Applied Clinical Informatics最新文献

Background:  Studies have shown that documentation burden experienced by clinicians may lead to less direct patient care, increased errors, and job dissatisfaction. Implementing effective strategies within health care systems to mitigate documentation burden can result in improved clinician satisfaction and more time spent with patients. However, there is a gap in the literature regarding evidence-based interventions to reduce documentation burden.

Objectives:  The objective of this review was to identify and comprehensively summarize the state of the science related to documentation burden reduction efforts.

Methods:  Following Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines, we conducted a comprehensive search of multiple databases, including PubMed, Medline, Embase, CINAHL Complete, Scopus, and Web of Science. Additionally, we searched gray literature and used Google Scholar to ensure a thorough review. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, followed by full-text review, with a third reviewer resolving any discrepancies. Data extraction was performed and a table of evidence was created.

Results:  A total of 34 articles were included in the review, published between 2016 and 2022, with a majority focusing on the United States. The efforts described can be categorized into medical scribes, workflow improvements, educational interventions, user-driven approaches, technology-based solutions, combination approaches, and other strategies. The outcomes of these efforts often resulted in improvements in documentation time, workflow efficiency, provider satisfaction, and patient interactions.

Conclusion:  This scoping review provides a comprehensive summary of health system documentation burden reduction efforts. The positive outcomes reported in the literature emphasize the potential effectiveness of these efforts. However, more research is needed to identify universally applicable best practices, and considerations should be given to the transfer of burden among members of the health care team, quality of education, clinician involvement, and evaluation methods.

Background Inefficient electronic health record (EHR) usage increases the documentation burden on physicians and other providers, which increases cognitive load and contributes to provider burnout. Studies show that EHR efficiency sessions, optimization sprints, reduce burnout using a resource-intense five-person team. We implemented sprint-inspired one-on-one post-go-live efficiency training sessions (mini-sprints) as a more economical training option directed at providers.

Objectives We evaluated a post-go-live mini-sprint intervention to assess provider satisfaction and efficiency.

Methods NorthShore University HealthSystem implemented one-on-one provider-to-provider mini-sprint sessions to optimize provider workflow within the EHR platform. The physician informaticist completed a 9-point checklist of efficiency tips with physician trainees covering schedule organization, chart review, speed buttons, billing, note personalization/optimization, preference lists, quick actions, and quick tips. We collected postsession survey data assessing for net promoter score (NPS) and open-ended feedback. We conducted financial analysis of pre- and post-mini-sprint efficiency levels and financial data.

Results Seventy-six sessions were conducted with 32 primary care physicians, 28 specialty physicians, and 16 nonphysician providers within primary care and other areas. Thirty-seven physicians completed the postsession survey. The average NPS for the completed mini-sprint sessions was 97. The proficiency score had a median of 6.12 (Interquartile range (IQR): 4.71–7.64) before training, and a median of 7.10 (IQR: 6.25–8.49) after training. Financial data analysis indicates that higher level billing codes were used at a greater frequency post-mini-sprint. The revenue increase 12 months post-mini-sprint was $213,234, leading to a return of $75,559.50 for 40 providers, or $1,888.98 per provider in a 12-month period.

Conclusion Our data show that mini-sprint sessions were effective in optimizing efficiency within the EHR platform. Financial analysis demonstrates that this type of training program is sustainable and pays for itself. There was high satisfaction with the mini-sprint training modality, and feedback indicated an interest in further mini-sprint training sessions for physicians and nonphysician staff.

Background Nurses are at the frontline of detecting patient deterioration. We developed Communicating Narrative Concerns Entered by Registered Nurses (CONCERN), an early warning system for clinical deterioration that generates a risk prediction score utilizing nursing data. CONCERN was implemented as a randomized clinical trial at two health systems in the Northeastern United States. Following the implementation of CONCERN, our team sought to develop the CONCERN Implementation Toolkit to enable other hospital systems to adopt CONCERN.

Objective The aim of this study was to identify the optimal resources needed to implement CONCERN and package these resources into the CONCERN Implementation Toolkit to enable the spread of CONCERN to other hospital sites.

Methods To accomplish this aim, we conducted qualitative interviews with nurses, prescribing providers, and information technology experts in two health systems. We recruited participants from July 2022 to January 2023. We conducted thematic analysis guided by the Donabedian model. Based on the results of the thematic analysis, we updated the α version of the CONCERN Implementation Toolkit.

Results There was a total of 32 participants included in our study. In total, 12 themes were identified, with four themes mapping to each domain in Donabedian's model (i.e., structure, process, and outcome). Eight new resources were added to the CONCERN Implementation Toolkit.

Conclusions This study validated the α version of the CONCERN Implementation Toolkit. Future studies will focus on returning the results of the Toolkit to the hospital sites to validate the β version of the CONCERN Implementation Toolkit. As the development of early warning systems continues to increase and clinician workflows evolve, the results of this study will provide considerations for research teams interested in implementing early warning systems in the acute care setting.

