@文章{信息:doi/10.2196/36074，作者=“Berdahl, Carl T and Henreid, Andrew J and Pevnick, Joshua M and Zheng, Kai and Nuckols, Teryl K”，标题=“旨在获取患者当前病史的数字工具:Scoping Review”，期刊=“J Med Internet Res”，年=“2022”，月=“11”，日=“17”，卷=“24”，号=“11”，页=“e36074”，关键词=“记忆症”;信息学;急诊医学;人机交互;病史记录;背景:许多疾病，大约80%的疾病，可以通过详细的病史(HPI)来诊断。然而，在临床环境中，诸如中断和时间压力等情境因素可能导致与患者的互动短暂而分散。提高临床医生收集全面HPI的能力并最大限度提高护理效率和质量的一个解决方案是在临床医生面对面评估之前使用数字工具获取HPI。目的:我们的目标是识别和描述设计用于直接从患者或护理人员处获取HPI的数字工具，并在面对面接触之前将该信息呈现给临床医生。我们还试图描述这些工具测试报告的结果，特别是那些与可用性、效率和护理质量相关的结果。 Methods: We conducted a scoping review using predefined search terms in the following databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Embase, IEEE Xplore Digital Library, ACM Digital Library, and ProQuest Dissertations {\&} Theses Global. Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts for relevance, performed full-text reviews of articles meeting the inclusion criteria, and used a pile-sorting procedure to identify distinguishing characteristics of the tools. Information describing the tools was primarily obtained from identified peer-reviewed sources; in addition, supplementary information was obtained from tool websites and through direct communications with tool creators. Results: We identified 18 tools meeting the inclusion criteria. Of these 18 tools, 14 (78{\%}) used primarily closed-ended and multiple-choice questions, 1 (6{\%}) used free-text input, and 3 (17{\%}) used conversational (chatbot) style. More than half (10/18, 56{\%}) of the tools were tailored to specific patient subpopulations; the remaining (8/18, 44{\%}) tools did not specify a target subpopulation. Of the 18 tools, 7 (39{\%}) included multilingual support, and 12 (67{\%}) had the capability to transfer data directly into the electronic health record. Studies of the tools reported on various outcome measures related to usability, efficiency, and quality of care. Conclusions: The HPI tools we identified (N=18) varied greatly in their purpose and functionality. There was no consensus on how patient-generated information should be collected or presented to clinicians. Existing tools have undergone inconsistent levels of testing, with a wide variety of different outcome measures used in evaluation, including some related to usability, efficiency, and quality of care. There is substantial interest in using digital tools to obtain the HPI from patients, but the outcomes measured have been inconsistent. Future research should focus on whether using HPI tools can lead to improved patient experience and health outcomes, although surrogate end points could instead be used so long as patient safety is monitored. ", issn="1438-8871", doi="10.2196/36074", url="//www.mybigtv.com/2022/11/e36074", url="https://doi.org/10.2196/36074", url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36394945" }