Embedding Authorship Identity into a Portal-Based Agenda Setting Intervention to Support Older Adults and Care Partners.

BACKGROUND: Patients, families, and clinicians increasingly communicate through patient portals. Due to potential for multiple authors, clinicians need to know who is communicating with them. OurNotes is a portal-based pre-visit agenda setting questionnaire. This study adapted OurNotes to include a self-identification question to help clinicians interpret information authored by nonpatients. OBJECTIVES: To describe adapted OurNotes use and clinician feedback to inform broader implementation. DESIGN: Evaluation of adapted OurNotes in a geriatric practice. PARTICIPANTS: Older adults with a portal account and a clinic visit; eight clinicians were interviewed. INTERVENTION: OurNotes adaptation to clarify whether the author is the patient, the patient with help, or a nonpatient. APPROACH: Cross-sectional chart review of OurNotes completion, patient characteristics, and visit topics by author type. Clinician interviews explored experiences with OurNotes. RESULTS: Out of 503 visits, 134 (26%) OurNotes questionnaires were completed. Most respondents (n = 92; 69%) identified as the patient, 18 (14%) identified as the patient with help, and 24 (17%) identified as someone other than the patient. On average, patients who authored their own OurNotes were younger (80.9 years) compared to patients who received assistance (85.8 years), or patients for whom someone else authored OurNotes (87.8 years) (p < 0.001). A diagnosis of cognitive impairment was present among 20% of patients who self-authored OurNotes vs. 79% of patients where someone else authored OurNotes (p < 0.001). Topics differed when OurNotes was authored by patients vs. nonpatients. Symptoms (52% patient vs. 83% nonpatient, p = 0.004), community resources (6% vs. 42%, p < 0.001), dementia (5% vs. 21%, p = 0.009), and care partner concerns (1% vs. 12%, p = 0.002) were more often mentioned by nonpatients. Clinicians valued the self-identification question for increasing transparency about who provided information. CONCLUSIONS: A self-identification question can identify nonpatient authors of OurNotes. Future steps include evaluating whether transparency improves care quality, especially when care partners are involved.

Catalyzing dementia care through the learning health system and consumer health information technology.

To advance care for persons with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD), real-world health system effectiveness research must actively engage those affected to understand what works, for whom, in what setting, and for how long-an agenda central to learning health system (LHS) principles. This perspective discusses how emerging payment models, quality improvement initiatives, and population health strategies present opportunities to embed best practice principles of ADRD care within the LHS. We discuss how stakeholder engagement in an ADRD LHS when embedding, adapting, and refining prototypes can ensure that products are viable when implemented. Finally, we highlight the promise of consumer-oriented health information technologies in supporting persons living with ADRD and their care partners and delivering embedded ADRD interventions at scale. We aim to stimulate progress toward sustainable infrastructure paired with person- and family-facing innovations that catalyze broader transformation of ADRD care.

Burnout and the role of authentic leadership in academic medicine.

BACKGROUND: Recently, there has been increasing evidence that reducing burnout in healthcare providers requires significant organizational efforts that include the integration of leadership strategies. METHODS: Focus groups were conducted across four health systems within the University of Colorado Department of Medicine in four affinity groups (administrative staff, medical trainees, research faculty, and clinical faculty). Authentic leadership theory was used for analysis to advance the understanding of the role of leadership style upon participants' work experiences and preferences, and to identify opportunities for translation of site-specific results to other academic medical settings. RESULTS: Study participants from each affinity group believed their clinical leaders lacked objectivity with decision-making (lacking "balancing processing"), which contributed to their overall feeling of powerlessness. The experience of increasing work demands was salient throughout all twelve focus groups, and participants identified leadership that interacted in a more open and self-disclosing manner ("relational transparency") as alleviating at least some of this burden. Strong preference discernable alignment between their leaders' decision-making and their internal moral compass of values (demonstrating "internalized moral perspective") was described, as was clinical leaders demonstrating "self-awareness" (having a self-reflective process that informs the leader's decision-making). Comparing affinity group experiences within each authentic leadership theory construct identified the relevance of contextual factors, such as work setting and roles, upon employees' perceptions and expectations of their leaders. CONCLUSIONS: Use of authentic leadership theory advanced the understanding of the association between leadership traits and experiences of burnout amongst a large group of academic clinicians, researchers, trainees, and administrative staff. Leadership styles that promoted relationship transparency, openness, and support were preferred and fostering these traits may help address the demands in academic medicine, including symptoms of burnout.