Objectives We conducted a focus group to assess the attitudes of primary care physicians (PCPs) toward prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-screening algorithms, perceptions of using decision support tools, and features that would make such tools feasible to implement.

Methods A multidisciplinary team (primary care, urology, behavioral sciences, bioinformatics) developed the decision support tool that was presented to a focus group of 10 PCPs who also filled out a survey. Notes and audio-recorded transcripts were analyzed using Thematic Content Analysis.

Results The survey showed that PCPs followed different guidelines. In total, 7/10 PCPs agreed that engaging in shared decision-making about PSA screening was burdensome. The majority (9/10) had never used a decision aid for PSA screening. Although 70% of PCPs felt confident about their ability to discuss PSA screening, 90% still felt a need for a provider-facing platform to assist in these discussions. Three major themes emerged: (1) confirmatory reactions regarding the importance, innovation, and unmet need for a decision support tool embedded in the electronic health record; (2) issues around implementation and application of the tool in clinic workflow and PCPs' own clinical bias; and (3) attitudes/reflections regarding discrepant recommendations from various guideline groups that cause confusion.

Conclusion There was overwhelmingly positive support for the need for a provider-facing decision support tool to assist with PSA-screening decisions in the primary care setting. PCPs appreciated that the tool would allow flexibility for clinical judgment and documentation of shared decision-making. Incorporation of suggestions from this focus group into a second version of the tool will be used in subsequent pilot testing.

Objectives Our objective was to pilot test an electronic health record-embedded decision support tool to facilitate prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening discussions in the primary care setting.

Methods We pilot-tested a novel decision support tool that was used by 10 primary care physicians (PCPs) for 6 months, followed by a survey. The tool comprised (1) a risk-stratified algorithm, (2) a tool for facilitating shared decision-making (Simple Schema), (3) three best practice advisories (BPAs: <45, 45–75, and >75 years), and (4) a health maintenance module for scheduling automated reminders about PSA rescreening.

Results All PCPs found the tool feasible, acceptable, and clear to use. Eight out of ten PCPs reported that the tool made PSA screening conversations somewhat or much easier. Before using the tool, 70% of PCPs felt confident in their ability to discuss PSA screening with their patient, and this improved to 100% after the tool was used by PCPs for 6 months. PCPs found the BPAs for eligible (45–75 years) and older men (>75 years) more useful than the BPA for younger men (<45 years). Among the 10 PCPs, 60% found the Simple Schema to be very useful, and 50% found the health maintenance module to be extremely or very useful. Most PCPs reported the components of the tool to be at least somewhat useful, with 10% finding them to be very burdensome.

Conclusion We demonstrated the feasibility and acceptability of the tool, which is notable given the marked low acceptance of existing tools. All PCPs reported that they would consider continuing to use the tool in their clinic and were likely or very likely to recommend the tool to a colleague.

Objectives:  There is limited research on suicide risk screening (SRS) among head and neck cancer (HNC) patients, a population at increased risk for suicide. To address this gap, this single-site mixed methods study assessed oncology professionals' perspectives about the feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of an electronic SRS program that was implemented as a part of routine care for HNC patients.

Methods: Staff who assisted with SRS implementation completed (e.g., nurses, medical assistants, advanced practice providers, physicians, social workers) a one-time survey (N = 29) and interview (N = 25). Quantitative outcomes were assessed using previously validated feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness measures. Additional qualitative data were collected to provide context for interpreting the scores.

Results:  Nurses and medical assistants, who were directly responsible for implementing SRS, reported low feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness, compared with other team members (e.g., physicians, social workers, advanced practice providers). Team members identified potential improvements needed to optimize SRS, such as hiring additional staff, improving staff training, providing different modalities for screening completion among individuals with disabilities, and revising the patient-reported outcomes to improve suicide risk prediction.

Conclusion:  Staff perspectives about implementing SRS as a part of routine cancer care for HNC patients varied widely. Before screening can be implemented on a larger scale for HNC and other cancer patients, additional implementation strategies may be needed that optimize workflow and reduce staff burden, such as staff training, multiple modalities for completion, and refined tools for identifying which patients are at greatest risk for suicide.

Objectives:  To compare the ability of different electronic health record alert types to elicit responses from users caring for cancer patients benefiting from goals of care (GOC) conversations.

Methods:  A validated question asking if the user would be surprised by the patient's 6-month mortality was built as an Epic BestPractice Advisory (BPA) alert in three versions-(1) Required on Open chart (pop-up BPA), (2) Required on Close chart (navigator BPA), and (3) Optional Persistent (Storyboard BPA)-randomized using patient medical record number. Meaningful responses were defined as "Yes" or "No," rather than deferral. Data were extracted over 6 months.

