Healthcare provider perspectives on emergency department-initiated buprenorphine/naloxone: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Take-home buprenorphine/naloxone is an effective method of initiating opioid agonist therapy in the Emergency Department (ED) that requires ED healthcare worker buy-in for large-scale implementation. We aimed to investigate healthcare workers perceptions of ED take-home buprenorphine/naloxone, as well as barriers and facilitators from an ED healthcare worker perspective. METHODS: In the context of a take-home buprenorphine/naloxone feasibility study at a tertiary care teaching hospital we conducted a descriptive qualitative study. We conducted one-on-one in person or telephone interviews and focus groups with ED healthcare workers who cared for patients given take-home buprenorphine/naloxone in the feasibility study at Vancouver General Hospital from July 2019 to March 2020. We conducted 37 healthcare worker interviews from December 2019 to July 2020. We audio recorded interviews and focus groups and transcribed them verbatim. We completed interviews until we reached thematic saturation. DATA ANALYSIS: We inductively coded a sample of transcripts to generate a provisional coding structure and to identify emerging themes, which were reviewed by our multidisciplinary team. We then used the final coding structure to analyze the transcripts. We present our findings descriptively. RESULTS: Participants identified a number of context-specific facilitators and barriers to take-home buprenorphine/naloxone provision in the ED. Participants highlighted ED conditions having either facilitative or prohibitive effects: provision of buprenorphine/naloxone was feasible when ED volume was low and space was available but became less so as ED volume increased and space decreased. Similarly, participants noted that patient-related factors could have a facilitative or prohibitive effect, such as willingness to wait (willing to stay in the ED for study-related activities and buprenorphine/naloxone initiation activities), receptiveness to buprenorphine/naloxone, and comprehension of the instructions. As for staff-related factors, time was identified as a consistent barrier. Time included time available and time required to initiate buprenorphine/naloxone (including time building rapport). Healthcare worker familiarity with buprenorphine/naloxone was noted as either a facilitating factor or a barrier, and healthcare workers indicated that ongoing training would have been advantageous. Many healthcare workers identified that the ED is an important first point of contact for the target patient population. CONCLUSION: Integrating a buprenorphine/naloxone program into ED care requires organizational supports (e.g., for managing buprenorphine/naloxone within limitations of ED volume, space, and time), and ongoing education of healthcare workers to minimize identified barriers.

Research recruitment and consent methods in a pandemic: a qualitative study of COVID-19 patients' perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Virtual data collection methods and consent procedures adopted in response to the COVID-19 pandemic enabled continued research activities, but also introduced concerns about equity, inclusivity, representation, and privacy. Recent studies have explored these issues from institutional and researcher perspectives, but there is a need to explore patient perspectives and preferences. This study aims to explore COVID-19 patients' perspectives about research recruitment and consent for research studies about COVID-19. METHODS: We conducted an exploratory qualitative focus group and interview study among British Columbian adults who self-identified as having had COVID-19. We recruited participants through personal contacts, social media, and REACH BC, an online platform that connects researchers and patients in British Columbia. We analyzed transcripts inductively and developed thematic summaries of each coding element. RESULTS: Of the 22 individuals recruited, 16 attended a focus group or interview. We found that autonomy and the feasibility of participation, attitudes toward research about COVID-19, and privacy concerns are key factors that influence participants' willingness to participate in research. We also found that participants preferred remote and virtual approaches for contact, consent, and delivery of research on COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals who had COVID-19 are motivated to participate in research studies and value autonomy in their decision to participate, but researchers must be sensitive and considerate toward patient preferences and concerns, particularly as researchers adopt virtual recruitment and data collection methods. Such awareness may increase research participation and engagement.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, many research groups started conducting research activities virtually. In this study, we invited individuals who had COVID-19 to share their views about how researchers recruit patients and get their consent to participate in studies about COVID-19. Through interviews and focus groups, we found that British Columbians who had COVID-19 are motivated to participate in COVID-related studies, as long as researchers maintain usual precautions around data privacy and accommodate preferences for participation. Future studies may use these patient perspectives to make informed decisions that will increase and support patient recruitment, consent and retention in research studies.