Patients Contributing to Visit Notes: Mixed Methods Evaluation of OurNotes.

BACKGROUND: Secure patient portals are widely available, and patients use them to view their electronic health records, including their clinical notes. We conducted experiments asking them to cogenerate notes with their clinicians, an intervention called OurNotes. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess patient and provider experiences and attitudes after 12 months of a pilot intervention. METHODS: Before scheduled primary care visits, patients were asked to submit a word-constrained, unstructured interval history and an agenda for what they would like to discuss at the visit. Using site-specific methods, their providers were invited to incorporate the submissions into notes documenting the visits. Sites served urban, suburban, and rural patients in primary care practices in 4 academic health centers in Boston (Massachusetts), Lebanon (New Hampshire), Denver (Colorado), and Seattle (Washington). Each practice offered electronic access to visit notes (open notes) to its patients for several years. A mixed methods evaluation used tracking data and electronic survey responses from patients and clinicians. Participants were 174 providers and 1962 patients who submitted at least 1 previsit form. We asked providers about the usefulness of the submissions, effects on workflow, and ideas for the future. We asked patients about difficulties and benefits of providing the requested information and ideas for future improvements. RESULTS: Forms were submitted before 9.15% (5365/58,652) eligible visits, and 43.7% (76/174) providers and 26.76% (525/1962) patients responded to the postintervention evaluation surveys; 74 providers and 321 patients remembered receiving and completing the forms and answered the survey questions. Most clinicians thought interim patient histories (69/74, 93%) and patient agendas (72/74, 97%) as good ideas, 70% (52/74) usually or always incorporated them into visit notes, 54% (40/74) reported no change in visit length, and 35% (26/74) thought they saved time. Their most common suggestions related to improving notifications when patient forms were received, making it easier to find the form and insert it into the note, and educating patients about how best to prepare their submissions. Patient respondents were generally well educated, most found the history (259/321, 80.7%) and agenda (286/321, 89.1%) questions not difficult to answer; more than 92.2% (296/321) thought sending answers before the visit a good idea; 68.8% (221/321) thought the questions helped them prepare for the visit. Common suggestions by patients included learning to write better answers and wanting to know that their submissions were read by their clinicians. At the end of the pilot, all participating providers chose to continue the OurNotes previsit form, and sites considered expanding the intervention to more clinicians and adapting it for telemedicine visits. CONCLUSIONS: OurNotes interests patients, and providers experience it as a positive intervention. Participation by patients, care partners, clinicians, and electronic health record experts will facilitate further development.

Integrating the Practical Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model With Best Practices in Clinical Decision Support Design: Implementation Science Approach.

BACKGROUND: Clinical decision support (CDS) design best practices are intended to provide a narrative representation of factors that influence the success of CDS tools. However, they provide incomplete direction on evidence-based implementation principles. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe an integrated approach toward applying an existing implementation science (IS) framework with CDS design best practices to improve the effectiveness, sustainability, and reproducibility of CDS implementations. METHODS: We selected the Practical Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM) IS framework. We identified areas where PRISM and CDS design best practices complemented each other and defined methods to address each. Lessons learned from applying these methods were then used to further refine the integrated approach. RESULTS: Our integrated approach to applying PRISM with CDS design best practices consists of 5 key phases that iteratively interact and inform each other: multilevel stakeholder engagement, designing the CDS, design and usability testing, thoughtful deployment, and performance evaluation and maintenance. The approach is led by a dedicated implementation team that includes clinical informatics and analyst builder expertise. CONCLUSIONS: Integrating PRISM with CDS design best practices extends user-centered design and accounts for the multilevel, interacting, and dynamic factors that influence CDS implementation in health care. Integrating PRISM with CDS design best practices synthesizes the many known contextual factors that can influence the success of CDS tools, thereby enhancing the reproducibility and sustainability of CDS implementations. Others can adapt this approach to their situation to maximize and sustain CDS implementation success.

