Evaluating Clinical Implementation Approaches for Prostate Cancer Decision Support.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
Shared decision making is widely promoted for counseling men with localized prostate cancer. Results of randomized trials suggest decision aid efficacy. However, few practices or institutions have implemented decision support as standard practice. In this study we evaluated various implementation strategies for the decision aid P3P (Personal Patient Profile-Prostate) and analyzed feedback from clinical site staff and providers.Methods
A hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation trial was conducted. Primary data were collected in 6 urology clinics of 3 geographically distinct health networks. During the implementation phase site specific strategies were codesigned with site leaders. Referral and access metrics for men with localized prostate cancer were monitored for up to 7 months. Clinical staff reports of barriers and facilitators of implementation were evaluated in professionally facilitated focus groups.Results
Of 495 men with localized prostate cancer seen in the clinics 252 (51%, 95% CI 46-55) were informed of the program and of those men 107 (43%, 95% CI 36-49) accessed it. The highest access rates were observed with patient care coordinator e-mail and telephone contact (82%) or verbal physician instruction followed by e-mail and telephone invitations (87%). During focus groups physicians appraised the summaries as useful. Staff identified barriers included creating new workflows within heavy workloads and staff misunderstanding of context and resources. Promoters of successful implementation included an identified clinical lead and physician engagement.Conclusions
Implementation success was realized when physicians engaged and staff provided followup contact. New practice changes to implement interventions require multimodal strategies for early success.
SUBMITTER: Berry DL
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8330380 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundAutomated clinical decision support systems (CDSS) are associated with improvements in health care delivery to those with long-term conditions, including diabetes. A CDSS was introduced to two Scottish regions (combined diabetes population ~30 000) via a national diabetes electronic health record. This study aims to describe users' reactions to the CDSS and to quantify impact on clinical processes and outcomes over two improvement cycles: December 2013 to February 2014 and August 2014 to November 2014.MethodsFeedback was sought via patient questionnaires, health care professional (HCP) focus groups, and questionnaires. Multivariable regression was used to analyze HCP SCI-Diabetes usage (with respect to CDSS message presence/absence) and case-control comparison of clinical processes/outcomes. Cases were patients whose HCP received a CDSS messages during the study period. Closely matched controls were selected from regions outside the study, following similar clinical practice (without CDSS). Clinical process measures were screening rates for diabetes-related complications. Clinical outcomes included HbA1c at 1 year.ResultsThe CDSS had no adverse impact on consultations. HCPs were generally positive toward CDSS and used it within normal clinical workflow. CDSS messages were generated for 5692 cases, matched to 10 667 controls. Following clinic, the probability of patients being appropriately screened for complications more than doubled for most measures. Mean HbA1c improved in cases and controls but more so in cases (-2.3 mmol/mol [-0.2%] versus -1.1 [-0.1%], P = .003).Discussion and conclusionsThe CDSS was well received; associated with improved efficiencies in working practices; and large improvements in guideline adherence. These evidence-based, early interventions can significantly reduce costly and devastating complications.
| S-EPMC5851216 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundImplementation methods of risk-stratified cancer screening guidance throughout a health care system remains understudied.ObjectiveConduct a preliminary analysis of the implementation of a risk-stratified prostate cancer screening algorithm in a single health care system.DesignComparison of men seen pre-implementation (2/1/2016-2/1/2017) vs. post-implementation (2/2/2017-2/21/2018).ParticipantsMen, aged 40-75 years, without a history of prostate cancer, who were seen by a primary care provider.InterventionsThe algorithm was integrated into two components in the electronic health record (EHR): in Health Maintenance as a personalized screening reminder and in tailored messages to providers that accompanied prostate-specific antigen (PSA) results.Main measuresPrimary outcomes: percent of men who met screening algorithm criteria; percent of men with a PSA result. Logistic repeated measures mixed models were used to test for differences in the proportion of individuals that met screening criteria in the pre- and post-implementation periods with age, race, family history, and PSA level included as covariates.Key resultsDuring the pre- and post-implementation periods, 49,053 and 49,980 men, respectively, were seen across 26 clinics (20.6% African American). The proportion of men who met screening algorithm criteria increased from 49.3% (pre-implementation) to 68.0% (post-implementation) (p < 0.001); this increase was observed across all races, age groups, and primary care clinics. Importantly, the percent of men who had a PSA did not change: 55.3% pre-implementation, 55.0% post-implementation. The adjusted odds of meeting algorithm-based screening was 6.5-times higher in the post-implementation period than in the pre-implementation period (95% confidence interval, 5.97 to 7.05).ConclusionsIn this preliminary analysis, following implementation of an EHR-based algorithm, we observed a rapid change in practice with an increase in screening in higher-risk groups balanced with a decrease in screening in low-risk groups. Future efforts will evaluate costs and downstream outcomes of this strategy.
