Dataset Information

A multi-site randomized trial of a clinical decision support intervention to improve problem list completeness.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To improve problem list documentation and care quality.

Materials and methods

We developed algorithms to infer clinical problems a patient has that are not recorded on the coded problem list using structured data in the electronic health record (EHR) for 12 clinically significant heart, lung, and blood diseases. We also developed a clinical decision support (CDS) intervention which suggests adding missing problems to the problem list. We evaluated the intervention at 4 diverse healthcare systems using 3 different EHRs in a randomized trial using 3 predetermined outcome measures: alert acceptance, problem addition, and National Committee for Quality Assurance Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (NCQA HEDIS) clinical quality measures.

Results

There were 288 832 opportunities to add a problem in the intervention arm and the problem was added 63 777 times (acceptance rate 22.1%). The intervention arm had 4.6 times as many problems added as the control arm. There were no significant differences in any of the clinical quality measures.

Discussion

The CDS intervention was highly effective at improving problem list completeness. However, the improvement in problem list utilization was not associated with improvement in the quality measures. The lack of effect on quality measures suggests that problem list documentation is not directly associated with improvements in quality measured by National Committee for Quality Assurance Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (NCQA HEDIS) quality measures. However, improved problem list accuracy has other benefits, including clinical care, patient comprehension of health conditions, accurate CDS and population health, and for research.

Conclusion

An EHR-embedded CDS intervention was effective at improving problem list completeness but was not associated with improvement in quality measures.

SUBMITTER: Wright A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10114117 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A multi-site randomized trial of a clinical decision support intervention to improve problem list completeness.

Wright Adam A Schreiber Richard R Bates David W DW Aaron Skye S Ai Angela A Cholan Raja Arul RA Desai Akshay A Divo Miguel M Dorr David A DA Hickman Thu-Trang TT Hussain Salman S Just Shari S Koh Brian B Lipsitz Stuart S Mcevoy Dustin D Rosenbloom Trent T Russo Elise E Ting David Yut-Chee DY Weitkamp Asli A Sittig Dean F DF

Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA 20230401 5

<h4>Objective</h4>To improve problem list documentation and care quality.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>We developed algorithms to infer clinical problems a patient has that are not recorded on the coded problem list using structured data in the electronic health record (EHR) for 12 clinically significant heart, lung, and blood diseases. We also developed a clinical decision support (CDS) intervention which suggests adding missing problems to the problem list. We evaluated the intervention at 4 d ...[more]

PMID: 36806929

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceColony-stimulating factors are prescribed to patients undergoing chemotherapy to reduce the risk of febrile neutropenia. Research suggests that 55% to 95% of colony-stimulating factor prescribing is inconsistent with national guidelines.ObjectiveTo examine whether a guideline-based standing order for primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factors improves use and reduces the incidence of febrile neutropenia.Design, setting, and participantsThis cluster randomized clinical trial, the Trial Assessing CSF Prescribing Effectiveness and Risk (TrACER), involved 32 community oncology clinics in the US. Participants were adult patients with breast, colorectal, or non-small cell lung cancer initiating cancer therapy and enrolled between January 2016 and April 2020. Data analysis was performed from July to October 2021.InterventionsSites were randomized 3:1 to implementation of a guideline-based primary prophylactic colony-stimulating factor standing order system or usual care. Automated orders were added for high-risk regimens, and an alert not to prescribe was included for low-risk regimens. Risk was based on National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was to find an increase in colony-stimulating factor use among high-risk patients from 40% to 75%, a reduction in use among low-risk patients from 17% to 7%, and a 50% reduction in febrile neutropenia rates in the intervention group. Mixed model logistic regression adjusted for correlation of outcomes within a clinic.ResultsA total of 2946 patients (median [IQR] age, 59.0 [50.0-67.0] years; 2233 women [77.0%]; 2292 White [79.1%]) were enrolled; 2287 were randomized to the intervention, and 659 were randomized to usual care. Colony-stimulating factor use for patients receiving high-risk regimens was high and not significantly different between groups (847 of 950 patients [89.2%] in the intervention group vs 296 of 309 patients [95.8%] in the usual care group). Among high-risk patients, febrile neutropenia rates for the intervention (58 of 947 patients [6.1%]) and usual care (13 of 308 patients [4.2%]) groups were not significantly different. The febrile neutropenia rate for patients receiving high-risk regimens not receiving colony-stimulating factors was 14.9% (17 of 114 patients). Among the 585 patients receiving low-risk regimens, colony-stimulating factor use was low and did not differ between groups (29 of 457 patients [6.3%] in the intervention group vs 7 of 128 patients [5.5%] in the usual care group). Febrile neutropenia rates did not differ between usual care (1 of 127 patients [0.8%]) and the intervention (7 of 452 patients [1.5%]) groups.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cluster randomized clinical trial, implementation of a guideline-informed standing order did not affect colony-stimulating factor use or febrile neutropenia rates in high-risk and low-risk patients. Overall, use was generally appropriate for the level of risk. Standing order interventions do not appear to be necessary or effective in the setting of prophylactic colony-stimulating factor prescribing.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02728596.