Advance Care Planning Among Users of a Patient Portal During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Retrospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Advance care planning is the process of discussing health care treatment preferences based on patients' personal values, and it often involves the completion of advance directives. In the first months of 2020, a novel coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), began circulating widely in the American state of Colorado, leading to widespread diagnosis of coronavirus disease (COVID-19), hospitalizations, and deaths. In this context, the importance of technology-based, non-face-to-face methods to conduct advance care planning via patient portals has increased. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the rates of use of a web-based advance care planning tool through a health system-based electronic patient portal both before and in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: In 2017, we implemented web-based tools through the patient portal of UCHealth's electronic health record (EHR) for patients to learn about advance care planning and complete an electronically signed medical durable power of attorney (MDPOA) to legally appoint a medical decision maker. Patients accessing the portal can complete and submit a legally valid MDPOA, which becomes part of their medical record. We collected data on the patients' date of MDPOA completion, use of advance care planning messaging, age, sex, and geographic location during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic (December 29, 2019, to May 30, 2020). RESULTS: Over a 5-month period that includes the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in Colorado, total monthly use of the advance care planning portal tool increased from 418 users in January to 1037 users in April and then decreased slightly to 815 users in May. The number of MDPOA forms submitted per week increased 2.4-fold after the stay-at-home order was issued in Colorado on March 26, 2020 (P<.001). The mean age of the advance care planning portal users was 47.7 years (SD 16.1), and 2206/3292 (67.0%) were female. Women were more likely than men to complete an MDPOA, particularly in younger age groups (P<.001). The primary use of the advance care planning portal tools was the completion of an MDPOA (3138/3292, 95.3%), compared to sending an electronic message (148/3292, 4.5%). Over 50% of patients who completed an MDPOA did not have a prior agent in the EHR. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a web-based patient portal to complete an MDPOA increased substantially during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Colorado. There was an increase in advance care planning that corresponded with state government shelter-in-place orders as well as public health reports of increased numbers of COVID-19 cases and deaths. Patient portals are an important tool for providing advance care planning resources and documenting medical decision makers during the pandemic to ensure that medical treatment aligns with patient goals and values.

Patient Attitudes About Viewing Their Radiology Images Online: Preintervention Survey.

BACKGROUND: Although patient data is available through electronic portals, little information exists about the benefits and/or challenges of providing patients with online access to their radiology images. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this quality improvement project were to understand patient attitudes toward being able to view their radiology images online and determine how information should be presented to ensure the images are helpful to the patients, rather than causing confusion and anxiety. METHODS: An online survey of consumers was conducted to evaluate attitudes toward online access to personal radiological images. RESULTS: A total of 105 responses were received from 686 community members (15.3%). Of 105 consumers, 94 (89.5%) reported a desire to have access to the radiology images within their online patient portal; 86.7% (91/105) believed it would help them better understand their medical conditions and 81.0% (85/105) said this would help them feel more in control of their care. Most respondents (74/105, 70.5%) said it would help them feel reassured that their doctor was doing the right thing, and 63.8% (67/105) said it would increase their level of trust in their doctor. Among surveyed patients, 78.1% (82/105) valued viewing their radiology images online, while 92.4% (97/105) valued their online radiology reports. Most patients (69/105, 65.7%) wished to discuss their results with their ordering clinician, 29.5% (31/105) wished to discuss with their interpreting radiologist, and 3.8% (4/105) wished to share their images on social media. The biggest potential concern among 23.8% (25/105) was that the images would be confusing. CONCLUSIONS: A large majority of surveyed patients desired the ability to view their radiology images online and anticipated many benefits and few risks. Health care organizations with electronic health records and online patient portals should consider augmenting their existing portals with this highly desired feature. To avoid the biggest patient concern, radiology reports should accompany images. Patients wanted to discuss their results with their ordering physician and their interpreting radiologist. Some even would like to share results on social media. Further research on the actual experience with such a tool will be needed.

