IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v29y2009i3p372-376.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Effect of Erroneous Computer Interpretation of ECGs on Resident Decision Making

Author

Listed:
  • William N. Southern

    (Department of Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York, wsouther@montefiore.org)

  • Julia Hope Arnsten

    (Department of Epidemiology & Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York, Department of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx, New York, Department of Medicine)

Abstract

Background . The use of computer interpretations of electrocardiograms (ECGs) as an aid to physician interpretations is widespread. Computer misinterpretations are common and negatively affect physician interpretations. Objective . To measure the effect of computer ECG misinterpretations on clinical decision making. Design . Quasi-randomized trial. Setting . Resident teaching conferences. Participants . Included 105 internal and emergency medicine residents. Intervention . After a brief case presentation, residents were asked to interpret an ECG and choose appropriate management. Residents chose from a concealed stack of handouts; some contained an erroneous computer interpretation of the ECG (citing acute ischemia), and some contained no computer interpretation. Measurements . ECG interpretations and management decisions by residents whose ECG did or did not include an erroneous computer interpretation were compared using chi-square tests. Results . The presence or absence of erroneous computer interpretations of ischemia did not significantly affect residents' ECG interpretations ( P= 0.62). However, the residents whose ECGs included erroneous computer interpretations were more likely to recommend revascularization than the residents without (30% v. 10%, P= 0.01). Of those residents who read the ECG as diagnostic of ischemia, those with the erroneous computer interpretation were more likely to recommend revascularization than those without (54% v. 25%, P= 0.048). Limitations . A single ECG was used. Conclusions . Erroneous computer interpretations of ECGs affected residents' clinical decision making in the absence of an effect on the actual interpretation of the ECG. Measuring the impact of computer misinterpretations by examining only physician interpretations will underestimate the effect of computer misinterpretations on clinical decision making.

Suggested Citation

  • William N. Southern & Julia Hope Arnsten, 2009. "The Effect of Erroneous Computer Interpretation of ECGs on Resident Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(3), pages 372-376, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:29:y:2009:i:3:p:372-376
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X09333125
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X09333125
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X09333125?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Steven D. Hillson & Donald P. Connelly & Yuanli Liu, 1995. "The Effects of Computer-assisted Electrocardiographic Interpretation on Physicians' Diagnostic Decisions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 15(2), pages 107-112, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Edward H. Shortliffe, 1995. "When Decision Support Doesn't Support," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 15(2), pages 187-188, June.
    2. David J. Brailer & Eugene Kroch & Mark V. Pauly, 1997. "The impact of Computer-assisted Test Interpretation on Physician Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 17(1), pages 80-86, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:29:y:2009:i:3:p:372-376. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.