Cited by 28Acute Kidney Injury ResearchElectronic Health Records SystemsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Impact of a computerized decision support tool deployed in two intensive care units on acute kidney injury progression and guideline compliance: a prospective observational study

Open access
Bourdeaux, Christopher, Ghosh, Erina, Atallah, Louis, Palanisamy, Krishnamoorthy, Patel, Payaal, Thomas, Matthew, Gould, Timothy, Warburton, John +2 more·2020·Critical Care

Abstract

Background: Acute kidney injury (AKI) affects a large proportion of the critically ill and is associated with worse patient outcomes. Early identification of AKI can lead to earlier initiation of supportive therapy and better management. In this study, we evaluate the impact of computerized AKI decision support tool integrated with the critical care clinical information system (CCIS) on patient outcomes. Specifically, we hypothesize that integration of AKI guidelines into CCIS will decrease the proportion of patients with Stage 1 AKI deteriorating into higher stages of AKI. Methods: The study was conducted in two intensive care units (ICUs) at University Hospitals Bristol, UK, in a before (control) and after (intervention) format. The intervention consisted of the AKIN guidelines and AKI care bundle which included guidance for medication usage, AKI advisory and dashboard with AKI score. Clinical data and patient outcomes were collected from all patients admitted to the units. AKI stage was calculated using the Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN) guidelines. Maximum AKI stage per admission, change in AKI stage and other metrics were calculated for the cohort. Adherence to eGFR-based enoxaparin dosing guidelines was evaluated as a proxy for clinician awareness of AKI. Results: Each phase of the study lasted a year, and a total of 5044 admissions were included for analysis with equal numbers of patients for the control and intervention stages. The proportion of patients worsening from Stage 1 AKI decreased from 42% (control) to 33.5% (intervention), p = 0.002. The proportion of incorrect enoxaparin doses decreased from 1.72% (control) to 0.6% (intervention), p < 0.001. The prevalence of any AKI decreased from 43.1% (control) to 37.5% (intervention), p < 0.05. Conclusions: This observational study demonstrated a significant reduction in AKI progression from Stage 1 and a reduction in overall development of AKI. In addition, a reduction in incorrect enoxaparin dosing was also observed, indicating increased clinical awareness. This study demonstrates that AKI guidelines coupled with a newly designed AKI care bundle integrated into CCIS can impact patient outcomes positively.

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 · 10.1186/s13054-020-03343-1

Cites

26 of 26 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?

  • Non-predictive real-time detection of guideline-based AKI reduces the rate of AKI occurrence.

    “Studies have shown that non-predictive real-time detection of guideline-based AKI reduces the rate of AKI occurrence [18]”

    From Machine learning model for early prediction of acute kidney injury (AKI) in pediatric critical care (2021) · cites this paper as [18]

    The Results (Secondary objectives; page unavailable) report fewer ICU patients with AKI during the intervention phase. But the Discussion says the alert appeared only after Stage 1 AKI developed, so the lower overall incidence could not be attributed to the detection tool itself. The before–after study also could not establish which part of the broader intervention caused the improvement. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bourdeaux, C., Ghosh, E., Atallah, L., Palanisamy, K., Patel, P., Thomas, M., Gould, T., Warburton, J., Rivers, J., & Hadfield, J.
Affiliations
Bristol Royal Infirmary (GB)
Corresponding author
Ghosh, Erina
Venue
Critical Care
Published
2020-11-23
Volume
24
Issue
1
Pages
656-656
ISSN
1364-8535 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3109794688
Cited by
28
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 10
FWCI
3.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Critical Care (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Nephrology › Acute Kidney Injury Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
acute kidney injury, decision support system, AKI progression, guideline adherence, intensive care unit
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Male, Medical Informatics, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Risk Factors, Cohort Studies, Prevalence, Disease Progression, Guideline Adherence, Decision Support Systems, Clinical, Kaplan-Meier Estimate, Acute Kidney Injury

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