Helping patients navigate the immediate release of medical records: MedEd, a novel patient engagement technology.

BACKGROUND: Through online health portals, patients receive complex medical reports without interpretation from their healthcare provider. This study evaluated the usability of MedEd, a patient engagement tool providing definitions of medical terminology in breast pathology and radiology reports. METHODS: Individuals who underwent a normal screening mammogram were invited to complete semi-structured interviews where they downloaded MedEd and discussed their download experience. Acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of MedEd were evaluated. RESULTS: 143 individuals were invited to participate, and 14 semi-structured interviews were completed. Participants reported ease of downloading and navigating MedEd with concerns about privacy and others' abilities to download. Participants demonstrated high acceptability (mean 4.48/5, SD 0.95), appropriateness (mean 4.66/5, SD 0.83), and feasibility (mean 4.48/5, SD 1.04) scores. CONCLUSION: Participants expressed excitement for future use of MedEd and provided suggestions for improvements. Next steps include evaluating comprehension of real breast reports while using MedEd and expanding patient access.

Interpretation of immediately released health information: Informing patient medical education in breast oncology.

BACKGROUND: The Cures Act mandated immediately released health information. In this study, we investigated patient comprehension of mammography reports and the utility of online resources to aid report interpretation. METHODS: Patients who received a normal mammogram from February to April 2022 were invited to complete semi-structured interviews paired with health literacy questionnaires to assess patient's report comprehension before and after internet search. RESULTS: Thirteen selected patients via purposeful sampling completed interviews. Most patients described their initial understanding of the mammography report as "good" and improved to between "good" and "very good" after an internet search. Patients suggested "a little column on the side" for medical terminology, "an extra prompt" for making an appointment, or a recommendation for "good sites" to improve mammography reports. CONCLUSION: Patients varied in their ability to independently interpret medical reports and seek additional resources. While online resources marginally improved patient understanding, actionable and clear resources are needed.

Information transparency with immediate release: Oncology clinician and patient perceptions.

INTRODUCTION: As part of the 21st Century Cures Act (April 2021), electronic health information (EHI) must be immediately released to patients. In this study, we sought to evaluate clinician and patient perceptions regarding this immediate release. METHODS: After surveying 33 clinicians and 30 patients, semi-structured interviews were conducted with a subset of the initial sample, comprising 8 clinicians and 12 patients. Open-ended questions explored clinicians' and patients' perceptions of immediate release of EHI and how they adjusted to this change. RESULTS: Ten themes were identified: Interpreting Results, Strategies for Patient Interaction, Patient Experiences, Communication Strategies, Provider Limitations, Provider Experiences, Health Information Interfaces, Barriers to Patient Understanding, Types of Results, and Changes due to Immediate Release. Interviews demonstrated differences in perceived patient distress and comprehension, emphasizing the impersonal nature of electronic release and necessity for therapeutic clinician-patient communication. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians and patients have unique insights on the role of immediate release. Understanding these perspectives will help improve communication and develop patient-centered tools (glossaries, summary pages, additional resources) to aid patient understanding of complex medical information.

"I don't think it should take you three days to tell me my baby is dead." A case of fetal demise: unintended consequences of immediate release of information.

The 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act) information blocking regulations mandate timely patient access to their electronic health information. In most healthcare systems, this technically requires immediate electronic release of test results and clinical notes directly to patients. Patients could potentially be distressed by receiving upsetting results through an electronic portal rather than from a clinician. We present a case from 2018, several years prior to the implementation of the Cures Act. A patient was notified of fetal demise detected by ultrasound through her electronic health record (EHR) patient portal before her clinician received the result. We discuss the patient's ensuing complaint and healthcare system response. This unusual and dramatic case of fetal demise is relevant today because it underscores the importance of involving a patient and family advisory council in decision-making. It also highlights the value of "anticipatory guidance" as a routine clinical practice in this era of immediate access to test results.

