Barriers to Implementing Registered Nurse-Driven Clinical Decision Support for Antibiotic Stewardship: Retrospective Case Study.

BACKGROUND: Up to 50% of antibiotic prescriptions for upper respiratory infections (URIs) are inappropriate. Clinical decision support (CDS) systems to mitigate unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions have been implemented into electronic health records, but their use by providers has been limited. OBJECTIVE: As a delegation protocol, we adapted a validated electronic health record-integrated clinical prediction rule (iCPR) CDS-based intervention for registered nurses (RNs), consisting of triage to identify patients with low-acuity URI followed by CDS-guided RN visits. It was implemented in February 2022 as a randomized controlled stepped-wedge trial in 43 primary and urgent care practices within 4 academic health systems in New York, Wisconsin, and Utah. While issues were pragmatically addressed as they arose, a systematic assessment of the barriers to implementation is needed to better understand and address these barriers. METHODS: We performed a retrospective case study, collecting quantitative and qualitative data regarding clinical workflows and triage-template use from expert interviews, study surveys, routine check-ins with practice personnel, and chart reviews over the first year of implementation of the iCPR intervention. Guided by the updated CFIR (Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research), we characterized the initial barriers to implementing a URI iCPR intervention for RNs in ambulatory care. CFIR constructs were coded as missing, neutral, weak, or strong implementation factors. RESULTS: Barriers were identified within all implementation domains. The strongest barriers were found in the outer setting, with those factors trickling down to impact the inner setting. Local conditions driven by COVID-19 served as one of the strongest barriers, impacting attitudes among practice staff and ultimately contributing to a work infrastructure characterized by staff changes, RN shortages and turnover, and competing responsibilities. Policies and laws regarding scope of practice of RNs varied by state and institutional application of those laws, with some allowing more clinical autonomy for RNs. This necessitated different study procedures at each study site to meet practice requirements, increasing innovation complexity. Similarly, institutional policies led to varying levels of compatibility with existing triage, rooming, and documentation workflows. These workflow conflicts were compounded by limited available resources, as well as an implementation climate of optional participation, few participation incentives, and thus low relative priority compared to other clinical duties. CONCLUSIONS: Both between and within health care systems, significant variability existed in workflows for patient intake and triage. Even in a relatively straightforward clinical workflow, workflow and cultural differences appreciably impacted intervention adoption. Takeaways from this study can be applied to other RN delegation protocol implementations of new and innovative CDS tools within existing workflows to support integration and improve uptake. When implementing a system-wide clinical care intervention, considerations must be made for variability in culture and workflows at the state, health system, practice, and individual levels. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04255303; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04255303.

Reducing prescribing of antibiotics for acute respiratory infections using a frontline nurse-led EHR-Integrated clinical decision support tool: protocol for a stepped wedge randomized control trial.

BACKGROUND: Overprescribing of antibiotics for acute respiratory infections (ARIs) remains a major issue in outpatient settings. Use of clinical prediction rules (CPRs) can reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing but they remain underutilized by physicians and advanced practice providers. A registered nurse (RN)-led model of an electronic health record-integrated CPR (iCPR) for low-acuity ARIs may be an effective alternative to address the barriers to a physician-driven model. METHODS: Following qualitative usability testing, we will conduct a stepped-wedge practice-level cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) examining the effect of iCPR-guided RN care for low acuity patients with ARI. The primary hypothesis to be tested is: Implementation of RN-led iCPR tools will reduce antibiotic prescribing across diverse primary care settings. Specifically, this study aims to: (1) determine the impact of iCPRs on rapid strep test and chest x-ray ordering and antibiotic prescribing rates when used by RNs; (2) examine resource use patterns and cost-effectiveness of RN visits across diverse clinical settings; (3) determine the impact of iCPR-guided care on patient satisfaction; and (4) ascertain the effect of the intervention on RN and physician burnout. DISCUSSION: This study represents an innovative approach to using an iCPR model led by RNs and specifically designed to address inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. This study has the potential to provide guidance on the effectiveness of delegating care of low-acuity patients with ARIs to RNs to increase use of iCPRs and reduce antibiotic overprescribing for ARIs in outpatient settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04255303, Registered February 5 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04255303 .

Disseminating child abuse clinical decision support among commercial electronic health records: Effects on clinical practice.

