Patient-centered care and the electronic health record: exploring functionality and gaps.

OBJECTIVE: Healthcare systems have adopted electronic health records (EHRs) to support clinical care. Providing patient-centered care (PCC) is a goal of many healthcare systems. In this study, we sought to explore how existing EHR systems support PCC; defined as understanding the patient as a whole person, building relational connections between the clinician and patient, and supporting patients in health self-management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We assessed availability of EHR functions consistent with providing PCC including patient goals and preferences, integrated care plans, and contextual and patient-generated data. We surveyed and then interviewed technical representatives and expert clinical users of 6 leading EHR systems. Questions focused on the availability of specific data and functions related to PCC (for technical representatives) and the clinical usefulness of PCC functions (for clinicians) in their EHR. RESULTS: Technical representatives (n = 6) reported that patient communication preferences, personalized indications for medications, and end of life preferences were functions implemented across 6 systems. Clinician users (n = 10) reported moderate usefulness of PCC functions (medians of 2-4 on a 5-pointy -35t scale), suggesting the potential for improvement across systems. Interviews revealed that clinicians do not have a shared conception of PCC. In many cases, data needed to deliver PCC was available in the EHR only in unstructured form. Data systems and functionality to support PCC are under development in these EHRs. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: There are current gaps in PCC functionality in EHRs and opportunities to support the practice of PCC through EHR redesign.

Assessing the potential adoption and usefulness of concurrent, action-oriented, electronic adverse drug event triggers designed for the outpatient setting.

BACKGROUND: Adverse drug event (ADE) detection is an important priority for patient safety research. Trigger tools have been developed to help identify ADEs. In previous work we developed seven concurrent, action-oriented, electronic trigger algorithms designed to prompt clinicians to address ADEs in outpatient care. OBJECTIVES: We assessed the potential adoption and usefulness of the seven triggers by testing the positive predictive validity and obtaining stakeholder input. METHODS: We adapted ADE triggers, "bone marrow toxin-white blood cell count (BMT-WBC)," "bone marrow toxin - platelet (BMT-platelet)," "potassium raisers," "potassium reducers," "creatinine," "warfarin," and "sedative hypnotics," with logic to suppress flagging events with evidence of clinical intervention and applied the triggers to 50,145 patients from three large health care systems. Four pharmacists assessed trigger positive predictive value (PPV) with respect to ADE detection (conservatively excluding ADEs occurring during clinically appropriate care) and clinical usefulness (i.e., whether the trigger alert could change care to prevent harm). We measured agreement between raters using the free kappa and assessed positive PPV for the trigger's detection of harm, clinical usefulness, and both. Stakeholders from the participating health care systems rated the likelihood of trigger adoption and the perceived ease of implementation. FINDINGS: Agreement between pharmacist raters was moderately high for each ADE trigger (kappa free > 0.60). Trigger PPVs for harm ranged from 0 (Creatinine, BMT-WBC) to 17 percent (potassium raisers), while PPV for care change ranged from 0 (WBC) to 60 percent (Creatinine). Fifteen stakeholders rated the triggers. Our assessment identified five of the seven triggers as good candidates for implementation: Creatinine, BMT-Platelet, Potassium Raisers, Potassium Reducers, and Warfarin. CONCLUSIONS: At least five outpatient ADE triggers performed well and merit further evaluation in outpatient clinical care. When used in real time, these triggers may promote care changes to ameliorate patient harm.

Applying trigger tools to detect adverse events associated with outpatient surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to evaluate the performance of 5 triggers to detect adverse events (AEs) associated with outpatient surgery. Triggers use surveillance algorithms derived from clinical logic to flag cases where AEs have most likely occurred. Current efforts to detect AEs have focused primarily on the inpatient setting, despite the increase in outpatient surgery in all health care settings. METHODS: Using trigger logic, we retrospectively evaluated data from 3 large health care systems' electronic medical records. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they had an outpatient (same-day) surgery in 2007 and at least 1 clinical note in the 6 months after the surgery. Two nurse abstractors reviewed a sample of trigger-flagged cases from each health care system. After reaching interrater reliability targets (κ > 0.60), we calculated the positive predictive value (PPV) of each trigger and the confidence interval of the estimate. RESULTS: The surgical triggers flagged between 1% and 22% of the outpatient surgery cases, with a wide range in PPVs (6.0%-62.0%). The pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis and emergency department triggers had the lowest proportion of flagged cases along with the highest PPVs, showing the most promise for screening cases with a high probability of AE occurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Triggers may be useful in identifying a narrow set of surgeries for further review to determine if a surgical AE occurred, complementing existing tools and initiatives used to detect AEs. Improved detection of AEs in outpatient surgery should help target potential areas for quality improvement.