Problem-oriented documentation: design and widespread adoption of a novel toolkit in a commercial electronic health record.

Background: Problem-oriented documentation is an accepted method of note construction which facilitates clinical thought processes. However, problem-oriented documentation is challenging to put into practice using commercially available electronic health record (EHR) systems. Objective: Our goal was to create, iterate, and distribute a problem-oriented documentation toolkit within a commercial EHR that maximally supported clinicians' thinking, was intuitive to use, and produced clear documentation. Materials and Methods: We used an iterative design process that stressed visual simplicity, data integration, a predictable interface, data reuse, and clinician efficiency. Creation of the problem-oriented documentation toolkit required the use of EHR-provided tools and custom programming. Results: We developed a problem-oriented documentation interface with a 3-column view showing (1) a list of visit diagnoses, (2) the current overview and assessment and plan for a selected diagnosis, and (3) a list of medications, labs, data, and orders relevant to that diagnosis. We also created a series of macros to bring information collected through the interface into clinicians' notes. This toolkit was put into a live environment in February 2019. Over the first 9 months, the custom problem-oriented documentation toolkit was used in a total of 8385 discrete visits by 28 clinicians in 13 ambulatory departments. After 9 months, the go-live education and EHR optimization teams in our health system began promoting the toolkit to new and existing users of our EHR resulting in a significantly increased uptake by outpatient clinicians. In April 2022 alone, the toolkit was used in more than 92 000 ambulatory visits by 894 users in 271 departments across our health system. Conclusions: As a health-system client of a commercial EHR, we developed and deployed a revised problem-oriented documentation toolkit that is used by clinicians more than 92 000 times a month. Key success elements include an emphasis on usability and an effective training effort.

Patient Satisfaction With Speech Recognition in the Exam Room: Exploratory Survey.

BACKGROUND: Medical speech recognition technology uses a microphone and computer software to transcribe the spoken word into text and is not typically used in outpatient clinical exam rooms. Patient perceptions regarding speech recognition in the exam room (SRIER) are therefore unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to characterize patient perceptions of SRIER by administering a survey to consecutive patients scheduled for acute, chronic, and wellness care in three outpatient clinic sites. METHODS: We used a microphone and medical speech recognition software to complete the "assessment and plan" portion of the after-visit summary in the patient's presence, immediately printed the after-visit summary, and then administered a 4-question exploratory survey to 65 consecutive patients in internal medicine and pulmonary medicine clinics at an academic medical center and a community family practice clinic in 2021 to characterize patient perceptions of SRIER. All questions were completed by all participants. RESULTS: When compared to patients' recollection of usual care (visits with no microphone and an after-visit summary without an "assessment and plan"), 86% (n=56) of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their provider addressed their concerns better, and 73% (n=48) agreed or strongly agreed that they understood their provider's advice better. A total of 99% (n=64) of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that a printed after-visit summary including the "assessment and plan" was helpful. By comparing the "agree" and "strongly agree" responses to the neutral responses, we found that patients felt that clinicians using SRIER addressed their concerns better (P<.001), they understood their clinician's advice better (P<.001), and receiving a paper summary was helpful (P<.001). Patients were likely to recommend a provider using a microphone based on the Net Promoter Score of 58. CONCLUSIONS: This survey suggests patients have a very positive perception of speech recognition use in the exam room.

User-Centered Design to Reduce Inappropriate Blood Transfusion Orders.