Objectives: The use of electronic health record (EHR)-embedded child abuse clinical decision support (CA-CDS) may help decrease morbidity from child maltreatment. We previously reported on the development of CA-CDS in Epic and Allscripts. The objective of this study was to implement CA-CDS into Epic and Allscripts and determine its effects on identification, evaluation, and reporting of suspected child maltreatment. Materials and Methods: After a preimplementation period, CA-CDS was implemented at University of Wisconsin (Epic) and Northwell Health (Allscripts). Providers were surveyed before the go-live and 4 months later. Outcomes included the proportion of children who triggered the CA-CDS system, had a positive Child Abuse Screen (CAS) and/or were reported to Child Protective Services (CPS). Results: At University of Wisconsin (UW), 3.5% of children in the implementation period triggered the system. The CAS was positive in 1.8% of children. The proportion of children reported to CPS increased from 0.6% to 0.9%. There was rapid uptake of the abuse order set.At Northwell Health (NW), 1.9% of children in the implementation period triggered the system. The CAS was positive in 1% of children. The child abuse order set was rarely used. Preimplementation, providers at both sites were similar in desire to have CA-CDS system and perception of CDS in general. After implementation, UW providers had a positive perception of the CA-CDS system, while NW providers had a negative perception. Discussion: CA-CDS was able to be implemented in 2 different EHRs with differing effects on clinical care and provider feedback. At UW, the site with higher uptake of the CA-CDS system, the proportion of children who triggered the system and the rate of positive CAS was similar to previous studies and there was an increase in the proportion of cases of suspected abuse identified as measured by reports to CPS. Our data demonstrate how local environment, end-users' opinions, and limitations in the EHR platform can impact the success of implementation. Conclusions: When disseminating CA-CDS into different hospital systems and different EHRs, it is critical to recognize how limitations in the functionality of the EHR can impact the success of implementation. The importance of collecting, interpreting, and responding to provider feedback is of critical importance particularly with CDS related to child maltreatment.

Clinician Attitudes and Beliefs Associated with More Aggressive Diagnostic Testing.

BACKGROUND: Variation in clinicians' diagnostic test utilization is incompletely explained by demographics and likely relates to cognitive characteristics. We explored clinician factors associated with diagnostic test utilization. METHODS: We used a self-administered survey of attitudes, cognitive characteristics, and reported likelihood of test ordering in common scenarios; frequency of lipid and liver testing in patients on statin therapy. Participants were 552 primary care physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants from practices in 8 US states across 3 regions, from June 1, 2018 to November 26, 2019. We measured Testing Likelihood Score: the mean of 4 responses to testing frequency and self-reported testing frequency in patients on statins. RESULTS: Respondents were 52.4% residents, 36.6% attendings, and 11.0% nurse practitioners/physician assistants; most were white (53.6%) or Asian (25.5%). Median age was 32 years; 53.1% were female. Participants reported ordering tests for a median of 20% (stress tests) to 90% (mammograms) of patients; Testing Likelihood Scores varied widely (median 54%, interquartile range 43%-69%). Higher scores were associated with geography, training type, low numeracy, high malpractice fear, high medical maximizer score, high stress from uncertainty, high concern about bad outcomes, and low acknowledgment of medical uncertainty. More frequent testing of lipids and liver tests was associated with low numeracy, high medical maximizer score, high malpractice fear, and low acknowledgment of uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: Clinician variation in testing was common, with more aggressive testing consistently associated with low numeracy, being a medical maximizer, and low acknowledgment of uncertainty. Efforts to reduce undue variations in testing should consider clinician cognitive drivers.

Dissemination of child abuse clinical decision support: Moving beyond a single electronic health record.

BACKGROUND: Child maltreatment is a leading cause of pediatric morbidity and mortality. We previously reported on development and implementation of a child abuse clinical decision support system (CA-CDSS) in the Cerner electronic health record (EHR). Our objective was to develop a CA-CDSS in two different EHRs. METHODS: Using the CA-CDSS in Cerner as a template, CA-CDSSs were developed for use in four hospitals in the Northwell Health system who use Allscripts and two hospitals in the University of Wisconsin health system who use Epic. Each system had a combination of triggers, alerts and child abuse-specific order sets. Usability evaluation was done prior to launch of the CA-CDSS. RESULTS: Over an 18-month period, a CA-CDSS was embedded into Epic and Allscripts at two hospital systems. The CA-CDSSs vary significantly from each other in terms of the type of triggers which were able to be used, the type of alert, the ability of the alert to link directly to child abuse-specific order sets and the order sets themselves. CONCLUSIONS: Dissemination of CA-CDSS from one EHR into the EHR in other health care systems is possible but time-consuming and needs to be adapted to the strengths and limitations of the specific EHR. Site-specific usability evaluation, buy-in of multiple stakeholder groups and significant information technology support are needed. These barriers limit scalability and widespread dissemination of CA-CDSS.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Nosebleed (Epistaxis).

