对患者健康问卷-9管理的临床决策支持工具的评估。

The Mental Health Clinician Pub Date : 2021-09-24 eCollection Date: 2021-09-01 DOI:10.9740/mhc.2021.09.267
Naweid Maten, Miranda E Kroehl, Danielle F Loeb, Shubha Bhat, Taylor Ota, Sarah J Billups, Lisa M Schilling, Simeon Heckman, Crystal Reingardt, Katy E Trinkley
{"title":"对患者健康问卷-9管理的临床决策支持工具的评估。","authors":"Naweid Maten,&nbsp;Miranda E Kroehl,&nbsp;Danielle F Loeb,&nbsp;Shubha Bhat,&nbsp;Taylor Ota,&nbsp;Sarah J Billups,&nbsp;Lisa M Schilling,&nbsp;Simeon Heckman,&nbsp;Crystal Reingardt,&nbsp;Katy E Trinkley","doi":"10.9740/mhc.2021.09.267","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Many health care institutions are working to improve depression screening and management with the use of the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9). Clinical decision support (CDS) within the EHR is one strategy, but little is known about effective approaches to design or implement such CDS. The purpose of this study is to compare implementation outcomes of two versions of a CDS tool to improve PHQ-9 administration for patients with depression.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a retrospective, observational study comparing two versions of a CDS. Version 1 interrupted clinician workflow, and version 2 did not interrupt workflow. Outcomes of interest included reach, adoption, and effectiveness. PHQ-9 administration was determined by chart review. Chi-square tests were used to evaluate associations between PHQ-9 administration with versions 1 and 2.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Version 1 resulted in PHQ-9 administration 77 times (15.3% of 504 unique encounters) compared with 49 times (9.8% of 502 unique encounters) with version 2 (<i>P</i> = .011).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>An interruptive CDS tool may be more effective at increasing PHQ-9 administration, but a noninterruptive CDS tool may be preferred to minimize alert fatigue despite a decrease in effectiveness.</p>","PeriodicalId":22710,"journal":{"name":"The Mental Health Clinician","volume":"11 5","pages":"267-273"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/eb/07/i2168-9709-11-5-267.PMC8463004.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An evaluation of clinical decision support tools for Patient Health Questionnaire-9 administration.\",\"authors\":\"Naweid Maten,&nbsp;Miranda E Kroehl,&nbsp;Danielle F Loeb,&nbsp;Shubha Bhat,&nbsp;Taylor Ota,&nbsp;Sarah J Billups,&nbsp;Lisa M Schilling,&nbsp;Simeon Heckman,&nbsp;Crystal Reingardt,&nbsp;Katy E Trinkley\",\"doi\":\"10.9740/mhc.2021.09.267\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Many health care institutions are working to improve depression screening and management with the use of the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9). Clinical decision support (CDS) within the EHR is one strategy, but little is known about effective approaches to design or implement such CDS. The purpose of this study is to compare implementation outcomes of two versions of a CDS tool to improve PHQ-9 administration for patients with depression.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a retrospective, observational study comparing two versions of a CDS. Version 1 interrupted clinician workflow, and version 2 did not interrupt workflow. Outcomes of interest included reach, adoption, and effectiveness. PHQ-9 administration was determined by chart review. Chi-square tests were used to evaluate associations between PHQ-9 administration with versions 1 and 2.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Version 1 resulted in PHQ-9 administration 77 times (15.3% of 504 unique encounters) compared with 49 times (9.8% of 502 unique encounters) with version 2 (<i>P</i> = .011).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>An interruptive CDS tool may be more effective at increasing PHQ-9 administration, but a noninterruptive CDS tool may be preferred to minimize alert fatigue despite a decrease in effectiveness.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22710,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Mental Health Clinician\",\"volume\":\"11 5\",\"pages\":\"267-273\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/eb/07/i2168-9709-11-5-267.PMC8463004.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Mental Health Clinician\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.9740/mhc.2021.09.267\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/9/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Mental Health Clinician","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.9740/mhc.2021.09.267","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

导语:许多卫生保健机构正在努力改善抑郁症的筛查和管理,使用患者健康问卷9 (PHQ-9)。EHR中的临床决策支持(CDS)是一种策略,但对于设计或实施这种CDS的有效方法知之甚少。本研究的目的是比较两种版本的CDS工具的实施结果,以改善抑郁症患者的PHQ-9管理。方法:这是一项回顾性观察性研究,比较了两种版本的CDS。版本1中断了临床医生的工作流程,版本2没有中断工作流程。感兴趣的结果包括覆盖面、采用率和有效性。PHQ-9给药方式通过图表审查确定。卡方检验用于评价PHQ-9给药与版本1和版本2之间的关联。结果:版本1导致PHQ-9给药77次(504次独特接触中的15.3%),而版本2为49次(502次独特接触中的9.8%)(P = 0.011)。讨论:中断性CDS工具在增加PHQ-9给药方面可能更有效,但尽管有效性降低,但非中断性CDS工具可能更适合最小化警觉性疲劳。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
An evaluation of clinical decision support tools for Patient Health Questionnaire-9 administration.

Introduction: Many health care institutions are working to improve depression screening and management with the use of the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9). Clinical decision support (CDS) within the EHR is one strategy, but little is known about effective approaches to design or implement such CDS. The purpose of this study is to compare implementation outcomes of two versions of a CDS tool to improve PHQ-9 administration for patients with depression.

Methods: This was a retrospective, observational study comparing two versions of a CDS. Version 1 interrupted clinician workflow, and version 2 did not interrupt workflow. Outcomes of interest included reach, adoption, and effectiveness. PHQ-9 administration was determined by chart review. Chi-square tests were used to evaluate associations between PHQ-9 administration with versions 1 and 2.

Results: Version 1 resulted in PHQ-9 administration 77 times (15.3% of 504 unique encounters) compared with 49 times (9.8% of 502 unique encounters) with version 2 (P = .011).

Discussion: An interruptive CDS tool may be more effective at increasing PHQ-9 administration, but a noninterruptive CDS tool may be preferred to minimize alert fatigue despite a decrease in effectiveness.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Exploring real-world symptom impact and improvement in well-being domains for tardive dyskinesia in VMAT2 inhibitor-treated patients via clinician survey and chart review Impact of Board Certified Psychiatric Pharmacists on improving urinary tract infection antibiotic appropriateness at an acute psychiatric hospital Barriers to access to psychiatric medications in Missouri county jails Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports Intranasal ketamine as a treatment for psychiatric complications of long COVID: A case report
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1