BACKGROUND: To improve blood transfusion practices, we applied user-centered design (UCD) to evaluate potential changes to blood transfusion orders. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study is to build effective transfusion orders with different designs to improve guideline adherence. METHODS: We developed three different versions of transfusion orders that varied how information was presented to clinicians ordering blood transfusions. We engaged 14 clinicians (residents, advanced practice providers [APPs], and attending physicians) from different specialties. We used the think aloud technique and rapid qualitative analysis to generate themes to incorporate into our modified orders. RESULTS: Most end-users who participated in the semi-structured interviews preferred the interruptive alert design plus behavioral nudges (n = 8/14, 57%). The predominant rationale was that the in-line alert was not visually effective in capturing the end-user's attention, while the interruptive alert forced a brief stop in the workflow to consider the guidelines. All users supported the general improvements, though for different reasons, and as a result, the general improvements remained in the designs for the forthcoming trial. CONCLUSION: The user experience uncovered through the think aloud approach produced a clear and rich understanding of potentially confounding factors in the initial design of different intervention versions. Input from end-users guided the creation of all three designs so each was addressing human factors with parity, which ensured that the results of our study reflected differences in interruptive properties of the alerts and not differences in design.

General improvements versus interruptive or non-interruptive alerts in the blood order set: study protocol for a randomized control trial to improve packed red blood cell utilization.

BACKGROUND: Blood transfusions can serve as a life-saving treatment, but inappropriate blood product transfusions can result in patient harm and excess costs for health systems. Despite published evidence supporting restricted packed red blood cell (pRBC) usage, many providers transfuse outside of guidelines. Here, we report a novel prospective, randomized control trial to increase guideline-concordant pRBC transfusions comparing three variations of clinical decision support (CDS) in the electronic health record (EHR). METHODS: All inpatient providers at University of Colorado Hospital (UCH) who order blood transfusions were randomized in a 1:1:1 fashion to the three arms of the study: (1) general order set improvements, (2) general order set improvements plus non-interruptive in-line help text alert, and (3) general order set improvements plus interruptive alert. Transfusing providers received the same randomized order set changes for 18 months. The primary outcome of this study is the guideline-concordant rate of pRBC transfusions. The primary objective of this study is to compare the group using the new interface (arm 1) versus the two groups using the new interface with interruptive or non-interruptive alerts (arms 2 and 3, combined). The secondary objectives compare guideline-concordant transfusion rates between arm 2 and arm 3 as well as comparing all of arms of the study in aggregate to historical controls. This trial concluded after 12 months on April 5, 2022. DISCUSSION: CDS tools can increase guideline-concordant behavior. This trial will examine three different CDS tools to determine which type is most effective at increasing guideline-concordant blood transfusions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov 3/20/21, NCT04823273 . Approved by University of Colorado Institutional Review Board (19-0918), protocol version 1 4/19/2019, approved 4/30/2019.

Perspectives of Patients About Immediate Access to Test Results Through an Online Patient Portal.

Importance: The 21st Century Cures Act Final Rule mandates the immediate electronic availability of test results to patients, likely empowering them to better manage their health. Concerns remain about unintended effects of releasing abnormal test results to patients. Objective: To assess patient and caregiver attitudes and preferences related to receiving immediately released test results through an online patient portal. Design, Setting, and Participants: This large, multisite survey study was conducted at 4 geographically distributed academic medical centers in the US using an instrument adapted from validated surveys. The survey was delivered in May 2022 to adult patients and care partners who had accessed test results via an online patient portal account between April 5, 2021, and April 4, 2022. Exposures: Access to test results via a patient portal between April 5, 2021, and April 4, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: Responses to questions related to demographics, test type and result, reaction to result, notification experience and future preferences, and effect on health and well-being were aggregated. To evaluate characteristics associated with patient worry, logistic regression and pooled random-effects models were used to assess level of worry as a function of whether test results were perceived by patients as normal or not normal and whether patients were precounseled. Results: Of 43 380 surveys delivered, there were 8139 respondents (18.8%). Most respondents were female (5129 [63.0%]) and spoke English as their primary language (7690 [94.5%]). The median age was 64 years (IQR, 50-72 years). Most respondents (7520 of 7859 [95.7%]), including 2337 of 2453 individuals (95.3%) who received nonnormal results, preferred to immediately receive test results through the portal. Few respondents (411 of 5473 [7.5%]) reported that reviewing results before they were contacted by a health care practitioner increased worry, though increased worry was more common among respondents who received abnormal results (403 of 2442 [16.5%]) than those whose results were normal (294 of 5918 [5.0%]). The result of the pooled model for worry as a function of test result normality was statistically significant (odds ratio [OR], 2.71; 99% CI, 1.96-3.74), suggesting an association between worry and nonnormal results. The result of the pooled model evaluating the association between worry and precounseling was not significant (OR, 0.70; 99% CI, 0.31-1.59). Conclusions and Relevance: In this multisite survey study of patient attitudes and preferences toward receiving immediately released test results via a patient portal, most respondents preferred to receive test results via the patient portal despite viewing results prior to discussion with a health care professional. This preference persisted among patients with nonnormal results.