OBJECTIVE: Nosebleed, also known as epistaxis, is a common problem that occurs at some point in at least 60% of people in the United States. While the majority of nosebleeds are limited in severity and duration, about 6% of people who experience nosebleeds will seek medical attention. For the purposes of this guideline, we define the target patient with a nosebleed as a patient with bleeding from the nostril, nasal cavity, or nasopharynx that is sufficient to warrant medical advice or care. This includes bleeding that is severe, persistent, and/or recurrent, as well as bleeding that impacts a patient's quality of life. Interventions for nosebleeds range from self-treatment and home remedies to more intensive procedural interventions in medical offices, emergency departments, hospitals, and operating rooms. Epistaxis has been estimated to account for 0.5% of all emergency department visits and up to one-third of all otolaryngology-related emergency department encounters. Inpatient hospitalization for aggressive treatment of severe nosebleeds has been reported in 0.2% of patients with nosebleeds. PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this multidisciplinary guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities in the management of nosebleeds and to create clear and actionable recommendations to implement these opportunities in clinical practice. Specific goals of this guideline are to promote best practices, reduce unjustified variations in care of patients with nosebleeds, improve health outcomes, and minimize the potential harms of nosebleeds or interventions to treat nosebleeds. The target patient for the guideline is any individual aged ≥3 years with a nosebleed or history of nosebleed who needs medical treatment or seeks medical advice. The target audience of this guideline is clinicians who evaluate and treat patients with nosebleed. This includes primary care providers such as family medicine physicians, internists, pediatricians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners. It also includes specialists such as emergency medicine providers, otolaryngologists, interventional radiologists/neuroradiologists and neurointerventionalists, hematologists, and cardiologists. The setting for this guideline includes any site of evaluation and treatment for a patient with nosebleed, including ambulatory medical sites, the emergency department, the inpatient hospital, and even remote outpatient encounters with phone calls and telemedicine. Outcomes to be considered for patients with nosebleed include control of acute bleeding, prevention of recurrent episodes of nasal bleeding, complications of treatment modalities, and accuracy of diagnostic measures. This guideline addresses the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of nosebleed. It focuses on nosebleeds that commonly present to clinicians via phone calls, office visits, and emergency room encounters. This guideline discusses first-line treatments such as nasal compression, application of vasoconstrictors, nasal packing, and nasal cautery. It also addresses more complex epistaxis management, which includes the use of endoscopic arterial ligation and interventional radiology procedures. Management options for 2 special groups of patients-patients with hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia syndrome and patients taking medications that inhibit coagulation and/or platelet function-are included in this guideline. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group. It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide for managing patients with nosebleed. In this context, the purpose is to define useful actions for clinicians, generalists, and specialists from a variety of disciplines to improve quality of care. Conversely, the statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients. ACTION STATEMENTS: The guideline development group made recommendations for the following key action statements: (1) At the time of initial contact, the clinician should distinguish the nosebleed patient who requires prompt management from the patient who does not. (2) The clinician should treat active bleeding for patients in need of prompt management with firm sustained compression to the lower third of the nose, with or without the assistance of the patient or caregiver, for 5 minutes or longer. (3a) For patients in whom bleeding precludes identification of a bleeding site despite nasal compression, the clinician should treat ongoing active bleeding with nasal packing. (3b) The clinician should use resorbable packing for patients with a suspected bleeding disorder or for patients who are using anticoagulation or antiplatelet medications. (4) The clinician should educate the patient who undergoes nasal packing about the type of packing placed, timing of and plan for removal of packing (if not resorbable), postprocedure care, and any signs or symptoms that would warrant prompt reassessment. (5) The clinician should document factors that increase the frequency or severity of bleeding for any patient with a nosebleed, including personal or family history of bleeding disorders, use of anticoagulant or antiplatelet medications, or intranasal drug use. (6) The clinician should perform anterior rhinoscopy to identify a source of bleeding after removal of any blood clot (if present) for patients with nosebleeds. (7a) The clinician should perform, or should refer to a clinician who can perform, nasal endoscopy to identify the site of bleeding and guide further management in patients with recurrent nasal bleeding, despite prior treatment with packing or cautery, or with recurrent unilateral nasal bleeding. (8) The clinician should treat patients with an identified site of bleeding with an appropriate intervention, which may include one or more of the following: topical vasoconstrictors, nasal cautery, and moisturizing or lubricating agents. (9) When nasal cautery is chosen for treatment, the clinician should anesthetize the bleeding site and restrict application of cautery only to the active or suspected site(s) of bleeding. (10) The clinician should evaluate, or refer to a clinician who can evaluate, candidacy for surgical arterial ligation or endovascular embolization for patients with persistent or recurrent bleeding not controlled by packing or nasal cauterization. (11) In the absence of life-threatening bleeding, the clinician should initiate first-line treatments prior to transfusion, reversal of anticoagulation, or withdrawal of anticoagulation/antiplatelet medications for patients using these medications. (12) The clinician should assess, or refer to a specialist who can assess, the presence of nasal telangiectasias and/or oral mucosal telangiectasias in patients who have a history of recurrent bilateral nosebleeds or a family history of recurrent nosebleeds to diagnose hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia syndrome. (13) The clinician should educate patients with nosebleeds and their caregivers about preventive measures for nosebleeds, home treatment for nosebleeds, and indications to seek additional medical care. (14) The clinician or designee should document the outcome of intervention within 30 days or document transition of care in patients who had a nosebleed treated with nonresorbable packing, surgery, or arterial ligation/embolization. The policy level for the following recommendation, about examination of the nasal cavity and nasopharynx using nasal endoscopy, was an option: (7b) The clinician may perform, or may refer to a clinician who can perform, nasal endoscopy to examine the nasal cavity and nasopharynx in patients with epistaxis that is difficult to control or when there is concern for unrecognized pathology contributing to epistaxis.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Nosebleed (Epistaxis) Executive Summary.