| S-EPMC7858708 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe study sought to describe key features of clinical concepts and data required to implement clinical practice recommendations as clinical decision support (CDS) tools in electronic health record systems and to identify recommendation features that predict feasibility of implementation.Materials and methodsUsing semistructured interviews, CDS implementers and clinician subject matter experts from 7 academic medical centers rated the feasibility of implementing 10 American College of Emergency Physicians Choosing Wisely Recommendations as electronic health record-embedded CDS and estimated the need for additional data collection. Ratings were combined with objective features of the guidelines to develop a predictive model for technical implementation feasibility.ResultsA linear mixed model showed that the need for new data collection was predictive of lower implementation feasibility. The number of clinical concepts in each recommendation, need for historical data, and ambiguity of clinical concepts were not predictive of implementation feasibility.ConclusionsThe availability of data and need for additional data collection are essential to assess the feasibility of CDS implementation. Authors of practice recommendations and guidelines can enable organizations to more rapidly assess data availability and feasibility of implementation by including operational definitions for required data.
| S-EPMC7075536 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The accrual and analysis of genomic sequencing data have identified specific genetic variants that are associated with major depressive disorder. Moreover, substantial investigations have been devoted to identifying gene-drug interactions that affect the response to antidepressant medications by modulating their pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic properties. Despite these advances, individual responses to antidepressants, as well as the unpredictability of adverse side effects, leave clinicians with an imprecise prescribing strategy that often relies on trial and error. These limitations have spawned several combinatorial pharmacogenetic testing products that are marketed to physicians. Typically, combinatorial pharmacogenetic decision support tools use algorithms to integrate multiple genetic variants and assemble the results into an easily interpretable report to guide prescribing of antidepressants and other psychotropic medications. The authors review the evidence base for several combinatorial pharmacogenetic decision support tools whose potential utility has been evaluated in clinical settings. They find that, at present, there are insufficient data to support the widespread use of combinatorial pharmacogenetic testing in clinical practice, although there are clinical situations in which the technology may be informative, particularly in predicting side effects.
| S-EPMC6774046 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCurrently there is controversy surrounding the optimal way to treat patients with prostate cancer in the post-prostatectomy setting. Adjuvant therapies carry possible benefits of improved curative results, but there is uncertainty in which patients should receive adjuvant therapy. There are concerns about giving toxicity to a whole population for the benefit of only a subset. We hypothesized that making post-prostatectomy treatment decisions using genomics-based risk prediction estimates would improve cancer and quality of life outcomes.MethodsWe developed a state-transition model to simulate outcomes over a 10 year horizon for a cohort of post-prostatectomy patients. Outcomes included cancer progression rates at 5 and 10 years, overall survival, and quality-adjusted survival with reductions for treatment, side effects, and cancer stage. We compared outcomes using population-level versus individual-level risk of cancer progression, and for genomics-based care versus usual care treatment recommendations.ResultsCancer progression outcomes, expected life-years (LYs), and expected quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were significantly different when individual genomics-based cancer progression risk estimates were used in place of population-level risk estimates. Use of the genomic classifier to guide treatment decisions provided small, but statistically significant, improvements in model outcomes. We observed an additional 0.03 LYs and 0.07 QALYs, a 12% relative increase in the 5-year recurrence-free survival probability, and a 4% relative reduction in the 5-year probability of metastatic disease or death.ConclusionsThe use of genomics-based risk prediction to guide treatment decisions may improve outcomes for prostate cancer patients. This study offers a framework for individualized decision analysis, and can be extended to incorporate a wide range of personal attributes to enable delivery of patient-centered tools for informed decision-making.