Comparative effectiveness of generic commercial versus locally customized clinical decision support tools to reduce prescription of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for patients with heart failure.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of 2 clinical decision support (CDS) tools to avoid prescription of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in patients with heart failure (HF): a "commercial" and a locally "customized" alert. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 2 CDS tools implemented within a large integrated health system. The commercial CDS tool was designed according to third-party drug content and EHR vendor specifications. The customized CDS tool underwent a user-centered design process informed by implementation science principles, with input from a cross disciplinary team. The customized CDS tool replaced the commercial CDS tool. Data were collected from the electronic health record via analytic reports and manual chart review. The primary outcome was effectiveness, defined as whether the clinician changed their behavior and did not prescribe an NSAID. RESULTS: A random sample of 366 alerts (183 per CDS tool) was evaluated that represented 355 unique patients. The commercial CDS tool was effective for 7 of 172 (4%) patients, while the customized CDS tool was effective for 81 of 183 (44%) patients. After adjusting for age, chronic kidney disease, ejection fraction, NYHA class, concurrent prescription of an opioid or acetaminophen, visit type (inpatient or outpatient), and clinician specialty, the customized alerts were at 24.3 times greater odds of effectiveness compared to the commercial alerts (OR: 24.3 CI: 10.20-58.06). CONCLUSION: Investing additional resources to customize a CDS tool resulted in a CDS tool that was more effective at reducing the total number of NSAID orders placed for patients with HF compared to a commercially available CDS tool.

Sustained Effect of Clinical Decision Support for Heart Failure: A Natural Experiment Using Implementation Science.

OBJECTIVES: In a randomized controlled trial, we found that applying implementation science (IS) methods and best practices in clinical decision support (CDS) design to create a locally customized, "enhanced" CDS significantly improved evidence-based prescribing of ß blockers (BB) for heart failure compared with an unmodified commercially available CDS. At trial conclusion, the enhanced CDS was expanded to all sites. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the real-world sustained effect of the enhanced CDS compared with the commercial CDS. METHODS: In this natural experiment of 28 primary care clinics, we compared clinics exposed to the commercial CDS (preperiod) to clinics exposed to the enhanced CDS (both periods). The primary effectiveness outcome was the proportion of alerts resulting in a BB prescription. Secondary outcomes included patient reach and clinician adoption (dismissals). RESULTS: There were 367 alerts for 183 unique patients and 171 unique clinicians (pre: March 2019-August 2019; post: October 2019-March 2020). The enhanced CDS increased prescribing by 26.1% compared with the commercial (95% confidence interval [CI]: 17.0-35.1%), which is consistent with the 24% increase in the previous study. The odds of adopting the enhanced CDS was 81% compared with 29% with the commercial (odds ratio: 4.17, 95% CI: 1.96-8.85). The enhanced CDS adoption and effectiveness rates were 62 and 14% in the preperiod and 92 and 10% in the postperiod. CONCLUSION: Applying IS methods with CDS best practices was associated with improved and sustained clinician adoption and effectiveness compared with a commercially available CDS tool.

Dig Deeper: A Case Report of Finding (and Fixing) the Root Cause of Add-On Laboratory Failures.