OBJECTIVE: Nosebleed, also known as epistaxis, is a common problem that occurs at some point in at least 60% of people in the United States. While the great majority of nosebleeds are limited in severity and duration, about 6% of people who experience nosebleeds will seek medical attention. For the purposes of this guideline, we define the target patient with a nosebleed as a patient with bleeding from the nostril, nasal cavity, or nasopharynx that is sufficient to warrant medical advice or care. This includes bleeding that is severe, persistent, and/or recurrent, as well as bleeding that impacts a patient's quality of life. Interventions for nosebleeds range from self-treatment and home remedies to more intensive procedural interventions in medical offices, emergency departments, hospitals, and operating rooms. Epistaxis has been estimated to account for 0.5% of all emergency department visits and up to one-third of all otolaryngology-related emergency department encounters. Inpatient hospitalization for aggressive treatment of severe nosebleeds has been reported in 0.2% of patients with nosebleeds. PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this multidisciplinary guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities in the management of nosebleeds and to create clear and actionable recommendations to implement these opportunities in clinical practice. Specific goals of this guideline are to promote best practices, reduce unjustified variations in care of patients with nosebleeds, improve health outcomes, and minimize the potential harms of nosebleeds or interventions to treat nosebleeds. The target patient for the guideline is any individual aged ≥3 years with a nosebleed or history of nosebleed who needs medical treatment or seeks medical advice. The target audience of this guideline is clinicians who evaluate and treat patients with nosebleed. This includes primary care providers such as family medicine physicians, internists, pediatricians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners. It also includes specialists such as emergency medicine providers, otolaryngologists, interventional radiologists/neuroradiologists and neurointerventionalists, hematologists, and cardiologists. The setting for this guideline includes any site of evaluation and treatment for a patient with nosebleed, including ambulatory medical sites, the emergency department, the inpatient hospital, and even remote outpatient encounters with phone calls and telemedicine. Outcomes to be considered for patients with nosebleed include control of acute bleeding, prevention of recurrent episodes of nasal bleeding, complications of treatment modalities, and accuracy of diagnostic measures. This guideline addresses the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of nosebleed. It will focus on nosebleeds that commonly present to clinicians with phone calls, office visits, and emergency room encounters. This guideline discusses first-line treatments such as nasal compression, application of vasoconstrictors, nasal packing, and nasal cautery. It also addresses more complex epistaxis management, which includes the use of endoscopic arterial ligation and interventional radiology procedures. Management options for 2 special groups of patients, patients with hemorrhagic telangiectasia syndrome (HHT) and patients taking medications that inhibit coagulation and/or platelet function, are included in this guideline. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the working group. It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide for managing patients with nosebleed. In this context, the purpose is to define useful actions for clinicians, generalists, and specialists from a variety of disciplines to improve quality of care. Conversely, the statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based upon their experience and assessment of individual patients. ACTION STATEMENTS: The guideline development group made recommendations for the following key action statements: (1) At the time of initial contact, the clinician should distinguish the nosebleed patient who requires prompt management from the patient who does not. (2) The clinician should treat active bleeding for patients in need of prompt management with firm sustained compression to the lower third of the nose, with or without the assistance of the patient or caregiver, for 5 minutes or longer. (3a) For patients in whom bleeding precludes identification of a bleeding site despite nasal compression, the clinician should treat ongoing active bleeding with nasal packing. (3b) The clinician should use resorbable packing for patients with a suspected bleeding disorder or for patients who are using anticoagulation or antiplatelet medications. (4) The clinician should educate the patient who undergoes nasal packing about the type of packing placed, timing of and plan for removal of packing (if not resorbable), postprocedure care, and any signs or symptoms that would warrant prompt reassessment. (5) The clinician should document factors that increase the frequency or severity of bleeding for any patient with a nosebleed, including personal or family history of bleeding disorders, use of anticoagulant or antiplatelet medications, or intranasal drug use. (6) The clinician should perform anterior rhinoscopy to identify a source of bleeding after removal of any blood clot (if present) for patients with nosebleeds. (7a) The clinician should perform, or should refer to a clinician who can perform, nasal endoscopy to identify the site of bleeding and guide further management in patients with recurrent nasal bleeding, despite prior treatment with packing or cautery, or with recurrent unilateral nasal bleeding. (8) The clinician should treat patients with an identified site of bleeding with an appropriate intervention, which may include 1 or more of the following: topical vasoconstrictors, nasal cautery, and moisturizing or lubricating agents. (9) When nasal cautery is chosen for treatment, the clinician should anesthetize the bleeding site and restrict application of cautery only to the active or suspected site(s) of bleeding. (10) The clinician should evaluate, or refer to a clinician who can evaluate, candidacy for surgical arterial ligation or endovascular embolization for patients with persistent or recurrent bleeding not controlled by packing or nasal cauterization. (11) In the absence of life-threatening bleeding, the clinician should initiate first-line treatments prior to transfusion, reversal of anticoagulation, or withdrawal of anticoagulation/antiplatelet medications for patients using these medications. (12) The clinician should assess, or refer to a specialist who can assess, the presence of nasal telangiectasias and/or oral mucosal telangiectasias in patients who have a history of recurrent bilateral nosebleeds or a family history of recurrent nosebleeds to diagnose hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia syndrome (HHT). (13) The clinician should educate patients with nosebleeds and their caregivers about preventive measures for nosebleeds, home treatment for nosebleeds, and indications to seek additional medical care. (14) The clinician or designee should document the outcome of intervention within 30 days or document transition of care in patients who had a nosebleed treated with nonresorbable packing, surgery, or arterial ligation/embolization. The policy level for the following recommendation about examination of the nasal cavity and nasopharynx using nasal endoscopy was an option: (7b) The clinician may perform, or may refer to a clinician who can perform, nasal endoscopy to examine the nasal cavity and nasopharynx in patients with epistaxis that is difficult to control or when there is concern for unrecognized pathology contributing to epistaxis.

