Transitioning from One Electronic Health Record to Another: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Transitioning to a new electronic health record (EHR) presents different challenges than transitions from paper to electronic records. We synthesized the body of peer-reviewed literature on EHR-to-EHR transitions to evaluate the generalizability of published work and identify knowledge gaps where more evidence is needed. METHODS: We conducted a broad search in PubMed through July 2022 and collected all publications from two prior reviews. Peer-reviewed publications reporting on data from an EHR-to-EHR transition were included. We extracted data on study design, setting, sample size, EHR systems involved, dates of transition and data collection, outcomes reported, and key findings. RESULTS: The 40 included publications were grouped into thematic categories for narrative synthesis: clinical care outcomes (n = 15), provider perspectives (n = 11), data migration (n = 8), patient experience (n = 4), and other topics (n = 5). Many studies described single sites that are early adopters of technology with robust research resources, switching from a homegrown system to a commercial system, and emphasized the dynamic effect of transitioning on important clinical care and other outcomes over time. DISCUSSION: The published literature represents a heterogeneous mix of study designs and outcome measures, and while some of the stronger studies in this review used longitudinal approaches to compare outcomes across more sites, the current literature is primarily descriptive and is not designed to offer recommendations that can guide future EHR transitions. Transitioning from one EHR to another constitutes a major organizational change that requires nearly every person in the organization to change how they do their work. Future research should include human factors as well as diverse methodological approaches such as mixed methods and implementation science.

Impact of Multiplex Polymerase Chain Reaction Testing for Respiratory Pathogens on Healthcare Resource Utilization for Pediatric Inpatients.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether multiplex polymerase chain reaction (mPCR) vs non-mPCR testing impacts the use of antibiotics, chest radiographs, and isolation precautions. STUDY DESIGN: We retrospectively compared use of antibiotics, chest radiographs, and isolation precautions for patients <18 years old (excluding neonates) hospitalized at a tertiary referral center tested for respiratory pathogens in the emergency department or during the first 2 hospital days, during 2 periods: June 2010-June 2012 (non-mPCR group) vs October 2012-May 2014 (mPCR group). RESULTS: Subjects (n = 2430) in the mPCR group were older, had more complex chronic conditions, and were admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit more often compared with the non-mPCR (n = 2349) group. Subjects in the mPCR group had more positive tests (42.4% vs 14.4%, P < .01), received fewer days of antibiotics (4 vs 5 median antibiotic days, P < .01), fewer chest radiographs performed, (59% vs 78%, P < .01), and were placed in isolation longer (20 vs 0 median isolation-hours, P < .01) compared with the non-mPCR group. In multivariable regression, patients tested with mPCR were less likely to receive antibiotics for ≥2 days (OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.5-0.6), chest radiographs at admission (OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.3-0.4), and more likely to be in isolation for ≥2 days (OR 2.4, 95% CI 2.1-2.8) compared with the non-mPCR group. CONCLUSIONS: Use of mPCR testing for respiratory viruses among hospitalized patients was significantly associated with decreased healthcare resource utilization, including decreased use of antibiotics and chest radiographs, and increased use of isolation precautions.

Understanding suboptimal e-consult requests: lessons from the VA.

OBJECTIVES: Electronic consultations, or e-consults, which are requests for specialist advice without direct patient interaction, are becoming increasingly common across health systems. We sought to identify clinicians' perspectives on the quality of e-consult requests that they send and receive. STUDY DESIGN: A qualitative research study at the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) New England Healthcare System. METHODS: We interviewed a total of 73 clinicians, including 38 specialists across 3 specialties (cardiology, neurology, pulmonology) and 35 primary care clinicians (PCCs), between March and June 2019. The interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: VA specialists and PCCs generally agreed that e-consult requests should be focused and precise, not require lengthy chart review, and include adequate preliminary workup results. At the same time, specialists expressed frustration with what they perceived as suboptimal e-consult requests. Interviewees attributed this gap to 3 factors: limitations of the electronic health record user interface, divergence between PCCs and specialists in the areas of expertise, and organizational pressures on the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: VA clinicians' perspectives on suboptimal requests contain lessons that are broadly applicable to other health systems that seek to maximize the potential of e-consults to facilitate clinician collaboration and care coordination.