Cited by 16Electronic Health Records SystemsHealthcare Technology and Patient MonitoringData Visualization and Analytics

Get To The Point! Problem-Based Curated Data Views To Augment Care For Critically Ill Patients

Open access
Zhang, Minfan, Ehrmann, Daniel, Mazwi, Mjaye, Eytan, Danny, Ghassemi, Marzyeh, Chevalier, Fanny·2022·CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Abstract

Electronic health records in critical care medicine offer unprecedented opportunities for clinical reasoning and decision making. Paradoxically, these data-rich environments have also resulted in clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) that fit poorly into clinical contexts, and increase health workers cognitive load. In this paper, we introduce a novel approach to designing CDSSs that are embedded in clinical workflows, by presenting problem-based curated data views tailored for problem-driven discovery, team communication, and situational awareness. We describe the design and evaluation of one such CDSS, In-Sight, that embodies our approach and addresses the clinical problem of monitoring critically ill pediatric patients. Our work is the result of a co-design process, further informed by empirical data collected through formal usability testing, focus groups, and a simulation study with domain experts. We discuss the potential and limitations of our approach, and share lessons learned in our iterative co-design process.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3491102.3501887

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Transparency and explainability regarding AI actions are crucial for enabling humans to appropriately trust and engage with AI contributions.

    “Transparency and explainability regarding AI actions [70, 187, 209] are crucial for enabling humans to appropriately trust and engage with AI contributions [191, 201].”

    From Exploring Collaboration Patterns and Strategies in Human-AI Co-creation through the Lens of Agency: A Scoping Review of the Top-tier HCI Literature (2025) · cites this paper as [201]

    The citation is attached to the claim about transparency and explainability of AI actions. Section 7.2 discusses limiting computerized annotations to preserve clinicians’ reasoning agency, and the conclusion describes machine-learning assistance as future work; neither addresses transparency or explanations of AI actions. Searches for “transparency” and “explainability” found no passage supporting that point. Page numbers were unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. [9]9. Andreas Buja, John Alan McDonald, John Michalak, and Werner Stuetzle. 1991. Interactive data visualization using focusing and linking. In Proceedings of the 2nd conference on Visualization'91. 156-163. https://doi.org/10.1109/VISUAL. 1991.175794 · DOI
  2. [10]10. Mackinlay Card. 1999. Readings in information visualization: using vision to think. Morgan Kaufmann. https://doi.org/doi/10.5555/300679 · DOI
  3. [12]12. James J Cimino, Anthony Aguirre, Stephen B Johnson, and Ping Peng. 1993. Generic queries for meeting clinical information needs. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 81, 2 (1993), 195. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/ PMC225762/
  4. [16]16. Anthony Faiola, Preethi Srinivas, and Jon Duke. 2015. Supporting clinical cog- nition: a human-centered approach to a novel ICU information visualization dashboard. In AMIA Annual Symposium Proceedings, Vol. 2015. American Medical Informatics Association, 560. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26958190/
  5. [24]24. Joy Higgs and Mark A Jones. 2008. Clinical decision making and multiple problem spaces. Clinical reasoning in the health professions 3 (2008), 3-17.
  6. [44]44. Sandeep Sharma, Muhammad F Hashmi, and Rotem Friede. 2020. Interprofes- sional rounds in the ICU. StatPearls [Internet] (2020). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/29939553/
  7. [50]50. Nicole Sultanum, Devin Singh, Michael Brudno, and Fanny Chevalier. 2018. Doccurate: A Curation-Based Approach for Clinical Text Visualization. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 25, 1 (2018), 142-151. http: //www.cs.toronto.edu/~fanny/pubs/pdf/doccurate-vast2018.pdf
  8. [54]54. Stacey L Valentine, Anil Sapru, Renee A Higgerson, Phillip C Spinella, Heidi R Flori, Dionne A Graham, Molly Brett, Maureen Convery, LeeAnn M Christie, Laurie Karamessinis, et al. 2012. Fluid balance in critically ill children with acute lung injury. Critical care medicine 40, 10 (2012), 2883.
  9. [56]56. Qiru Wang and RS Laramee. 2021. EHR STAR: The State-Of-the-Art in Interactive EHR Visualization. In Computer Graphics Forum. Wiley Online Library.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhang, M., Ehrmann, D., Mazwi, M., Eytan, D., Ghassemi, M., & Chevalier, F.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Hospital for Sick Children (CA)
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
Venue
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2022-04-29
Pages
1-13
OpenAlex
W4225093325
Cited by
16
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 7
FWCI
3.25
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Healthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Data Visualization and Analytics
Keywords
clinical decision support systems, intensive care, pediatric intensive care, electronic health records, clinical workflow integration, situational awareness, team communication, cognitive load, co-design, usability evaluation, simulation study

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review