Abstract
Objective: Overdose Fatality Review (OFR) is a public health process in which cases of fatal overdose are carefully reviewed to identify prevention strategies. Current OFR requires review of multiple unconnected data sources, which is a manually intensive process. We aimed to use human factors design principles to develop a comprehensive dashboard that could facilitate enhanced processes to support OFR. Materials and Methods: We first surveyed OFR leaders in Wisconsin using the NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) and conducted semi-structured interviews to identify targets for workflow optimization. Next, we developed a prototype dashboard for evaluation using a synthetic dataset built with Generative Pre-Trained Transformer (GPT-4). We subsequently performed iterative design sessions with heuristic evaluations, and end-user feedback on the final prototype was obtained via targeted surveys and semi-structured interviews. Results: The NASA-TLX revealed a moderately high mental workload with the current workflow. Interviews affirmed that technological challenges and reliance on manual processes were contributory. The prototype dashboard addressed these concerns by integrating multiple data sources to generate population-level visualizations and patient-level event timelines. End-users reported the potential for improved efficiency and data accessibility compared to antecedent processes. Discussion: OFR is a data-intensive process that traditionally demands substantial manual effort. The data dashboard offers an informatics-based approach to streamline data aggregation and presentation, potentially enhancing the efficiency of case reviews. Conclusion: Implementing a dashboard that consolidates and visualizes disparate data sources has the potential to alleviate the manual workload in overdose fatality review.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Drug Abuse [R01DA051464] and the Department of Medicine, of the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health [233-AAM7146]. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the UW-Madison Department of Medicine.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This research was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at the University of Wisconsin, Madison (IRB number 2023-1091).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.