Randomized Comparison of Electronic Health Record Alert Types in Eliciting Responses about Prognosis in Gynecologic Oncology Patients.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the ability of different electronic health record alert types to elicit responses from users caring for cancer patients benefiting from goals of care (GOC) conversations. METHODS: A validated question asking if the user would be surprised by the patient's 6-month mortality was built as an Epic BestPractice Advisory (BPA) alert in three versions-(1) Required on Open chart (pop-up BPA), (2) Required on Close chart (navigator BPA), and (3) Optional Persistent (Storyboard BPA)-randomized using patient medical record number. Meaningful responses were defined as "Yes" or "No," rather than deferral. Data were extracted over 6 months. RESULTS: Alerts appeared for 685 patients during 1,786 outpatient encounters. Measuring encounters where a meaningful response was elicited, rates were highest for Required on Open (94.8% of encounters), compared with Required on Close (90.1%) and Optional Persistent (19.7%) (p < 0.001). Measuring individual alerts to which responses were given, they were most likely meaningful with Optional Persistent (98.3% of responses) and least likely with Required on Open (68.0%) (p < 0.001). Responses of "No," suggesting poor prognosis and prompting GOC, were more likely with Optional Persistent (13.6%) and Required on Open (10.3%) than with Required on Close (7.0%) (p = 0.028). CONCLUSION: Required alerts had response rates almost five times higher than optional alerts. Timing of alerts affects rates of meaningful responses and possibly the response itself. The alert with the most meaningful responses was also associated with the most interruptions and deferral responses. Considering tradeoffs in these metrics is important in designing clinical decision support to maximize success.

Development of an interactive dashboard for gun violence pattern analysis and intervention design at the local level.

Introduction: Gun violence remains a concerning and persistent issue in our country. Novel dashboards may integrate and summarize important clinical and non-clinical data that can inform targeted interventions to address the underlying causes of gun violence. Methods: Data from various clinical and non-clinical sources were sourced, cleaned, and integrated into a customizable dashboard that summarizes and provides insight into the underlying factors that impact local gun violence episodes. Results: The dashboards contained data from 7786 encounters and 1152 distinct patients from our Emergency Department's Trauma Registry with various patterns noted by the team. A multidisciplinary executive team, including subject matter experts in community-based interventions, epidemiology, and social sciences, was formed to design targeted interventions based on these observations. Conclusion: Targeted interventions to reduce gun violence require a multimodal data sourcing and standardization approach, the inclusion of neighborhood-level data, and a dedicated multidisciplinary team to act on the generated insights.

Mitigating Racial And Ethnic Bias And Advancing Health Equity In Clinical Algorithms: A Scoping Review.

In August 2022 the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a notice of proposed rulemaking prohibiting covered entities, which include health care providers and health plans, from discriminating against individuals when using clinical algorithms in decision making. However, HHS did not provide specific guidelines on how covered entities should prevent discrimination. We conducted a scoping review of literature published during the period 2011-22 to identify health care applications, frameworks, reviews and perspectives, and assessment tools that identify and mitigate bias in clinical algorithms, with a specific focus on racial and ethnic bias. Our scoping review encompassed 109 articles comprising 45 empirical health care applications that included tools tested in health care settings, 16 frameworks, and 48 reviews and perspectives. We identified a wide range of technical, operational, and systemwide bias mitigation strategies for clinical algorithms, but there was no consensus in the literature on a single best practice that covered entities could employ to meet the HHS requirements. Future research should identify optimal bias mitigation methods for various scenarios, depending on factors such as patient population, clinical setting, algorithm design, and types of bias to be addressed.