Patient Perspectives on Health Data Privacy and Implications for Adverse Drug Event Documentation and Communication: Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Adverse drug events are unintended and harmful effects of medication use. Using existing information and communication technologies (ICTs) to increase information sharing about adverse drug events may improve patient care but can introduce concerns about data privacy. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine the views of patients and their caregivers about data protection when using ICTs to communicate adverse drug event information to improve patient safety. METHODS: We conducted an exploratory qualitative study. A total of 4 focus groups were held among patients who had experienced or were at risk of experiencing an adverse drug event, their family members, and their caregivers. We recruited participants through multiple avenues and iteratively analyzed the data using situational analysis. RESULTS: Of the 47 participants recruited, 28 attended our focus groups. We identified 3 primary themes. First, participants felt that improved information sharing about adverse drug events within their circle of care would likely improve care. Second, participants were concerned about data handling and inappropriate access but believed that the benefits of information sharing outweighed the risks of privacy breaches. Finally, participants were more concerned about data privacy in the context of stigmatized health conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Current conditions for maintaining health data privacy are consistent with participants' preferences, despite the fact that health data are susceptible to breaches and mismanagement. Information sharing that increases patient safety may justify potential privacy risks. Greater attention to patient concerns and the effect of social and contextual concerns in the design and implementation of health information technologies may increase patient confidence in the privacy of their information.

The Utility of Different Data Standards to Document Adverse Drug Event Symptoms and Diagnoses: Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: Existing systems to document adverse drug events often use free text data entry, which produces nonstandardized and unstructured data that are prone to misinterpretation. Standardized terminology may improve data quality; however, it is unclear which data standard is most appropriate for documenting adverse drug event symptoms and diagnoses. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to compare the utility, strengths, and weaknesses of different data standards for documenting adverse drug event symptoms and diagnoses. METHODS: We performed a mixed methods substudy of a multicenter retrospective chart review. We reviewed the research records of prospectively diagnosed adverse drug events at 5 Canadian hospitals. A total of 2 pharmacy research assistants independently entered the symptoms and diagnoses for the adverse drug events using four standards: Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA), Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine (SNOMED) Clinical Terms, SNOMED Adverse Reaction (SNOMED ADR), and International Classification of Diseases (ICD) 11th Revision. Disagreements between research assistants regarding the case-specific utility of data standards were discussed until a consensus was reached. We used consensus ratings to determine the proportion of adverse drug events covered by a data standard and coded and analyzed field notes from the consensus sessions. RESULTS: We reviewed 573 adverse drug events and found that MedDRA and ICD-11 had excellent coverage of adverse drug event symptoms and diagnoses. MedDRA had the highest number of matches between the research assistants, whereas ICD-11 had the fewest. SNOMED ADR had the lowest proportion of adverse drug event coverage. The research assistants were most likely to encounter terminological challenges with SNOMED ADR and usability challenges with ICD-11, whereas least likely to encounter challenges with MedDRA. CONCLUSIONS: Usability, comprehensiveness, and accuracy are important features of data standards for documenting adverse drug event symptoms and diagnoses. On the basis of our results, we recommend the use of MedDRA.

Organizational implications of implementing a new adverse drug event reporting system for care providers and integrating it with provincial health information systems.

Cross-sector collaborations between academia, government, and private industry, known as Triple Helix configurations, are increasingly common. In the health Information Technology (IT) sector, such configurations often also include health delivery organizations where technology is implemented and used. The complexity of collaborating within and between multiple organizations can present hurdles for innovators that are seldom discussed in the literature. We outline challenges we encountered in cross-sector collaboration and offer some guiding principles for decision-makers, academics, industry partners, and health delivery organizations to successfully negotiate divergent approaches to innovation and implementation. We discuss an innovative project that aims to implement a researcher-designed adverse drug event reporting system into clinical care and integrate it with provincial and health authority IT systems. Based on our experience, implementing an interoperable health IT system must extend beyond technical integration to encompass meaningful stakeholder engagement to ensure utility for end-users and beneficial impact for participating organizations.

Adverse drug event reporting systems: a systematic review.

