Dataset Information

Development and dissemination of clinical decision support across institutions: standardization and sharing of refugee health screening modules.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

We developed and piloted a process for sharing guideline-based clinical decision support (CDS) across institutions, using health screening of newly arrived refugees as a case example.

Materials and methods

We developed CDS to support care of newly arrived refugees through a systematic process including a needs assessment, a 2-phase cognitive task analysis, structured preimplementation testing, local implementation, and staged dissemination. We sought consensus from prospective users on CDS scope, applicable content, basic supported workflows, and final structure. We documented processes and developed sharable artifacts from each phase of development. We publically shared CDS artifacts through online dissemination platforms. We collected feedback and implementation data from implementation sites.

Results

Responses from 19 organizations demonstrated a need for improved CDS for newly arrived refugee patients. A guided multicenter workflow analysis identified 2 main workflows used by organizations that would need to be supported by shared CDS. We developed CDS through an iterative design process, which was successfully disseminated to other sites using online dissemination repositories. Implementation sites had a small-to-modest analyst time commitment but reported a good match between CDS and workflow.

Conclusion

Sharing of CDS requires overcoming technical and workflow barriers. We used a guided multicenter workflow analysis and online dissemination repositories to create flexible CDS that has been adapted at 3 sites. Organizations looking to develop sharable CDS should consider evaluating the workflows of multiple institutions and collecting feedback on scope, design, and content in order to make a more generalizable product.

SUBMITTER: Orenstein EW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7647163 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Development and dissemination of clinical decision support across institutions: standardization and sharing of refugee health screening modules.

Orenstein Evan W EW Yun Katherine K Warden Clara C Westerhaus Michael J MJ Mirth Morgan G MG Karavite Dean D Mamo Blain B Sundar Kavya K Michel Jeremy J JJ

Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA 20191201 12

<h4>Objectives</h4>We developed and piloted a process for sharing guideline-based clinical decision support (CDS) across institutions, using health screening of newly arrived refugees as a case example.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>We developed CDS to support care of newly arrived refugees through a systematic process including a needs assessment, a 2-phase cognitive task analysis, structured preimplementation testing, local implementation, and staged dissemination. We sought consensus from pros ...[more]

PMID: 31373356

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDecisions aids (DA) can support patients to make informed decisions about screening tests. This study describes the development and initial evaluation of a lung cancer screening (LCS) DA targeted towards survivors of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL).MethodsA prototype decision aid booklet was developed and subsequently reviewed by a steering group who provided feedback. Revisions were made to produce the DA tested in this study. HL survivors were recruited to an online survey and/or focus groups. Lymphoma practitioners were invited to an interview study. In the online survey, decisional conflict scales and knowledge scales were completed before and after accessing the DA. The focus groups and interviews explored acceptability and comprehensibility and the decisional needs of stakeholders. Focus groups and interviews were audio recorded. The framework method was used to analyse qualitative data.Results38 HL survivors completed the online survey. Following exposure to the DA, knowledge of LCS and risk factors and decisional conflict scores (total score and subscale scores) improved significantly. 11 HL survivors took part in two focus groups (n = 5 and n = 6) and 11 practitioners were interviewed. Focus group and interview results: The language, format and length were considered acceptable. Both groups felt the DA was balanced and presented a choice. Icon arrays were felt to aid comprehension of absolute risk values and for some survivors, they reduced affective risk perceptions. Among survivors, the impact of radiation risk on decision making varied according to gender and screening interval, whilst practitioners did not anticipate it to be a major concern for patients. Both groups expressed that a screening offer could mitigate anxiety about lung cancer risk. As anticipated by practitioners, survivors expressed a desire to seek advice from their clinical team. Practitioners thought the DA would meet their informational needs regarding LCS when supporting survivors.ConclusionsThe DA is considered acceptable by HL survivors and practitioners. The DA reduces decisional conflict and improves knowledge in HL survivors, suggesting that it would support HL survivors to make informed decisions when considering LCS in a future clinical trial.