Using normalisation process theory to understand workflow implications of decision support implementation across diverse primary care settings.

BACKGROUND: Effective implementation of technologies into clinical workflow is hampered by lack of integration into daily activities. Normalisation process theory (NPT) can be used to describe the kinds of 'work' necessary to implement and embed complex new practices. We determined the suitability of NPT to assess the facilitators, barriers and 'work' of implementation of two clinical decision support (CDS) tools across diverse care settings. METHODS: We conducted baseline and 6-month follow-up quantitative surveys of clinic leadership at two academic institutions' primary care clinics randomised to the intervention arm of a larger study. The survey was adapted from the NPT toolkit, analysing four implementation domains: sense-making, participation, action, monitoring. Domains were summarised among completed responses (n=60) and examined by role, institution, and time. RESULTS: The median score for each NPT domain was the same across roles and institutions at baseline, and decreased at 6 months. At 6 months, clinic managers' participation domain (p=0.003), and all domains for medical directors (p<0.003) declined. At 6 months, the action domain decreased among Utah respondents (p=0.03), and all domains decreased among Wisconsin respondents (p≤0.008). CONCLUSIONS: This study employed NPT to longitudinally assess the implementation barriers of new CDS. The consistency of results across participant roles suggests similarities in the work each role took on during implementation. The decline in engagement over time suggests the need for more frequent contact to maintain momentum. Using NPT to evaluate this implementation provides insight into domains which can be addressed with participants to improve success of new electronic health record technologies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02534987.

Device and non-device-guided slow breathing to reduce blood pressure: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Interest is increasing in nonpharmacological interventions to treat blood pressure in hypertensive and prehypertensive patients at low cardiac risk. This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials assesses the impact of device-guided and non-device-guided (pranayama) slow breathing on blood pressure reduction in these patient populations. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, BIOSIS (Biological Abstracts) Citation Index and Alt HealthWatch for studies meeting these inclusion criteria: randomized controlled trial or first phase of a randomized cross-over study; subjects with hypertension, prehypertension or on antihypertensive medication; intervention consisting of slow breathing at ≤10 breaths/minute for ≥5 min on ≥3 days/week; total intervention duration of ≥4 weeks; follow-up for ≥4 weeks; and a control group. Data were extracted by two authors independently, the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool assessed bias risk, and data were pooled using the DerSimonian and Laird random effects model. Main outcomes included changes in systolic (SBP) and/or diastolic blood pressure (DBP), heart rate (HR), and/or decreased antihypertensive medication. RESULTS: Of 103 citations eligible for full-text review, 17 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, slow breathing decreased SBP by -5.62 mmHg [-7.86, -3.38] and DBP by -2.97 mmHg [-4.28, -1.66]. Heterogeneity was high for all analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Slow breathing showed a modest reduction in blood pressure. It may be a reasonable first treatment for low-risk hypertensive and prehypertensive patients who are reluctant to start medication.