AIM: Adverse drug events (ADEs) are harmful and unintended consequences of medications. Their reporting is essential for drug safety monitoring and research, but it has not been standardized internationally. Our aim was to synthesize information about the type and variety of data collected within ADE reporting systems. METHODS: We developed a systematic search strategy, applied it to four electronic databases, and completed an electronic grey literature search. Two authors reviewed titles and abstracts, and all eligible full-texts. We extracted data using a standardized form, and discussed disagreements until reaching consensus. We synthesized data by collapsing data elements, eliminating duplicate fields and identifying relationships between reporting concepts and data fields using visual analysis software. RESULTS: We identified 108 ADE reporting systems containing 1782 unique data fields. We mapped them to 33 reporting concepts describing patient information, the ADE, concomitant and suspect drugs, and the reporter. While reporting concepts were fairly consistent, we found variability in data fields and corresponding response options. Few systems clarified the terminology used, and many used multiple drug and disease dictionaries such as the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA). CONCLUSION: We found substantial variability in the data fields used to report ADEs, limiting the comparability of ADE data collected using different reporting systems, and undermining efforts to aggregate data across cohorts. The development of a common standardized data set that can be evaluated with regard to data quality, comparability and reporting rates is likely to optimize ADE data and drug safety surveillance.

Characterizing and Comparing Adverse Drug Events Documented in 2 Spontaneous Reporting Systems in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, Canada: Retrospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Robust adverse drug event (ADE) reporting systems are crucial to monitor and identify drug safety signals, but the quantity and type of ADEs captured may vary by system characteristics. OBJECTIVE: We compared ADEs reported in 2 different reporting systems in the same jurisdictions, the Patient Safety and Learning System-Adverse Drug Reaction (PSLS-ADR) and ActionADE, to understand report variation. METHODS: This retrospective observational study analyzed reports entered into PSLS-ADR and ActionADE systems between December 1, 2019, and December 31, 2022. We conducted a comprehensive analysis including all events from both reporting systems to examine coverage and usage and understand the types of events captured in both systems. We calculated descriptive statistics for reporting facility type, patient demographics, serious events, and most reported drugs. We conducted a subanalysis focused on adverse drug reactions to enable direct comparisons between systems in terms of the volume and events reported. We stratified results by reporting system. RESULTS: We performed the comprehensive analysis on 3248 ADE reports, of which 12.4% (375/3035) were reported in PSLS-ADR and 87.6% (2660/3035) were reported in ActionADE. Distribution of all events and serious events varied slightly between the 2 systems. Iohexol, gadobutrol, and empagliflozin were the most common culprit drugs (173/375, 46.2%) in PSLS-ADR, while hydrochlorothiazide, apixaban, and ramipril (308/2660, 11.6%) were common in ActionADE. We included 2728 reports in the subanalysis of adverse drug reactions, of which 12.9% (353/2728) were reported in PSLS-ADR and 86.4% (2357/2728) were reported in ActionADE. ActionADE captured 4- to 6-fold more comparable events than PSLS-ADR over this study's period. CONCLUSIONS: User-friendly and robust reporting systems are vital for pharmacovigilance and patient safety. This study highlights substantial differences in ADE data that were generated by different reporting systems. Understanding system factors that lead to varying reporting patterns can enhance ADE monitoring and should be taken into account when evaluating drug safety signals.

