Previously submitted to: JMIR Human Factors (no longer under consideration since Mar 25, 2024)
Date Submitted: Nov 22, 2023
Open Peer Review Period: Nov 22, 2023 - Dec 26, 2023
(closed for review but you can still tweet)
NOTE: This is an unreviewed Preprint
Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint (What is a preprint?). Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn (a note "no longer under consideration" will appear above).
Peer review me: Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period (in this case, a "Peer Review Me" button to sign up as reviewer is displayed above). All preprints currently open for review are listed here. Outside of the formal open peer-review period we encourage you to tweet about the preprint.
Citation: Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author).
Final version: If our system detects a final peer-reviewed "version of record" (VoR) published in any journal, a link to that VoR will appear below. Readers are then encourage to cite the VoR instead of this preprint.
Settings: If you are the author, you can login and change the preprint display settings, but the preprint URL/DOI is supposed to be stable and citable, so it should not be removed once posted.
Submit: To post your own preprint, simply submit to any JMIR journal, and choose the appropriate settings to expose your submitted version as preprint.
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
Triage Accuracy and the Safety of User-initiated Symptom Assessment with an Electronic Symptom Checker in a Real-life Setting: Comparison Study
ABSTRACT
Background:
Previous studies have evaluated the accuracy of the diagnostics of electronic symptom checkers (ESCs) and triage using clinical case vignettes. National Omaolo Digital services (Omaolo) in Finland consist of an ESC for various symptoms. Omaolo is a medical device (based on Duodecim Clinical Decision Support EBMEDS) with a CE marking (risk class: IIa).
Objective:
This study investigates how well triage performed by the ESC matches the triage of nurses among the chief symptom assessments available in Omaolo (anal region symptoms, cough, diarrhea, discharge from the eye or watery or reddish eye, headache, heartburn, knee symptom or injury, lower back pain or injury, oral health, painful or blocked ear, respiratory tract infection, sexually transmitted disease, shoulder pain or stiffness or injury, sore throat or throat symptom, urinary tract infection). In addition, this study assesses the accuracy, specificity, sensitivity and safety of the Omaolo ESC.
Methods:
This is a clinical validation study in a real-life setting. It is a multicenter study in primary health care (PHC) centers across Finland. The included units were of the walk-in model of primary care, where no prior phone call or online contact was required. Upon arriving at the PHC center, users (patients) filled out the ESC questions, resulting in a triage recommendation, and after that a nurse assessed their triage. Findings concerning 877 patients were analyzed. The triage recommendations by the ESC were matched with the triage given by the triage nurse.
Results:
The mean of the exact match for all symptom assessments were in 471out of 877, 53.7% (CI95 49.2%, 55.9%). The mean of the exact match or overly conservative but suitable (ESC’s assessment was one triage level higher than the nurse’s triage) for all symptom assessments were in 584 out of 877, 66.6% (CI95 63.4%, 69.7%). Safe assessments by the ESC accounted for 856 of 877, 97.6% (CI95 95.6%, 98.0%) of all assessments made. Concerning acute cases in which the nurse evaluated that a user needed to be treated urgently the ESC’s exactly matched accuracy were in 244 out of 344, 70.9%, (CI95 65.8%, 75.7%). Sensitivity for the Omaolo ESC was 62.6% and specificity of 69.2%. Critical assessments were identified and further analyzed. In these 21 assessments, no indication was found that patient safety had been compromised.
Conclusions:
This study was the first to assess the accuracy, specificity, sensitivity and safety of the Omaolo ESC in the Finnish PHC context. The findings indicate that the Omaolo ESC is safe to use when compared to the triage assessment of a nurse. Omaolo ESC has the potential to direct the patient user to the right place at the right time in terms of triage.
Citation
Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.
Copyright
© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.