abstract = "Purpose: Up to 80{\%} of critically ill patients have acute neurologic dysfunction syndromes. We evaluated interrater reliability between the examination by the investigator and the charted assessment by the nurse because the accuracy and reliability of detailed data sets extracted from the electronic medical records represents a keystone for creating EMR-based definitions. Materials and methods: We conducted a prospective observational study of intensive care unit (ICU) patients to assess the reliability of charted Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU, Glasgow Coma Scale (GSC), Full Outline of Unresponsiveness, and Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) scores, and a composite measure of ABF defined as new-onset coma or delirium. Trained investigator blinded to nursing assessments performed the neurologic evaluations that were compared with nursing documentation. Results: A total of 202 observations were performed in 55 ICU patients. Excellent correlation was noted for GCS and Full Outline of Unresponsiveness scores on Bland-Altman plots (Pearson correlation 0.87 and 0.92, respectively). Correlation for Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU was also high (κ= 0.86; 95{\%} confidence interval [CI], 0.70-1.01). Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale had good agreement when scores were dichotomized as oversedated (less than - 2) vs not oversedated, with κ= 0.76 (95{\%} CI, 0.54-0.98). Investigator assessment and nurse charting were highly concordant (κ= 0.84; 95{\%} CI, 0.71-0.99). Conclusion: Neurologic assessments documented on the EMR are reliable.",
keywords = "Acute brain failure, Coma, Delirium, Electronic digital signature, ICU",
author = "Reddy, {Dereddi Raja Shekar} and Singh, {Tarun D.} and Guru, {Pramod K.} and Amra Sakusic and Ognjen Gajic and O'Horo, {John C.} and Alejandro Rabinstein",
year = "2016",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jcrc.2016.03.008",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "34",
pages = "12--16",
journal = "Journal of Critical Care",
issn = "0883-9441",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Identification of acute brain failure using electronic medical records

AU - Reddy, Dereddi Raja Shekar

AU - Singh, Tarun D.

AU - Guru, Pramod K.

AU - Sakusic, Amra

AU - Gajic, Ognjen

AU - O'Horo, John C.

AU - Rabinstein, Alejandro

PY - 2016/8/1

Y1 - 2016/8/1

N2 - Purpose: Up to 80% of critically ill patients have acute neurologic dysfunction syndromes. We evaluated interrater reliability between the examination by the investigator and the charted assessment by the nurse because the accuracy and reliability of detailed data sets extracted from the electronic medical records represents a keystone for creating EMR-based definitions. Materials and methods: We conducted a prospective observational study of intensive care unit (ICU) patients to assess the reliability of charted Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU, Glasgow Coma Scale (GSC), Full Outline of Unresponsiveness, and Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) scores, and a composite measure of ABF defined as new-onset coma or delirium. Trained investigator blinded to nursing assessments performed the neurologic evaluations that were compared with nursing documentation. Results: A total of 202 observations were performed in 55 ICU patients. Excellent correlation was noted for GCS and Full Outline of Unresponsiveness scores on Bland-Altman plots (Pearson correlation 0.87 and 0.92, respectively). Correlation for Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU was also high (κ= 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-1.01). Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale had good agreement when scores were dichotomized as oversedated (less than - 2) vs not oversedated, with κ= 0.76 (95% CI, 0.54-0.98). Investigator assessment and nurse charting were highly concordant (κ= 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-0.99). Conclusion: Neurologic assessments documented on the EMR are reliable.

AB - Purpose: Up to 80% of critically ill patients have acute neurologic dysfunction syndromes. We evaluated interrater reliability between the examination by the investigator and the charted assessment by the nurse because the accuracy and reliability of detailed data sets extracted from the electronic medical records represents a keystone for creating EMR-based definitions. Materials and methods: We conducted a prospective observational study of intensive care unit (ICU) patients to assess the reliability of charted Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU, Glasgow Coma Scale (GSC), Full Outline of Unresponsiveness, and Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) scores, and a composite measure of ABF defined as new-onset coma or delirium. Trained investigator blinded to nursing assessments performed the neurologic evaluations that were compared with nursing documentation. Results: A total of 202 observations were performed in 55 ICU patients. Excellent correlation was noted for GCS and Full Outline of Unresponsiveness scores on Bland-Altman plots (Pearson correlation 0.87 and 0.92, respectively). Correlation for Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU was also high (κ= 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.70-1.01). Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale had good agreement when scores were dichotomized as oversedated (less than - 2) vs not oversedated, with κ= 0.76 (95% CI, 0.54-0.98). Investigator assessment and nurse charting were highly concordant (κ= 0.84; 95% CI, 0.71-0.99). Conclusion: Neurologic assessments documented on the EMR are reliable.

KW - Acute brain failure

KW - Coma

KW - Delirium

KW - Electronic digital signature

KW - ICU

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84973392557&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84973392557&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jcrc.2016.03.008

DO - 10.1016/j.jcrc.2016.03.008

M3 - Article

VL - 34

SP - 12

EP - 16

JO - Journal of Critical Care

JF - Journal of Critical Care

SN - 0883-9441

ER -