Sharing Adverse Drug Event Reports Between Hospitals and Community Pharmacists to Inform Re-dispensing: An Analysis of Reports and Process Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Adverse drug events (ADEs) are a leading cause of unplanned hospital visits. We designed ActionADE, an online ADE reporting platform, and integrated it with PharmaNet, British Columbia's (BC's) provincial medication dispensing system, to overcome identified barriers in ADE reporting and communicate ADEs to community pharmacies. Our objectives were to characterise ADEs reported in ActionADE, explore associations between patients' age, sex and ADE characteristics, and estimate the re-dispensation rate of culprit medications in community pharmacies. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study of ADE reporting in four BC hospitals between April 1, 2020 and October 31, 2022. We described the characteristics of ADEs reported into ActionADE, used logistic regression modelling to examine associations between age and sex and ADE characteristics, and calculated rates of avoided culprit drug re-dispensations using community pharmacists' responses to ActionADE alerts. RESULTS: In total, 3591 ADE reports were initiated by hospital clinicians, 3174 of which were included in this analysis. Serious or life-threatening ADEs resulting in permanent disability, hospitalisation, extended hospitalisation, and/or death accounted for 28.5% (906/3174; 95% CI 27.0-30.1%) of reports. Males were more likely to have non-adherence reported compared to females and experienced life threatening ADEs at a younger age than females. Of 592 patients who had ≥ 1 adverse drug reaction or allergy report (a subset of ADEs) transmitted to community pharmacies, 200 subsequently attempted to re-fill the culprit or a same class drug. Community pharmacists responded to preventative alerts by avoiding re-dispensation in 33.0% (66/200; 95% CI 26.5-39.5%). INTERPRETATION: ActionADE is the first interoperable system that communicates ADEs via a central medication database to community pharmacies. Every 10th ADE reported in ActionADE and shared to PharmaNet resulted in community pharmacists' avoiding one culprit or same class drug re-exposure. Further research is needed to understand ActionADE's impact on patient and health system outcomes.

An external facilitation intervention to increase uptake of an adverse drug event reporting intervention.

Background: Adverse drug events (ADEs) are a leading cause of emergency department visits and hospital admissions in Canada. ActionADE prevents repeat ADEs by enabling clinicians to document and communicate standardized ADE information across care settings. We used an external facilitation intervention to promote the uptake of ActionADE in four hospitals in British Columbia, Canada. This study examined whether, how and in what context external facilitation influenced the uptake of ActionADE. Methods: In this convergent-parallel mixed-methods study, an external facilitator used a four-step iterative process to support site champions using context-specific implementation strategies to increase the ADE reporting rate at their sites. We extracted archival data to assess implementation determinants before and after the implementation of the external facilitation and implementation strategies. We also retrieved data on the mean monthly counts of reported ADEs for each user from the ActionADE server. Zero-inflated Poisson models were used to examine changes in mean monthly counts of reported ADEs per user between pre-intervention (June 2021 to October 2021) and intervention (November 2021 to March 2022) periods. Results: The external facilitator and site champions co-created three functions: (1) educate pharmacists about what and how to report in ActionADE, (2) educate pharmacists about the impact of ActionADE on patient outcomes, and (3) provide social support for pharmacists to integrate ADE reporting into clinical workflows. Site champions used eight forms to address the three functions. Peer support and reporting competition were the two common strategies used by all sites. Sites' responses to external facilitation varied. The rate of mean monthly counts of reported ADEs per user significantly increased during the intervention period compared to the pre-intervention period at LGH (RR: 3.74, 95% CI 2.78 to 5.01) and RH (RR: 1.43, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.94), but did not change at SPH (RR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.43 to 1.09) and VGH (RR: 1.17, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.49). Leave of absence of the clinical pharmacist champion and failure to address all identified functions were implementation determinants that influenced the effectiveness of external facilitation. Conclusion: External facilitation effectively supported researchers and stakeholders to co-create context-specific implementation strategies. It increased ADE reporting at sites where clinical pharmacist champions were available, and where all functions were addressed.