| S-EPMC4383561 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundA multifactorial decision support system (mDSS) is a tool designed to improve the clinical decision-making process, while using clinical inputs for an individual patient to generate case-specific advice. The study provides an overview of the literature to analyze current available mDSS focused on prostate cancer (PCa), in order to better understand the availability of decision support tools as well as where the current literature is lacking.MethodsWe performed a MEDLINE literature search in July 2018. We divided the included studies into different sections: diagnostic, which aids in detection or staging of PCa; treatment, supporting the decision between treatment modalities; and patient, which focusses on informing the patient. We manually screened and excluded studies that did not contain an mDSS concerning prostate cancer and study proposals.ResultsOur search resulted in twelve diagnostic mDSS; six treatment mDSS; two patient mDSS; and eight papers that could improve mDSS.ConclusionsDiagnosis mDSS is well represented in the literature as well as treatment mDSS considering external-beam radiotherapy; however, there is a lack of mDSS for other treatment modalities. The development of patient decision aids is a new field of research, and few successes have been made for PCa patients. These tools can improve personalized medicine but need to overcome a number of difficulties to be successful and require more research.
| S-EPMC6590598 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWorkflow engine technology represents a new class of software with the ability to graphically model step-based knowledge. We present application of this novel technology to the domain of clinical decision support. Successful implementation of decision support within an electronic health record (EHR) remains an unsolved research challenge. Previous research efforts were mostly based on healthcare-specific representation standards and execution engines and did not reach wide adoption. We focus on two challenges in decision support systems: the ability to test decision logic on retrospective data prior prospective deployment and the challenge of user-friendly representation of clinical logic.ResultsWe present our implementation of a workflow engine technology that addresses the two above-described challenges in delivering clinical decision support. Our system is based on a cross-industry standard of XML (extensible markup language) process definition language (XPDL). The core components of the system are a workflow editor for modeling clinical scenarios and a workflow engine for execution of those scenarios. We demonstrate, with an open-source and publicly available workflow suite, that clinical decision support logic can be executed on retrospective data. The same flowchart-based representation can also function in a prospective mode where the system can be integrated with an EHR system and respond to real-time clinical events. We limit the scope of our implementation to decision support content generation (which can be EHR system vendor independent). We do not focus on supporting complex decision support content delivery mechanisms due to lack of standardization of EHR systems in this area. We present results of our evaluation of the flowchart-based graphical notation as well as architectural evaluation of our implementation using an established evaluation framework for clinical decision support architecture.ConclusionsWe describe an implementation of a free workflow technology software suite (available at http://code.google.com/p/healthflow) and its application in the domain of clinical decision support. Our implementation seamlessly supports clinical logic testing on retrospective data and offers a user-friendly knowledge representation paradigm. With the presented software implementation, we demonstrate that workflow engine technology can provide a decision support platform which evaluates well against an established clinical decision support architecture evaluation framework. Due to cross-industry usage of workflow engine technology, we can expect significant future functionality enhancements that will further improve the technology's capacity to serve as a clinical decision support platform.
| S-EPMC3079703 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Certified Cancer Centers must present all patients in multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTB), including standard cases with well-established treatment strategies. Too many standard cases can absorb much of the available time, which can be unfavorable for the discussion of complex cases. In any case, this leads to a high quantity, but not necessarily a high quality of tumor boards. Our aim was to develop a partially algorithm-driven decision support system (DSS) for smart phones to provide evidence-based recommendations for first-line therapy of common urological cancers. To assure quality, we compared each single digital decision with recommendations of an experienced MTB and obtained the concordance.1873 prostate cancer patients presented in the MTB of the urological department of the University Hospital of Cologne from 2014 to 2018 have been evaluated. Patient characteristics included age, disease stage, Gleason Score, PSA and previous therapies. The questions addressed to MTB were again answered using DSS. All blinded pairs of answers were assessed for discrepancies by independent reviewers. Overall concordance rate was 99.1% (1856/1873). Stage specific concordance rates were 97.4% (stage I), 99.2% (stage II), 100% (stage III), and 99.2% (stage IV). Quality of concordance were independent of age and risk profile. The reliability of any DSS is the key feature before implementation in clinical routine. Although our system appears to provide this safety, we are now performing cross-validation with several clinics to further increase decision quality and avoid potential clinic bias.