Adaptive design of a clinical decision support tool: What the impact on utilization rates means for future CDS research.

OBJECTIVE: We employed an agile, user-centered approach to the design of a clinical decision support tool in our prior integrated clinical prediction rule study, which achieved high adoption rates. To understand if applying this user-centered process to adapt clinical decision support tools is effective in improving the use of clinical prediction rules, we examined utilization rates of a clinical decision support tool adapted from the original integrated clinical prediction rule study tool to determine if applying this user-centered process to design yields enhanced utilization rates similar to the integrated clinical prediction rule study.MATERIALS & METHODS: We conducted pre-deployment usability testing and semi-structured group interviews at 6 months post-deployment with 75 providers at 14 intervention clinics across the two sites to collect user feedback. Qualitative data analysis is bifurcated into immediate and delayed stages; we reported on immediate-stage findings from real-time field notes used to generate a set of rapid, pragmatic recommendations for iterative refinement. Monthly utilization rates were calculated and examined over 12 months. RESULTS: We hypothesized a well-validated, user-centered clinical decision support tool would lead to relatively high adoption rates. Then 6 months post-deployment, integrated clinical prediction rule study tool utilization rates were substantially lower than anticipated based on the original integrated clinical prediction rule study trial (68%) at 17% (Health System A) and 5% (Health System B). User feedback at 6 months resulted in recommendations for tool refinement, which were incorporated when possible into tool design; however, utilization rates at 12 months post-deployment remained low at 14% and 4% respectively. DISCUSSION: Although valuable, findings demonstrate the limitations of a user-centered approach given the complexity of clinical decision support. CONCLUSION: Strategies for addressing persistent external factors impacting clinical decision support adoption should be considered in addition to the user-centered design and implementation of clinical decision support.

Cancer Survivorship Care Plan Utilization and Impact on Clinical Decision-Making at Point-of-Care Visits with Primary Care: Results from an Engineering, Primary Care, and Oncology Collaborative for Survivorship Health.

Every cancer survivor and his/her primary care provider should receive an individualized survivorship care plan (SCP) following curative treatment. Little is known regarding point-of-care utilization at primary care visits. We assessed SCP utilization in the clinical context of primary care visits. Primary care physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) who had seen survivors following provision of an SCP were identified. Eligible primary care physicians and APPs were sent an online survey, evaluating SCP utilization and influence on decision-making at the point-of-care, accompanied by copies of the survivor's SCP and the clinic note. Eighty-eight primary care physicians and APPs were surveyed November 2016, with 40 (45%) responding. Most respondents (60%) reported discussing cancer or related issues during the visit. Information needed included treatment (66%) and follow-up visits, and the cancer team was responsible for (58%) vs primary care (58%). Respondents acquired this information by asking the patient (79%), checking oncology notes (75%), the SCP (17%), or online resources (8%). Barriers to SCP use included being unaware of the SCP (73%), difficulty locating it (30%), and finding needed information faster via another mechanism (15%). Despite largely not using the SCP for the visit (90%), most respondents (61%) believed one would be quite or very helpful for future visits. Most primary care visits included discussion of cancer or cancer-related issues. SCPs may provide the information necessary to deliver optimal survivor care but efforts are needed to reduce barriers and design SCPs for primary care use.

The Impact of a Primary Care Education Program Regarding Cancer Survivorship Care Plans: Results from an Engineering, Primary Care, and Oncology Collaborative for Survivorship Health.

Survivorship care plans (SCPs) have been recommended as tools to improve care coordination and outcomes for cancer survivors. SCPs are increasingly being provided to survivors and their primary care providers. However, most primary care providers remain unaware of SCPs, limiting their potential benefit. Best practices for educating primary care providers regarding SCP existence and content are needed. We developed an education program to inform primary care providers of the existence, content, and potential uses for SCPs. The education program consisted of a 15-min presentation highlighting SCP basics presented at mandatory primary care faculty meetings. An anonymous survey was electronically administered via email (n = 287 addresses) to evaluate experience with and basic knowledge of SCPs pre- and post-education. A total of 101 primary care advanced practice providers (APPs) and physicians (35% response rate) completed the baseline survey with only 23% reporting prior receipt of a SCP. Only 9% could identify the SCP location within the electronic health record (EHR). Following the education program, primary care physicians and APPs demonstrated a significant improvement in SCP knowledge, including improvement in their ability to locate one within the EHR (9 vs 59%, p < 0.0001). A brief educational program containing information about SCP existence, content, and location in the EHR increased primary care physician and APP knowledge in these areas, which are prerequisites for using SCP in clinical practice.

