26 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
A qualitative study of the activities performed by people involved in clinical decision support: recommended practices for success
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
Study protocol: a pragmatic, stepped-wedge trial of tailored support for implementing social determinants of health documentation/action in community health centers, with realist evaluation
Abstract
Background
National leaders recommend documenting social determinants of health and actions taken to address social determinants of health in electronic health records, and a growing body of evidence suggests the health benefits of doing so. However, little evidence exists to guide implementation of social determinants of health documentation/action.
Methods
This paper describes a 5-year, mixed-methods, stepped-wedge trial with realist evaluation, designed to test the impact of providing 30 community health centers with step-by-step guidance on implementing electronic health record-based social determinants of health documentation. This guidance will entail 6Â months of tailored support from an interdisciplinary team, including training and technical assistance. We will report on tailored support provided at each of five implementation steps; impact of tailored implementation support; a method for tracking such tailoring; and context-specific pathways through which these tailored strategies effect change. We will track the competencies and resources needed to support the study clinicsâ implementation efforts.
Discussion
Results will inform how to tailor implementation strategies to meet local needs in real-world practice settings. Secondary analyses will assess impacts of social determinants of health documentation and referral-making on diabetes outcomes. By learning whether and how scalable, tailored implementation strategies help community health centers adopt social determinants of health documentation and action, this study will yield timely guidance to primary care providers. We are not aware of previous studies exploring implementation strategies that support adoption of social determinants of action using electronic health and interventions, despite the pressing need for such guidance.
Trial registration
clinicaltrials.gov,
NCT03607617
, registration date: 7/31/2018âretrospectively registere
Recommended practices for computerized clinical decision support and knowledge management in community settings: a qualitative study
<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>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.</p
Recommended from our members
Multiple perspectives on clinical decision support: a qualitative study of fifteen clinical and vendor organizations
Background: Computerized clinical decision support (CDS) can help hospitals to improve healthcare. However, CDS can be problematic. The purpose of this study was to discover how the views of clinical stakeholders, CDS content vendors, and EHR vendors are alike or different with respect to challenges in the development, management, and use of CDS. Methods: We conducted ethnographic fieldwork using a Rapid Assessment Process within ten clinical and five health information technology (HIT) vendor organizations. Using an inductive analytical approach, we generated themes from the clinical, content vendor, and electronic health record vendor perspectives and compared them. Results: The groups share views on the importance of appropriate manpower, careful knowledge management, CDS that fits user workflow, the need for communication among the groups, and for mutual strategizing about the future of CDS. However, views of usability, training, metrics, interoperability, product use, and legal issues differed. Recommendations for improvement include increased collaboration to address legal, manpower, and CDS sharing issues. Conclusions: The three groups share thinking about many aspects of CDS, but views differ in a number of important respects as well. Until these three groups can reach a mutual understanding of the views of the other stakeholders, and work together, CDS will not reach its potential
Using Electronic Health RecordâBased Clinical Decision Support to Provide Social RiskâInformed Care in Community Health Centers: Protocol for the Design and Assessment of a Clinical Decision Support Tool
BackgroundConsistent and compelling evidence demonstrates that social and economic adversity has an impact on health outcomes. In response, many health care professional organizations recommend screening patients for experiences of social and economic adversity or social risksâfor example, food, housing, and transportation insecurityâin the context of care. Guidance on how health care providers can act on documented social risk data to improve health outcomes is nascent. A strategy recommended by the National Academy of Medicine involves using social risk data to adapt care plans in ways that accommodate patientsâ social risks.
ObjectiveThis studyâs aims are to develop electronic health record (EHR)âbased clinical decision support (CDS) tools that suggest social riskâinformed care plan adaptations for patients with diabetes or hypertension, assess tool adoption and its impact on selected clinical quality measures in community health centers, and examine perceptions of tool usability and impact on care quality.
MethodsA systematic scoping review and several stakeholder activities will be conducted to inform development of the CDS tools. The tools will be pilot-tested to obtain user input, and their content and form will be revised based on this input. A randomized quasi-experimental design will then be used to assess the impact of the revised tools. Eligible clinics will be randomized to a control group or potential intervention group; clinics will be recruited from the potential intervention group in random order until 6 are enrolled in the study. Intervention clinics will have access to the CDS tools in their EHR, will receive minimal implementation support, and will be followed for 18 months to evaluate tool adoption and the impact of tool use on patient blood pressure and glucose control.
ResultsThis study was funded in January 2020 by the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities of the National Institutes of Health. Formative activities will take place from April 2020 to July 2021, the CDS tools will be developed between May 2021 and November 2022, the pilot study will be conducted from August 2021 to July 2022, and the main trial will occur from December 2022 to May 2024. Study data will be analyzed, and the results will be disseminated in 2024.
ConclusionsPatientsâ social risk information must be presented to care teams in a way that facilitates social riskâinformed care. To our knowledge, this study is the first to develop and test EHR-embedded CDS tools designed to support the provision of social riskâinformed care. The study results will add a needed understanding of how to use social risk data to improve health outcomes and reduce disparities.
International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)PRR1-10.2196/3173
Cardiovascular care guideline implementation in community health centers in Oregon: a mixed-methods analysis of real-world barriers and challenges
Abstract Background Spreading effective, guideline-based cardioprotective care quality improvement strategies between healthcare settings could yield great benefits, particularly in under-resourced contexts. Understanding the diverse factors facilitating or impeding such guideline implementation could improve cardiovascular care quality and outcomes for vulnerable patients. Methods We sought to identify multi-level factors affecting uptake of cardioprotective care guidelines in community health centers (CHCs), within a successful trial of cross-setting implementation of an effective intervention. Quantitative analyses used multivariable logistic regression to examine in-person patient encounters at 10 CHCs from June 2011-May 2014. At these encounters, a point-of-care alert flagged adults with diabetes who were clinically indicated for, but not currently prescribed, cardioprotective medications. The main outcome measure was the rate of relevant prescriptions issued within two days of encounters. Qualitative analyses focused on CHC providers and staff, and, guided by the constant comparative method, were used to enhance understanding of the factors that influenced this prescribing. Results Recommended prescribing occurred at 13â16% of encounters with patients who were indicated for such prescribing. The odds of this prescribing were higher when the patient was male, had HbA1c âĽ7, was previously prescribed a similar medication, gave diabetes as the chief complaint, saw a mid-level practitioner, or saw their primary care provider. The odds were lower when the patient was insured, had âĽ1 clinic visits in the past year, had kidney disease, or was prescribed certain other medications. Additional factors were associated with prescribing of each medication class. Qualitative results both supported and challenged the quantitative findings, illustrating important tensions involved in guideline-based prescribing. Clinic staff stressed the importance of the provider-patient relationship in guiding prescribing decisions in the face of competing priorities and care needs, and the impact of rapidly changing guidelines. Conclusions Diverse factors associated with guideline-concordant prescribing illuminate the complexity of delivering evidence-based care in CHCs. We present possible strategies for addressing barriers to guideline-based prescribing. Clinical trials registration This trial was registered retrospectively. Currently Controlled Trials NCT02299791 . Retrospectively registered 10 November 2014