Beliefs and perceptions of patient safety event reporting in a Canadian Emergency Department: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Patient safety events (PSEs) are unwanted or unexpected events that occur during medical care. High cognitive loads and frequent interruptions make emergency departments (EDs) uniquely error prone environments. Yet, frontline clinicians rarely report PSEs using incident reporting systems. The incidence, severity, and preventability of PSEs thus remain poorly understood, and contributing factors are understudied. We sought to understand ED staff beliefs and perceptions about their PSE reporting system and what features they believe are important in such a system. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study among healthcare providers working in the ED and departmental leadership. We recruited participants via email and held a series of interviews, focus groups, and participatory workshops. We iteratively analyzed the data using the constant comparative method and used thematic analysis to establish themes. RESULTS: 50 participants attended at least one focus group, interview, or workshop. Participants perceived that PSE reporting through formal channels in the ED was challenging. Clinicians had an inherent desire to report PSEs and do so through numerous informal channels, yet underreported in formal reporting systems. The current PSE reporting system did not meet frontline staff needs and was viewed as ineffective in improving care quality and safety. We identified three key features for an improved PSE reporting system: (1) clear definitions; (2) transparency; and (3) simplicity. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we have identified ideal features for PSE reporting processes to meet the needs of both frontline staff and departmental leadership based on perceptions of current PSE reporting practices. Improved PSE reporting processes have the potential to increase PSE reporting in the ED overall, increasing the availability of information about PSEs to support quality improvement and improve patient safety.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIFS: Les événements liés à la sécurité des patients (ESP) sont des événements non désirés ou inattendus qui se produisent pendant les soins médicaux. La charge cognitive élevée et les interruptions fréquentes font des services d'urgence des environnements particulièrement propices aux erreurs. Pourtant, les cliniciens de première ligne signalent rarement les ESP à l'aide des systèmes de déclaration des incidents. L'incidence, la gravité et le caractère évitable des ESP restent donc mal compris, et les facteurs contributifs sont peu étudiés. Nous avons cherché à comprendre les croyances et les perceptions du personnel des services d'urgence à l'égard de leur système de déclaration des ESP et les caractéristiques qu'ils jugent importantes dans un tel système. MéTHODES: Nous avons mené une étude qualitative auprès des prestataires de soins de santé travaillant aux urgences et de la direction du service. Nous avons recruté des participants par courrier électronique et organisé une série d'entretiens, de groupes de discussion et d'ateliers participatifs. Nous avons analysé les données de manière itérative en utilisant la méthode comparative constante et avons utilisé l'analyse thématique pour établir des thèmes. RéSULTATS: 50 participants ont assisté à au moins un groupe de discussion, une entrevue ou un atelier. Les participants estiment qu'il est difficile de rendre compte de l'ESP par les voies officielles au sein de l'urgence. Les cliniciens avaient un désir inhérent de signaler les ESP et le faisaient par de nombreuses voies informelles, mais ils étaient sous-déclarés dans les systèmes de déclaration officiels. Le système actuel de déclaration des ESP ne répondait pas aux besoins du personnel de première ligne et était considéré comme inefficace pour améliorer la qualité et la sécurité des soins. Nous avons identifié trois caractéristiques clés pour un système amélioré de rapports sur les ESP : (1) des définitions claires ; (2) la transparence ; et (3) la simplicité. CONCLUSIONS: Dans cette étude, nous avons identifié les caractéristiques idéales des processus de déclaration des ESP afin de répondre aux besoins du personnel de première ligne et de la direction du département, en fonction des perceptions des pratiques actuelles de déclaration des ESP. L'amélioration des processus de déclaration des ESP a le potentiel d'accroître la déclaration des ESP dans les urgences en général, augmentant ainsi la disponibilité des informations sur les ESP pour soutenir l'amélioration de la qualité et améliorer la sécurité des patients.

Adverse Drug Event Reporting From Clinical Care: Mixed-Methods Analysis for a Minimum Required Dataset.

BACKGROUND: Patients commonly transition between health care settings, requiring care providers to transfer medication utilization information. Yet, information sharing about adverse drug events (ADEs) remains nonstandardized. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to describe a minimum required dataset for clinicians to document and communicate ADEs to support clinical decision making and improve patient safety. METHODS: We used mixed-methods analysis to design a minimum required dataset for ADE documentation and communication. First, we completed a systematic review of the existing ADE reporting systems. After synthesizing reporting concepts and data fields, we conducted fieldwork to inform the design of a preliminary reporting form. We presented this information to clinician end-user groups to establish a recommended dataset. Finally, we pilot-tested and refined the dataset in a paper-based format. RESULTS: We evaluated a total of 1782 unique data fields identified in our systematic review that describe the reporter, patient, ADE, and suspect and concomitant drugs. Of these, clinicians requested that 26 data fields be integrated into the dataset. Avoiding the need to report information already available electronically, reliance on prospective rather than retrospective causality assessments, and omitting fields deemed irrelevant to clinical care were key considerations. CONCLUSIONS: By attending to the information needs of clinicians, we developed a standardized dataset for adverse drug event reporting. This dataset can be used to support communication between care providers and integrated into electronic systems to improve patient safety. If anonymized, these standardized data may be used for enhanced pharmacovigilance and research activities.