Design and implementation of electronic health record integrated clinical prediction rules (iCPR): a randomized trial in diverse primary care settings.

BACKGROUND: Clinical prediction rules (CPRs) represent a method of determining individual patient risk to help providers make more accurate decisions at the point of care. Well-validated CPRs are underutilized but may decrease antibiotic overuse for acute respiratory infections. The integrated clinical prediction rules (iCPR) study builds on a previous single clinic study to integrate two CPRs into the electronic health record and assess their impact on practice. This article discusses study design and implementation of a multicenter cluster randomized control trial of the iCPR clinical decision support system, including the tool adaptation, usability testing, staff training, and implementation study to disseminate iCPR at multiple clinical sites across two health care systems. METHODS: The iCPR tool is based on two well-validated CPRs, one for strep pharyngitis and one for pneumonia. The iCPR tool uses the reason for visit to trigger a risk calculator. Provider completion of the risk calculator provides a risk score, which is linked to an order set. Order sets guide evidence-based care and include progress note documentation, tests, prescription medications, and patient instructions. The iCPR tool was refined based on interviews with providers, medical assistants, and clinic managers, and two rounds of usability testing. "Near live" usability testing with simulated patients was used to ensure that iCPR fit into providers' clinical workflows. Thirty-three Family Medicine and General Internal Medicine primary care clinics were recruited at two institutions. Clinics were randomized to academic detailing about strep pharyngitis and pneumonia diagnosis and treatment (control) or academic detailing plus use of the iCPR tool (intervention). The primary outcome is the difference in antibiotic prescribing rates between the intervention and control groups with secondary outcomes of difference in rapid strep and chest x-ray ordering. Use of the components of the iCPR will also be assessed. DISCUSSION: The iCPR study uses a strong user-centered design and builds on the previous initial study, to assess whether CPRs integrated in the electronic health record can change provider behavior and improve evidence-based care in a broad range of primary care clinics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT02534987 ).

Using educational prescriptions to teach medical students evidence-based medicine.

PURPOSE: To evaluate feasibility and impact of evidence-based medicine (EBM) educational prescriptions (EPs) in medical student clerkships. METHODS: Students answered clinical questions during clerkships using EPs, which guide learners through the "four As" of EBM. Epidemiology fellows graded EPs using a rubric. Feasibility was assessed using descriptive statistics and student and fellow end-of-study questionnaires, which also measured impact. In addition, for each EP, students reported patient impact. Impact on EBM skills was assessed by change in EP scores over time and scores on an EBM objective structured clinical exam (OSCE) that were compared to controls from the prior year. RESULTS: 117 students completed 402 EPs evaluated by 24 fellows. Average score was 7.34/9.00 (SD 1.58). 69 students (59%) and 21 fellows (88%) completed questionnaires. Most students thought EPs improved "Acquiring" and "Appraising". Almost half thought EPs improved "Asking" and "Applying". Fellows did not value grading EPs. For 18% of EPs, students reported a "change" or "potential change" in treatment. 56% "confirmed" treatment. EP scores increased by 1.27 (95% CI: 0.81-1.72). There were no differences in OSCE scores between cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Integrating EPs into clerkships is feasible and has impact, yet OSCEs were unchanged, and research fellows had limitations as evaluators.

Evidence-based risk communication: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Effective communication of risks and benefits to patients is critical for shared decision making. PURPOSE: To review the comparative effectiveness of methods of communicating probabilistic information to patients that maximize their cognitive and behavioral outcomes. DATA SOURCES: PubMed (1966 to March 2014) and CINAHL, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1966 to December 2011) using several keywords and structured terms. STUDY SELECTION: Prospective or cross-sectional studies that recruited patients or healthy volunteers and compared any method of communicating probabilistic information with another method. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers extracted study characteristics and assessed risk of bias. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eighty-four articles, representing 91 unique studies, evaluated various methods of numerical and visual risk display across several risk scenarios and with diverse outcome measures. Studies showed that visual aids (icon arrays and bar graphs) improved patients' understanding and satisfaction. Presentations including absolute risk reductions were better than those including relative risk reductions for maximizing accuracy and seemed less likely than presentations with relative risk reductions to influence decisions to accept therapy. The presentation of numbers needed to treat reduced understanding. Comparative effects of presentations of frequencies (such as 1 in 5) versus event rates (percentages, such as 20%) were inconclusive. LIMITATION: Most studies were small and highly variable in terms of setting, context, and methods of administering interventions. CONCLUSION: Visual aids and absolute risk formats can improve patients' understanding of probabilistic information, whereas numbers needed to treat can lessen their understanding. Due to study heterogeneity, the superiority of any single method for conveying probabilistic information is not established, but there are several good options to help clinicians communicate with patients. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Ambulatory training for primary care general internists: innovation with the affordable care act in mind.