Project description:BackgroundA key barrier to controlling esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) is identifying those most likely to benefit from screening and surveillance. We aimed to develop an online educational tool, termed IC-RISC™, for providers and patients to estimate more precisely their absolute risk of developing EAC, interpret this estimate in the context of risk of dying from other causes, and aid in decision-making.ResultsU.S. incidence and mortality data and published relative risk estimates from observational studies and clinical trials were used to calculate absolute risk of EAC over 10 years adjusting for competing risks. These input parameters varied depending on presence of the key precursor, Barrett's esophagus. The open source application works across common devices to gather risk factor data and graphically illustrate estimated risk on a single page. Changes to input data are immediately reflected in the colored graphs. We used the calculator to compare the risk distribution between EAC cases and controls from six population-based studies to gain insight into the discrimination metrics of current practice guidelines for screening, observing that current guidelines sacrifice a significant amount of specificity to identify 78-86% of eventual cases in the US population.ConclusionsThis educational tool provides a simple and rapid means to graphically communicate risk of EAC in the context of other health risks, facilitates "what-if" scenarios regarding potential preventative actions, and can inform discussions regarding screening, surveillance and treatment options. Its generic architecture lends itself to being easily extended to other cancers with distinct pathways and/or intermediate stages, such as hepatocellular cancer. IC-RISC™ extends current qualitative clinical practice guidelines into a quantitative assessment, which brings the possibility of preventative actions being offered to persons not currently targeted for screening and, conversely, reducing unnecessary procedures in those at low risk. Prospective validation and application to existing well-characterized cohort studies are needed.

Project description:BackgroundAwareness of lung cancer screening remains low in the screening-eligible population, and when patients visit their clinician never having heard of lung cancer screening, engaging in shared decision making to arrive at an informed decision can be a challenge. Therefore, methods to effectively support both patients and clinicians to engage in these important discussions are essential. To facilitate shared decision making about lung cancer screening, effective methods to prepare patients to have these important discussions with their clinician are needed.ObjectiveOur objective is to develop a computer-tailored decision support tool that meets the certification criteria of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument version 4.0 that will support shared decision making in lung cancer screening decisions.MethodsUsing a 3-phase process, we will develop and test a prototype of a computer-tailored decision support tool in a sample of lung cancer screening-eligible individuals. In phase I, we assembled a community advisory board comprising 10 screening-eligible individuals to develop the prototype. In phase II, we recruited a sample of 13 screening-eligible individuals to test the prototype for usability, acceptability, and satisfaction. In phase III, we are conducting a pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) with 60 screening-eligible participants who have never been screened for lung cancer. Outcomes tested include lung cancer and screening knowledge, lung cancer screening health beliefs (perceived risk, perceived benefits, perceived barriers, and self-efficacy), perception of being prepared to engage in a patient-clinician discussion about lung cancer screening, occurrence of a patient-clinician discussion about lung cancer screening, and stage of adoption for lung cancer screening.ResultsPhases I and II are complete. Phase III is underway. As of July 15, 2017, 60 participants have been enrolled into the study, and have completed the baseline survey, intervention, and first follow-up survey. We expect to have results by December 31, 2017 and to have data analysis completed by March 1, 2018.ConclusionsResults from usability testing indicate that the computer-tailored decision support tool is easy to use, is helpful, and provides a satisfactory experience for the user. At the conclusion of phase III (pilot RCT), we will have preliminary effect sizes to inform a future fully powered RCT on changes in (1) knowledge about lung cancer and screening, (2) perceived risk of lung cancer, (3) perceived benefits of lung cancer screening, (4) perceived barriers to lung cancer screening, (5) self-efficacy for lung cancer screening, and (6) perceptions of being adequately prepared to engage in a discussion with their clinician about lung cancer screening.

Dataset Information

Development and dissemination of clinical decision support across institutions: standardization and sharing of refugee health screening modules.

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Development and dissemination of clinical decision support across institutions: standardization and sharing of refugee health screening modules.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets