An interventional study of 03 - Summaries of and clinical notes from several providers and 01 - Clinical notes from one provider in Multiple Chronic Conditions, sponsored by University Hospital of North Norway. Completed at 1 site in Norway. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-09-28.
Sponsored by University Hospital of North Norway · Not applicable, Interventional, and Health services research
The case history of patients with complex and long-term needs is often stored in fragments across many different care providers, each with a separate electronic health record. Even when the notes are stored in the same organization, the large volume of information makes it difficult for practitioners to grasp the full overview of the patient's situation.
The DigiTeam tool, combines information management features to present notes from across the care pathway from the three main providers: General Practice, Health and Social care Services, and Secondary care. It also includes summaries of the patient's concerns, conditions, and treatment plan. It provides links to the source documents that are the basis for the summaries.
The overarching aim is to examine the effect of physicians' use of the DigiTeam for three patient cases derived from real-world pseudonymized notes, on the quality of the physcians' ensuing case summary and treatment plan. In the comparator arms, physicians use usual care tools, i.e. only one or three sources of notes and no information management features.
89 studies on the registry are indexed under Multiple Chronic Conditions; 16 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 93 is below the median of 128 across 71 interventional studies indexed under Multiple Chronic Conditions.
Browse Multiple Chronic Conditions studies →University Hospital of North Norway is the lead sponsor of 152 studies on the registry; 24 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
If the recruitment is difficult, medical students and other physicians may be included.
To recruit participants, the trial will be announced through known networks, social media, the researchers' network, and general announcements.
Exclusion Criteria:
Access to all clinical notes available to the provider in the patient's case. The provider is General practice in two patient cases, and hospital in one patient case.
Other: 01 - Clinical notes from one provider
Access to all clinical notes across three providers: General practitioner, Social services and Specialist care.
Other: 02 - Access to notes from primary and secondary care
Access to all clinical notes across three providers: General practitioner, Social services and Specialist care, like in arm 02. In addition, access to information management features, such as summaries of patient's priorities, and clinical summaries of key health problems, including links to source documents.
Other: 03 - Summaries of and clinical notes from several providers
Access to all clinical notes across three providers: General practitioner, Social services and Specialist care, like in arm 02. In addition, access to information management features, such as summaries of patient's priorities, and clinical summaries of key health problems, including links to source documents.
Access to all clinical notes available to the provider in the patient's case. The provider is General practice in two patient cases, and hospital in one patient case.
Access to all clinical notes across three providers: General practitioner, Social services and Specialist care.
Quality of patient summary and follow-up plan
The primary outcome is the quality of the patient summary and follow-up plan Participants are asked to create a summary as preparation for a care planning meeting with colleagues, using the information available in the digital tool to write 1) a Comprehensive summary of the patient's situation and 2. A care plan. Quality of summaries and care plans will be measured by Microsoft Copilot. An expert group of three clinicians will create gold-standard summaries. These will be converted into a list of clear, mutually exclusive items using standardized rules. Copilot will be prompted to identify whether each item is present in participant responses. The item list will be validated by comparing scoring consistency (Kappa statistics) between researchers and Copilot, aiming for ≥0.7 agreement with researchers and ≥0.9 between Copilot runs. Final scores will reflect the number of items included per response.
Time frame: Immediately after completing the the task for each patient
Time spent completeing the patient case overviews and follow-up plans
Time from start of case to delivery of answer as measured by participant reported start and stop time.
Time frame: Immediately after completing the the task for each patient
System Usability Scale
The usability of the intervention to do the work needed for each patient will be measured with the System Usability Scale which contains ten items scored from one (strongly disagree) to five (strongly agree) that are transformed to a 0 to 100 scale and translated into a curved grading scale from A-F
Time frame: Immediately after completing the the task for each patient
Information support for solving tasks
To compare how the different interventions helped to solve the task described under primary outcome, the following questions will be asked: On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 Poor 2 Fair 3 Good 4 Very good 5 Excellent), how did the information you had access to support you to find information about * Current medical status? * Social or personal circumstances that contribute to the current status? * What is important to the patient? * What should be followed up further? * Who should be involved in the follow-up?
Time frame: Immediately after completing the the task for each patient
Experience with conducting the task
To compare the experience with the digital tool used to conduct the tasks, the following questions will be used: On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 Poor 2 Fair 3 Good 4 Very good 5 Excellent) * What do you think about the tool overall? * How good was the support in the tool to find the information you needed? * How useful was the training in using the tool? * How did the tool work compared to tools you use daily for similar tasks? * How would such a tool fit into your daily work? Would you recommend the tool to colleagues? (Yes Unsure No)
Time frame: Immediately after completing the the task for each patient
Technical problems
To describe the experience with the digital solution used, the following question will be used Did you have any technical problems in completing this task? No, none at all Some, but it was minimal Yes, quite extensive.
Time frame: Immediately after completing the the task for each patient
Experience with the type of patients
To describe whether the participants had experiences with the types of patients, the following question will be asked: How often do you work with patients who have as complex and long-term needs as this patient? (Weekly, Monthly, Semi-annually or less frequently)
Time frame: Immediately after completing the the task for each patient
Time spent on various activities
To describe the time used on various activities in the digital tool, the following variables will be automatically recorded in the tool: * Time spent in each main area: The main areas are the main pages in the side menu, like information about the patient, the list of clinical notes and the medication list. * Inactivity \>10 seconds: The time the participant reads/writes. * Number of unique clinical notes that are opened. * Number of free text searches conducted.
Time frame: Immediately after completing the the task for each patient
Plan to share: Yes — Anonymized questionnaire data
Supporting information: Study protocol, Informed consent form
Time frame: At publication of planned papers from the RCT
Access criteria: Contact authors.
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
This study is completed, as verified in Aug 2025. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
University Hospital of North Norway →