BACKGROUND: Although primary care general internists (PCGIs) are essential to the physician workforce and the success of the Affordable Care Act, they are becoming an endangered species. OBJECTIVE: We describe an expanded program to educate PCGIs to meet the needs of a reformed health care system and detail the competencies PCGIs will need for their roles in team-based care. INTERVENTION: We recommended 5 initiatives to stabilize and expand the PCGI workforce: (1) caring for a defined patient population, (2) leading and serving as members of multidisciplinary health care teams, (3) participating in a medical neighborhood, (4) improving capacity for serving complex patients in group practices and accountable care organizations, and (5) finding an academic role for PCGIs, including clinical, population health, and health services research. A revamped approach to PCGI education based in teaching health centers formed by community health center and academic medical center partnerships would facilitate these curricular innovations. ANTICIPATED OUTCOMES: New approaches to primary care education would include multispecialty group practices facilitated by electronic consultation and clinical decision-support systems provided by the academic medical center partner. Multiprofessional and multidisciplinary education would prepare PCGI trainees with relevant skills for 21st century practice. The centers would also serve as sites for state and federal Medicaid graduate medical education (GME) expansion funding, making this funding more accountable to national health workforce priorities. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed innovative approach to PCGI training would provide an innovative educational environment, enhance general internist recruitment, provide team-based care for underserved patients, and ensure accountability of GME funds.

Evidence-based medicine training during residency: a randomized controlled trial of efficacy.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based medicine (EBM) has been widely integrated into residency curricula, although results of randomized controlled trials and long term outcomes of EBM educational interventions are lacking. We sought to determine if an EBM workshop improved internal medicine residents' EBM knowledge and skills and use of secondary evidence resources. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial included 48 internal medicine residents at an academic medical center. Twenty-three residents were randomized to attend a 4-hour interactive workshop in their PGY-2 year. All residents completed a 25-item EBM knowledge and skills test and a self-reported survey of literature searching and resource usage in their PGY-1, PGY-2, and PGY-3 years. RESULTS: There was no difference in mean EBM test scores between the workshop and control groups at PGY-2 or PGY-3. However, mean EBM test scores significantly increased over time for both groups in PGY-2 and PGY-3. Literature searches, and resource usage also increased significantly in both groups after the PGY-1 year. CONCLUSIONS: We were unable to detect a difference in EBM knowledge between residents who did and did not participate in our workshop. Significant improvement over time in EBM scores, however, suggests EBM skills were learned during residency. Future rigorous studies should determine the best methods for improving residents' EBM skills as well as their ability to apply evidence during clinical practice.

A multi-institutional survey of internal medicine residents' learning habits.

BACKGROUND: Resident physicians are expected to demonstrate medical knowledge. However, little is known about the residents' reading habits and learning preferences. AIM: To assess residents' reading habits and preferred educational resources. METHODS: Residents at five internal medicine training programs were surveyed regarding their reading and learning habits and preferences. RESULTS: The majority (77.7%) of residents reported reading less than 7 h a week. Most residents (81.4%) read in response to patient care encounters. The preferred educational format was electronic; 94.6% of residents cited UpToDate as the most effective resource for knowledge acquisition, and 88.9% of residents reported that UpToDate was their first choice for answering clinical questions. CONCLUSIONS: Residents spent little time reading and sought knowledge primarily from electronic resources. Most residents read in the context of patient care. Future research should focus on strategies for helping resident physicians learn in the electronic age.

Clinical use of evidence-based medicine: studies used to assess harm.

Studies of harm are often carried out in cohort or case-controlled studies. We reviewed a prospective cohort study by Halton et al that assessed increased cardiovascular events in women on a low carbohydrate diet. This study did not show an increase in cardiovascular events. However, the diet assessment was very subjective, and the control group was dissimilar. The fact that these women were not trying to lose weight may have also affected the results. The randomized controlled trial by Trudy et al compared weight loss in 4 different commercially available diets and revealed similar weight loss in all 4 groups. Cholesterol levels did not increase in the Atkins group and systolic blood pressure decreased, although not significantly. Our patient will likely lose weight if she is able to continue with any of these diets. Although the evidence evaluating increased cardiovascular events in patients on the Atkins diet is not strong, the available evidence does not show that the Atkins diet increases this risk.