Project description:BackgroundMineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) are underprescribed for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).ObjectivesThis study sought to compare effectiveness of 2 automated, electronic health record-embedded tools vs usual care on MRA prescribing in eligible patients with HFrEF.MethodsBETTER CARE-HF (Building Electronic Tools to Enhance and Reinforce Cardiovascular Recommendations for Heart Failure) was a 3-arm, pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial comparing the effectiveness of an alert during individual patient encounters vs a message about multiple patients between encounters vs usual care on MRA prescribing. This study included adult patients with HFrEF, no active MRA prescription, no contraindication to MRAs, and an outpatient cardiologist in a large health system. Patients were cluster-randomized by cardiologist (60 per arm).ResultsThe study included 2,211 patients (alert: 755, message: 812, usual care [control]: 644), with average age 72.2 years, average ejection fraction 33%, who were predominantly male (71.4%) and White (68.9%). New MRA prescribing occurred in 29.6% of patients in the alert arm, 15.6% in the message arm, and 11.7% in the control arm. The alert more than doubled MRA prescribing compared to usual care (relative risk: 2.53; 95% CI: 1.77-3.62; P < 0.0001) and improved MRA prescribing compared to the message (relative risk: 1.67; 95% CI: 1.21-2.29; P = 0.002). The number of patients with alert needed to result in an additional MRA prescription was 5.6.ConclusionsAn automated, patient-specific, electronic health record-embedded alert increased MRA prescribing compared to both a message and usual care. These findings highlight the potential for electronic health record-embedded tools to substantially increase prescription of life-saving therapies for HFrEF. (Building Electronic Tools to Enhance and Reinforce Cardiovascular Recommendations-Heart Failure [BETTER CARE-HF]; NCT05275920).

Project description:BackgroundClinical practice patterns greatly diverge from evidence-based recommendations to manage knee osteoarthritis conservatively before resorting to surgery.ObjectiveThis study aimed to tailor a guideline-based computerized decision support (CDS) intervention that facilitates the conservative management of knee osteoarthritis.MethodsExperts with backgrounds in clinical medicine, research, implementation, or health informatics suggested the most important recommendations for implementation, how to develop an implementation strategy, and how to form the CDS algorithms. In 6 focus group sessions, 8 general practitioners and 22 patients from Norway, Belgium, and Finland discussed the suggested CDS intervention and identified factors that would be most critical for the success of the intervention. The focus group moderators used the GUideline Implementation with DEcision Support checklist, which we developed to support consideration of CDS success factors.ResultsThe experts prioritized 9 out of 22 recommendations for implementation. We formed the concept for 6 CDS algorithms to support implementation of these recommendations. The focus group suggested 59 unique factors that could affect the success of the presented CDS intervention. Five factors (out of the 59) were prioritized by focus group participants in every country, including the perceived potential to address the information needs of both patients and general practitioners; the credibility of CDS information; the timing of CDS for patients; and the need for personal dialogue about CDS between the general practitioner and the patient.ConclusionsThe focus group participants supported the CDS intervention as a tool to improve the quality of care for patients with knee osteoarthritis through shared, evidence-based decision making. We aim to develop and implement the CDS based on these study results. Future research should address optimal ways to (1) provide patient-directed CDS, (2) enable more patient-specific CDS within the context of patient complexity, and (3) maintain user engagement with CDS over time.

Project description:BackgroundInnovative interventions are needed to address gaps in preventive cancer care, especially in rural areas. This study evaluated the impact of clinical decision support (CDS) with and without shared decision making (SDM) on cancer-screening completion.MethodsIn this 3-arm, parallel-group, cluster-randomized trial conducted at a predominantly rural medical group, 34 primary care clinics were randomized to clinical decision support (CDS), CDS plus shared decision making (CDS+SDM), or usual care (UC). The CDS applied web-based clinical algorithms identifying patients overdue for United States Preventive Services Task Force-recommended preventive cancer care and presented evidence-based recommendations to patients and providers on printouts and on the electronic health record interface. Patients in the CDS+SDM clinic also received shared decision-making tools (SDMTs). The primary outcome was a composite indicator of the proportion of patients overdue for breast, cervical, or colorectal cancer screening at index who were up to date on these 1 y later.ResultsFrom August 1, 2018, to March 15, 2019, 69,405 patients aged 21 to 74 y had visits at study clinics and 25,198 were overdue for 1 or more cancer screening tests at an index visit. At 12-mo follow-up, 9,543 of these (37.9%) were up to date on the composite endpoint. The adjusted, model-derived percentage of patients up to date was 36.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 34.0-39.1) in the UC group, 38.1% (95% CI: 35.5-40.9) in the CDS group, and 34.4% (95% CI: 31.8-37.2) in the CDS+SDM group. For all comparisons, the screening rates were higher than UC in the CDS group and lower than UC in the CDS+SDM group, although these differences did not reach statistical significance.ConclusionThe CDS did not significantly increase cancer-screening rates. Exploratory analyses suggest a deeper understanding of how SDM and CDS interact to affect cancer prevention decisions is needed. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02986230, December 6, 2016.

Dataset Information

A multi-site randomized trial of a clinical decision support intervention to improve problem list completeness.

Objective

Materials and methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Publications

A multi-site randomized trial of a clinical decision support intervention to improve problem list completeness.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets