Person:

Wright, Adam

Background: The clinical problem list is an important tool for clinical decision making, quality measurement and clinical decision support; however, problem lists are often incomplete and provider attitudes towards the problem list are poorly understood. Methods: An ethnographic study of healthcare providers conducted from April 2009 to January 2010 was carried out among academic and community outpatient medical practices in the Greater Boston area across a wide range of medical and surgical specialties. Attitudes towards the problem list were then analyzed using grounded theory methods. Results: Attitudes were variable, and dimensions of variations fit into nine themes: workflow, ownership and responsibility, relevance, uses, content, presentation, accuracy, alternatives, support/education and one cross-cutting theme of culture. Conclusions: Significant variation was observed in clinician attitudes towards and use of the electronic patient problem list. Clearer guidance and best practices for problem list utilization are needed.

Background: The purpose of this study was to identify recommended practices for computerized clinical decision support (CDS) development and implementation and for knowledge management (KM) processes in ambulatory clinics and community hospitals using commercial or locally developed systems in the U.S. Methods: Guided by the Multiple Perspectives Framework, the authors conducted ethnographic field studies at two community hospitals and five ambulatory clinic organizations across the U.S. Using a Rapid Assessment Process, a multidisciplinary research team: gathered preliminary assessment data; conducted on-site interviews, observations, and field surveys; analyzed data using both template and grounded methods; and developed universal themes. A panel of experts produced recommended practices. Results: The team identified ten themes related to CDS and KM. These include: 1) workflow; 2) knowledge management; 3) data as a foundation for CDS; 4) user computer interaction; 5) measurement and metrics; 6) governance; 7) translation for collaboration; 8) the meaning of CDS; 9) roles of special, essential people; and 10) communication, training, and support. Experts developed recommendations about each theme. The original Multiple Perspectives framework was modified to make explicit a new theoretical construct, that of Translational Interaction. Conclusions: These ten themes represent areas that need attention if a clinic or community hospital plans to implement and successfully utilize CDS. In addition, they have implications for workforce education, research, and national-level policy development. The Translational Interaction construct could guide future applied informatics research endeavors.

Background: Accurate clinical problem lists are critical for patient care, clinical decision support, population reporting, quality improvement, and research. However, problem lists are often incomplete or out of date. Objective: To determine whether a clinical alerting system, which uses inference rules to notify providers of undocumented problems, improves problem list documentation. Study Design and Methods: Inference rules for 17 conditions were constructed and an electronic health record-based intervention was evaluated to improve problem documentation. A cluster randomized trial was conducted of 11 participating clinics affiliated with a large academic medical center, totaling 28 primary care clinical areas, with 14 receiving the intervention and 14 as controls. The intervention was a clinical alert directed to the provider that suggested adding a problem to the electronic problem list based on inference rules. The primary outcome measure was acceptance of the alert. The number of study problems added in each arm as a pre-specified secondary outcome was also assessed. Data were collected during 6-month pre-intervention (11/2009–5/2010) and intervention (5/2010–11/2010) periods. Results: 17,043 alerts were presented, of which 41.1% were accepted. In the intervention arm, providers documented significantly more study problems (adjusted OR=3.4, p<0.001), with an absolute difference of 6,277 additional problems. In the intervention group, 70.4% of all study problems were added via the problem list alerts. Significant increases in problem notation were observed for 13 of 17 conditions. Conclusion: Problem inference alerts significantly increase notation of important patient problems in primary care, which in turn has the potential to facilitate quality improvement.

Objective: Computerized provider order entry (CPOE) with clinical decision support (CDS) can help hospitals improve care. Little is known about what CDS is presently in use and how it is managed, however, especially in community hospitals. This study sought to address this knowledge gap by identifying standard practices related to CDS in US community hospitals with mature CPOE systems. Materials and Methods Representatives of 34 community hospitals, each of which had over 5 years experience with CPOE, were interviewed to identify standard practices related to CDS. Data were analyzed with a mix of descriptive statistics and qualitative approaches to the identification of patterns, themes and trends. Results: This broad sample of community hospitals had robust levels of CDS despite their small size and the independent nature of many of their physician staff members. The hospitals uniformly used medication alerts and order sets, had sophisticated governance procedures for CDS, and employed staff to customize CDS. Discussion The level of customization needed for most CDS before implementation was greater than expected. Customization requires skilled individuals who represent an emerging manpower need at this type of hospital. Conclusion: These results bode well for robust diffusion of CDS to similar hospitals in the process of adopting CDS and suggest that national policies to promote CDS use may be successful.

Objective: The United States Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology sponsored the development of a “high-priority” list of drug-drug interactions (DDIs) to be used for clinical decision support. We assessed current adoption of this list and current alerting practice for these DDIs with regard to alert implementation (presence or absence of an alert) and display (alert appearance as interruptive or passive). Materials and methods: We conducted evaluations of electronic health records (EHRs) at a convenience sample of health care organizations across the United States using a standardized testing protocol with simulated orders. Results: Evaluations of 19 systems were conducted at 13 sites using 14 different EHRs. Across systems, 69% of the high-priority DDI pairs produced alerts. Implementation and display of the DDI alerts tested varied between systems, even when the same EHR vendor was used. Across the drug pairs evaluated, implementation and display of DDI alerts differed, ranging from 27% (4/15) to 93% (14/15) implementation. Discussion: Currently, there is no standard of care covering which DDI alerts to implement or how to display them to providers. Opportunities to improve DDI alerting include using differential displays based on DDI severity, establishing improved lists of clinically significant DDIs, and thoroughly reviewing organizational implementation decisions regarding DDIs. Conclusion: DDI alerting is clinically important but not standardized. There is significant room for improvement and standardization around evidence-based DDIs.

Background: The problem list is a key part of the electronic health record (EHR) that allows practitioners to see a patient’s diagnoses and health issues. Yet, as the content of the problem list largely represents the subjective decisions of those who edit it, patients’ problem lists are often unreliable when shared across practitioners. The lack of standards for how the problem list is compiled in the EHR limits its effectiveness in improving patient care, particularly as a resource for clinical decision support and population management tools. The purpose of this study is to discover practitioner opinions towards the problem list and the logic behind their decisions during clinical situations. Materials and methods: An observational cross-sectional study was conducted at two major Boston teaching hospitals. Practitioners’ opinions about the problem list were collected through both in-person interviews and an online questionnaire. Questions were framed using vignettes of clinical scenarios asking practitioners about their preferred actions towards the problem list. Results: These data confirmed prior research that practitioners differ in their opinions over managing the problem list, but in most responses to a questionnaire, there was a common approach among the relative majority of respondents. Further, basic demographic characteristics of providers (age, medical experience, etc.) did not appear to strongly affect attitudes towards the problem list. Conclusion: The results supported the premise that policies and EHR tools are needed to bring about a common approach. Further, the findings helped identify what issues might benefit the most from a defined policy and the level of restriction a problem list policy should place on the addition of different types of information.

Background: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is increasingly common and under-recognized in primary care clinics, leading to low rates of stage-appropriate monitoring and treatment. Our objective was to determine whether electronic problem list documentation of CKD is associated with monitoring and treatment. Methods: This is a cross-sectional observational study of patients with stage 3 or 4 CKD, defined as two past estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFR) 15-60 mL/min/1.73 m2 separated by 90 days and collected between 2007-2008. We examined the association of problem list documentation with: 1) serum eGFR monitoring test, 2) urine protein or albumin monitoring test, 3) an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ACE/ARB) prescription, 4) mean systolic blood pressure (BP), and 5) BP control. Results: Out of 3,149 patients with stage 3 or 4 CKD, only 16% of patients had CKD documented on the problem list. After adjustment for eGFR, gender, and race/ethnicity and after clustering by physician, problem list documentation of CKD was associated with serum eGFR testing (97% with problem list documentation vs. 94% without problem list documentation, p = 0.02) and urine protein testing (47% with problem list documentation vs. 40% without problem list documentation, p = 0.04). After adjustment, problem list documentation was not associated with ACE/ARB prescription, mean systolic BP, or BP control. Conclusions: Documentation of CKD on the electronic problem list is rare. Patients with CKD documentation have better stage-appropriate monitoring of the disease, but do not have higher rates of blood pressure treatment or better blood pressure control. Interventions aimed at increasing documentation of CKD on the problem list may improve stage-appropriate monitoring, but may not improve clinical outcomes.

Objective: To describe the activities performed by people involved in clinical decision support (CDS) at leading sites. Materials and methods We conducted ethnographic observations at seven diverse sites with a history of excellence in CDS using the Rapid Assessment Process and analyzed the data using a series of card sorts, informed by Linstone's Multiple Perspectives Model. Results: We identified 18 activities and grouped them into four areas. Area 1: Fostering relationships across the organization, with activities (a) training and support, (b) visibility/presence on the floor, (c) liaising between people, (d) administration and leadership, (e) project management, (f) cheerleading/buy-in/sponsorship, (g) preparing for CDS implementation. Area 2: Assembling the system with activities (a) providing technical support, (b) CDS content development, (c) purchasing products from vendors (d) knowledge management, (e) system integration. Area 3: Using CDS to achieve the organization's goals with activities (a) reporting, (b) requirements-gathering/specifications, (c) monitoring CDS, (d) linking CDS to goals, (e) managing data. Area 4: Participation in external policy and standards activities (this area consists of only a single activity). We also identified a set of recommendations associated with these 18 activities. Discussion All 18 activities we identified were performed at all sites, although the way they were organized into roles differed substantially. We consider these activities critical to the success of a CDS program. Conclusions: A series of activities are performed by sites strong in CDS, and sites adopting CDS should ensure they incorporate these activities into their efforts.

Background: A cloud-based clinical decision support system (CDSS) was implemented to remotely provide evidence-based guideline reminders in support of preventative health. Following implementation, we measured the agreement between preventive care reminders generated by an existing, local CDSS and the new, cloud-based CDSS operating on the same patient visit data. Methods: Electronic health record data for the same set of patients seen in primary care were sent to both the cloud-based web service and local CDSS. The clinical reminders returned by both services were captured for analysis. Cohen’s Kappa coefficient was calculated to compare the two sets of reminders. Kappa statistics were further adjusted for prevalence and bias due to the potential effects of bias in the CDS logic and prevalence in the relative small sample of patients. Results: The cloud-based CDSS generated 965 clinical reminders for 405 patient visits over 3 months. The local CDSS returned 889 reminders for the same patient visit data. When adjusted for prevalence and bias, observed agreement varied by reminder from 0.33 (95% CI 0.24 – 0.42) to 0.99 (95% CI 0.97 – 1.00) and demonstrated almost perfect agreement for 7 of the 11 reminders. Conclusions: Preventive care reminders delivered by two disparate CDS systems show substantial agreement. Subtle differences in rule logic and terminology mapping appear to account for much of the discordance. Cloud-based CDSS therefore show promise, opening the door for future development and implementation in support of health care providers with limited resources for knowledge management of complex logic and rules.

Background: Patients routinely use Twitter to share feedback about their experience receiving healthcare. Identifying and analysing the content of posts sent to hospitals may provide a novel real-time measure of quality, supplementing traditional, survey-based approaches. Objective: To assess the use of Twitter as a supplemental data stream for measuring patient-perceived quality of care in US hospitals and compare patient sentiments about hospitals with established quality measures. Design: 404 065 tweets directed to 2349 US hospitals over a 1-year period were classified as having to do with patient experience using a machine learning approach. Sentiment was calculated for these tweets using natural language processing. 11 602 tweets were manually categorised into patient experience topics. Finally, hospitals with ≥50 patient experience tweets were surveyed to understand how they use Twitter to interact with patients. Key results Roughly half of the hospitals in the US have a presence on Twitter. Of the tweets directed toward these hospitals, 34 725 (9.4%) were related to patient experience and covered diverse topics. Analyses limited to hospitals with ≥50 patient experience tweets revealed that they were more active on Twitter, more likely to be below the national median of Medicare patients (p<0.001) and above the national median for nurse/patient ratio (p=0.006), and to be a non-profit hospital (p<0.001). After adjusting for hospital characteristics, we found that Twitter sentiment was not associated with Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) ratings (but having a Twitter account was), although there was a weak association with 30-day hospital readmission rates (p=0.003). Conclusions: Tweets describing patient experiences in hospitals cover a wide range of patient care aspects and can be identified using automated approaches. These tweets represent a potentially untapped indicator of quality and may be valuable to patients, researchers, policy makers and hospital administrators.