letter to the editor about a published article DOI: 10.2196/mhealth.8458

Vollständiger Abstract

Worum geht es in dieser Arbeit?

BACKGROUND: Patient safety investigation reports support organizational learning only when they are complete, usable, and sufficiently detailed. Conventional free-text reports are often inconsistent and may omit information needed for review and learning. Project NARRATE (Nursing AI-Refined for Accurate Transcription of Events) is a nursing-led ambient artificial intelligence workflow that uses prompts aligned with the World Health Organization Minimal Information Model for Patient Safety Incident Reporting and Learning Systems, Situation-Background-Assessment-Recommendation output, and visible missing-information cues to support structured supervisor reporting. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the completeness and narrative quality of conventional and NARRATE-period supervisor investigation reports for falls and medication administration-related incidents. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective pre-post document-quality study at a tertiary academic medical center in Singapore. We reviewed 150 deidentified completed supervisor investigation reports: 75 conventional reports from June to August 2025 and 75 confirmed NARRATE reports from January to March 2026. NARRATE use was voluntary, and recorded use represented approximately 40% of eligible postimplementation reports. Two blinded reviewers rated reports using a World Health Organization (WHO)-aligned completeness checklist and an adapted 8-domain Physician Documentation Quality Instrument (PDQI). Report-level comparisons were adjusted for repeated reports by the same supervisor using random-intercept linear mixed-effects models. A stratified 60-report plain-paragraph rerating examined whether visible structure influenced ratings. RESULTS: All 150 reports were analyzed. Unadjusted mean WHO total completeness was 11.81 (SD 3.39) for conventional reports and 13.61 (SD 2.54) for NARRATE reports; the unadjusted difference was 1.80 points, and the cluster-adjusted mean difference was 1.95 (95% CI 0.91-3.00; P<.001). The adapted PDQI mean was 3.61 (SD 0.52) and 4.13 (SD 0.34), respectively; the unadjusted difference was 0.52 points, and the cluster-adjusted mean difference was 0.53 (95% CI 0.37-0.69; P<.001). In the plain-paragraph sensitivity analysis, the completeness advantage remained (adjusted mean difference 1.70, 95% CI 0.27-3.14; P=.02), as did the adapted PDQI mean advantage (adjusted mean difference 0.25, 95% CI 0.06-0.43; P=.009). Explanation, organization, and comprehensibility remained significantly higher after deformatting; actions were borderline (P=.05), and synthesis, internal consistency, and fairness/balance were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Among voluntary early adopters, NARRATE use was associated with more complete reports and higher adapted PDQI mean scores after accounting for supervisor clustering. Because recorded use represented approximately 40% of eligible postimplementation reports and users self-selected, findings may reflect adopter and supervisor characteristics. Results support the structured workflow as a whole, not any single AI component, and do not demonstrate downstream patient-safety effects. Confirmatory evaluation under broader adoption with a concurrent, reliably classified comparison group is needed.

Abstract: PubMed · Datensatz