| S-EPMC10246794 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCancer is a leading cause of death in the United States. Primary care providers (PCPs) juggle patient cancer prevention and screening along with managing acute and chronic health problems. However, clinical decision support (CDS) may assist PCPs in addressing patients' cancer prevention and screening needs during short clinic visits. In this paper, we describe pre-implementation study design and cancer screening and prevention CDS changes made to maximize utilization and better fit a healthcare system's goals and culture. We employed the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), useful for evaluating the implementation of CDS interventions in primary care settings, in understanding barriers and facilitators that led to those changes.MethodsIn a three-arm, pragmatic, 36 clinic cluster-randomized control trial, we integrated cancer screening and prevention CDS and shared decision-making tools (SDMT) into an existing electronic medical record-linked cardiovascular risk management CDS system. The integrated CDS is currently being tested within a predominately rural upper Midwestern healthcare system. Prior to CDS implementation, we catalogued pre-implementation changes made from 2016 to 2018 based on: pre-implementation site engagement; key informant interviews with healthcare system rooming staff, providers, and leadership; and pilot testing. We identified influential barriers, facilitators, and changes made in response through qualitative content analysis of meeting minutes and supportive documents. We then coded pre-implementation changes made and associated barriers and facilitators using the CFIR.ResultsBased on our findings from system-wide pre-implementation engagement, pilot testing, and key informant interviews, we made changes to accommodate the needs of the healthcare system based on barriers and facilitators that fell within the Intervention Characteristics, Inner Setting, and Outer Setting CFIR domains. Changes included replacing the expansion of medical assistant roles in one intervention arm with targeted SDMT, as well as altering cancer prevention CDS and study design elements.ConclusionsPre-implementation changes to CDS may help meet healthcare systems' evolving needs and optimize the intervention by being responsive to real-world implementation barriers and facilitators. Frameworks like the CFIR are useful tools for identifying areas where pre-implementation barriers and facilitators may result in design changes, both to research studies and CDS systems.Trial registrationNCT02986230.
| S-EPMC7310565 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClinical pathways are one of the main tools to manage the health care's quality and concerned with the standardization of care processes. They have been used to help frontline healthcare workers by presenting summarized evidence and generating clinical workflows involving a series of tasks performed by various people within and between work environments to deliver care. Integrating clinical pathways into Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSSs) is a common practice today. However, in a low-resource setting (LRS), this kind of decision support systems is often not readily accessible or even not available. To fill this gap, we developed a computer aided CDSS that swiftly identifies which cases require a referral and which ones may be managed locally. The computer aided CDSS is designed primarily for use in primary care settings for maternal and childcare services, namely for pregnant patients, antenatal and postnatal care. The purpose of this paper is to assess the user acceptance of the computer aided CDSS at the point of care in LRSs.MethodsFor evaluation, we used a total of 22 parameters structured in to six major categories, namely "ease of use, system quality, information quality, decision changes, process changes, and user acceptance." Based on these parameters, the caregivers from Jimma Health Center's Maternal and Child Health Service Unit evaluated the acceptability of a computer aided CDSS. The respondents were asked to express their level of agreement using 22 parameters in a think-aloud approach. The evaluation was conducted in the caregiver's spare-time after the clinical decision. It was based on eighteen cases over the course of two days. The respondents were then asked to score their level of agreement with some statements on a five-point scale: strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree, and strongly agree.ResultsThe CDSS received a favorable agreement score in all six categories by obtaining primarily strongly agree and agree responses. In contrast, a follow-up interview revealed a variety of reasons for disagreement based on the neutral, disagree, and strongly disagree responses.ConclusionsThough the study had a positive outcome, it was limited to the Jimma Health Center Maternal and Childcare Unit, and hence a wider scale evaluation and longitudinal measurements, including computer aided CDSS usage frequency, speed of operation and impact on intervention time are needed.
| S-EPMC10064719 | biostudies-literature