Why Clinicians Don't Report Adverse Drug Events: Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Adverse drug events are unintended and harmful events related to medications. Adverse drug events are important for patient care, quality improvement, drug safety research, and postmarketing surveillance, but they are vastly underreported. OBJECTIVE: Our objectives were to identify barriers to adverse drug event documentation and factors contributing to underreporting. METHODS: This qualitative study was conducted in 1 ambulatory center, and the emergency departments and inpatient wards of 3 acute care hospitals in British Columbia between March 2014 and December 2016. We completed workplace observations and focus groups with general practitioners, hospitalists, emergency physicians, and hospital and community pharmacists. We analyzed field notes by coding and iteratively analyzing our data to identify emerging concepts, generate thematic and event summaries, and create workflow diagrams. Clinicians validated emerging concepts by applying them to cases from their clinical practice. RESULTS: We completed 238 hours of observations during which clinicians investigated 65 suspect adverse drug events. The observed events were often complex and diagnosed over time, requiring the input of multiple providers. Providers documented adverse drug events in charts to support continuity of care but never reported them to external agencies. Providers faced time constraints, and reporting would have required duplication of documentation. CONCLUSIONS: Existing reporting systems are not suited to capture the complex nature of adverse drug events or adapted to workflow and are simply not used by frontline clinicians. Systems that are integrated into electronic medical records, make use of existing data to avoid duplication of documentation, and generate alerts to improve safety may address the shortcomings of existing systems and generate robust adverse drug event data as a by-product of safer care.

Patient Perceptions About Data Sharing & Privacy: Insights from ActionADE.

Information communication technologies (ICTs) may improve health delivery by enhancing informational continuity of care and enabling secondary use of health data including public health surveillance and research. ICTs also introduce concerns related to privacy. In this paper, we examine and address this tension in the context of the development and implementation of a novel platform that will enable the documentation and communication of patient-specific ADE information, titled ActionADE. We explored privacy concerns qualitatively from the perspective of patients. Our findings will inform a series of recommendations for system design that seek to balance the need to both share and protect personal health information.

Designing an Adverse Drug Event Reporting System to Prevent Unintentional Reexposures to Harmful Drugs: Study Protocol for a Multiple Methods Design.

BACKGROUND: Adverse drug events (ADEs) are unintended and harmful events related to medication use. Up to 30% of serious ADEs recur within six months because culprit drugs are unintentionally represcribed and redispensed. Improving the electronic communication of ADE information between care providers, and across care settings, has the potential to reduce recurrent ADEs. OBJECTIVE: We aim to describe the methods used to design Action ADE, a novel electronic ADE reporting system that can be leveraged to prevent unintentional reexposures to harmful drugs in British Columbia, Canada. METHODS: To develop the new system, our team will use action research and participatory design, approaches that employ social scientific research methods and practitioner participation to generate insights into work settings and problem resolution. We will develop a systematic search strategy to review existing ADE reporting systems identified in academic and grey literature, and analyze the content of these systems to identify core data fields used to communicate ADE information. We will observe care providers in the emergency departments and on the wards of two urban tertiary hospitals and one urban community hospital, in one rural ambulatory care center, and in three community pharmacies in British Columbia, Canada. We will also conduct participatory workshops with providers to understand their needs and priorities related to communicating ADEs and preventing erroneous represcribing or redispensing of culprit medications. These methods will inform the iterative development of a preliminary paper-based reporting form, which we will then pilot test with providers in a real-world setting. RESULTS: This is an ongoing project with results being published as analyses are completed. The systematic review has been completed; field observations, focus groups, and pilot testing of a preliminary paper-based design are ongoing. Results will inform the development of software that will enable clinically useful user-friendly documentation and communication of ADEs. CONCLUSIONS: We take this approach with the recognition that information technology-based solutions in health care often fall short of expectations as a result of designers' failure to account for organizational and work practice considerations, and the needs of end-users. We describe how integrating qualitative methods into an iterative participatory design process (planned in partnership with end-users) will allow us to address specific clinical needs, conceptualize linkages between systems, integrate the reporting system into clinicians' workflow, and design the system to optimize its uptake into practice.