Results:  Alerts appeared for 685 patients during 1,786 outpatient encounters. Measuring encounters where a meaningful response was elicited, rates were highest for Required on Open (94.8% of encounters), compared with Required on Close (90.1%) and Optional Persistent (19.7%) (p < 0.001). Measuring individual alerts to which responses were given, they were most likely meaningful with Optional Persistent (98.3% of responses) and least likely with Required on Open (68.0%) (p < 0.001). Responses of "No," suggesting poor prognosis and prompting GOC, were more likely with Optional Persistent (13.6%) and Required on Open (10.3%) than with Required on Close (7.0%) (p = 0.028).

Conclusion:  Required alerts had response rates almost five times higher than optional alerts. Timing of alerts affects rates of meaningful responses and possibly the response itself. The alert with the most meaningful responses was also associated with the most interruptions and deferral responses. Considering tradeoffs in these metrics is important in designing clinical decision support to maximize success.

Objective:  Our objective was to evaluate the usability of an automated clinical decision support (CDS) tool previously implemented in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) to promote shared situation awareness among the medical team to prevent serious safety events within children's hospitals.

Methods:  We conducted a mixed-methods usability evaluation of a CDS tool in a PICU at a large, urban, quaternary, free-standing children's hospital in the Midwest. Quantitative assessment was done using the system usability scale (SUS), while qualitative assessment involved think-aloud usability testing. The SUS was scored according to survey guidelines. For think-aloud testing, task times were calculated, and means and standard deviations were determined, stratified by role. Qualitative feedback from participants and moderator observations were summarized.

Results:  Fifty-one PICU staff members, including physicians, advanced practice providers, nurses, and respiratory therapists, completed the SUS, while ten participants underwent think-aloud usability testing. The overall median usability score was 87.5 (interquartile range: 80-95), with over 96% rating the tool's usability as "good" or "excellent." Task completion times ranged from 2 to 92 seconds, with the quickest completion for reviewing high-risk criteria and the slowest for adding to high-risk criteria. Observations and participant responses from think-aloud testing highlighted positive aspects of learnability and clear display of complex information that is easily accessed, as well as opportunities for improvement in tool integration into clinical workflows.

Conclusion:  The PICU Warning Tool demonstrates good usability in the critical care setting. This study demonstrates the value of postimplementation usability testing in identifying opportunities for continued improvement of CDS tools.

Objectives:  Large language models (LLMs) like Generative pre-trained transformer (ChatGPT) are powerful algorithms that have been shown to produce human-like text from input data. Several potential clinical applications of this technology have been proposed and evaluated by biomedical informatics experts. However, few have surveyed health care providers for their opinions about whether the technology is fit for use.

Methods:  We distributed a validated mixed-methods survey to gauge practicing clinicians' comfort with LLMs for a breadth of tasks in clinical practice, research, and education, which were selected from the literature.

Results:  A total of 30 clinicians fully completed the survey. Of the 23 tasks, 16 were rated positively by more than 50% of the respondents. Based on our qualitative analysis, health care providers considered LLMs to have excellent synthesis skills and efficiency. However, our respondents had concerns that LLMs could generate false information and propagate training data bias.Our survey respondents were most comfortable with scenarios that allow LLMs to function in an assistive role, like a physician extender or trainee.

Conclusion:  In a mixed-methods survey of clinicians about LLM use, health care providers were encouraging of having LLMs in health care for many tasks, and especially in assistive roles. There is a need for continued human-centered development of both LLMs and artificial intelligence in general.

Background:  Clinicians play an important role in addressing pediatric and adolescent obesity, but their effectiveness is restricted by time constraints, competing clinical demands, and the lack of effective electronic health record (EHR) tools. EHR tools are rarely developed with provider input.

Objectives:  We conducted a mixed method study of clinicians who provide weight management care to children and adolescents to determine current barriers for effective care and explore the role of EHR weight management tools to overcome these barriers.

Methods:  In this mixed-methods study, we conducted three 1-hour long virtual focus groups at one medium-sized academic health center in Missouri and analyzed the focus group scripts using thematic analysis. We sequentially conducted a descriptive statistical analysis of a survey emailed to pediatric and family medicine primary care clinicians (n = 52) at two private and two academic health centers in Missouri.

Results:  Surveyed clinicians reported that they effectively provided health behavior lifestyle counseling at well-child visits (mean of 60 on a scale of 1-100) and child obesity visits (63); however, most felt the current health care system (27) and EHR tools (41) do not adequately support pediatric weight management. Major themes from the clinician focus groups were that EHR weight management tools should display data in a way that (1) improves clinical efficiency, (2) supports patient-centered communication, (3) improves patient continuity between visits, and (4) reduces documentation burdens. An additional theme was (5) clinicians trust patient data entered in real time over patient recalled data.

Conclusion:  Study participants report that the health care system status quo and currently available EHR tools do not sufficiently support clinicians working to manage pediatric or adolescent obesity and provide health behavior counseling. Clinician input in the development and testing of EHR weight management tools provides opportunities to address barriers, inform content, and improve efficiencies of EHR use.