BACKGROUND: Venipunctures and the testing they facilitate are clinically necessary, particularly for hospitalized patients. However, excess venipunctures lead to patient harm, decreased patient satisfaction, and waste. OBJECTIVES: We sought to identify contributors to excess venipunctures at our institution, focusing on electronic health record (EHR)-related factors. We then implemented and evaluated the impact of an intervention targeting one of the contributing factors. METHODS: We employed the quality improvement (QI) methodology to find sources of excess venipunctures, specifically targeting add-on failures. Once an error was identified, we deployed an EHR-based intervention which was evaluated with retrospective pre- and postintervention analysis. RESULTS: We identified an error in how the EHR evaluated the ability of laboratories across a health system to perform add-on tests to existing blood specimens. A review of 195,263 add-on orders placed prior to the intervention showed that 165,118 were successful and 30,145 failed, a failure rate of 15.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 15.1-15.6). We implemented an EHR-based modification that changed the criteria for add-on testing from a health-system-wide query of laboratory capabilities to one that incorporated only the capabilities of laboratories with feasible access to existing patient samples. In the 6 months following the intervention, a review of 87,333 add-on orders showed that 77,310 were successful, and 10,023 add-on orders failed resulting in a postintervention failure rate of 11.4% (95% CI: 11.1, 11.8) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: EHR features such as the ability to identify possible add-on tests are designed to reduce venipunctures but may produce unforeseen negative effects on downstream processes, particularly as hospitals merge into health systems using a single EHR. This case report describes the successful identification and correction of one cause of add-on laboratory failures. QI methodology can yield important insights that reveal simple interventions for improvement.

Understanding Patient Experiences, Opinions, and Actions Taken After Viewing Their Own Radiology Images Online: Web-Based Survey.

BACKGROUND: The ability for patients to directly view their radiology images through secure electronic portals is rare in the American health care system. We previously surveyed patients within our health system and found that a large majority wanted to view their own radiology images online, and we have since implemented this new feature. OBJECTIVE: We aim to understand patient experiences, opinions, and actions taken after viewing their own radiology images online. METHODS: We emailed a web-based survey to patients who recently viewed their radiology images via our electronic patient portal. RESULTS: We sent 1825 surveys to patients and received 299 responses (response rate 16.4%). Patients reported a favorable experience (258/299, 86.3% agree) viewing their radiology images online. Patients found value in reading their radiology reports (288/299, 96.3% agree) and viewing their images (267/299, 89.3% agree). Overall, patients felt that accessing and viewing their radiology images online increased their understanding of their medical condition (258/299, 82.9%), made them feel more in control and reassured (237/299, 79.2% and 220/299, 73.6%, respectively), and increased levels of trust (214/299, 71.6%). Only 6.4% (19/299) of the patients indicated concerns with finding errors, 6.4% (19/299) felt that viewing their images online made them worry more, and 7% (21/299) felt confused when viewing their images online. Of patients who viewed their images online, 45.2% (135/299) took no action with their images, 32.8% (98/299) saved a copy for their records, 25.4% (76/299) shared them with their doctor, and 14.7% (44/299) shared them with another doctor for a second opinion. A total of 9 patients (3%) shared their radiology images on Facebook, Instagram, or both, primarily to inform family and friends. Approximately 10.4% (31/299) of the patients had questions about their radiology images after viewing them online, with the majority (20/31, 65%) seeking out a doctor, and far fewer (5/31, 16%) choosing to ask a family member about their images. Finally, respondents viewed their images online using 1 or more devices, including computers, smartphones, tablets, or a combination of these devices. Approximately 26.7% (103/385) of the responses noted technical difficulties, with the highest incidence rate occurring with smartphones. CONCLUSIONS: We report the first known survey results from patients who viewed their own radiology images through a web-based portal. Patients reported high levels of satisfaction and increased levels of trust, autonomy, reassurance, and medical understanding. Only a small minority of patients expressed anxiety or confusion. We suggest that patient access to radiology images, such as patient access to radiology reports, is highly desired by patients and is operationally practical. Other health care institutions should consider offering patients access to their radiology images online in the pursuit of information transparency.