Cranky comments: detecting clinical decision support malfunctions through free-text override reasons.

Background: Rule-base clinical decision support alerts are known to malfunction, but tools for discovering malfunctions are limited. Objective: Investigate whether user override comments can be used to discover malfunctions. Methods: We manually classified all rules in our database with at least 10 override comments into 3 categories based on a sample of override comments: "broken," "not broken, but could be improved," and "not broken." We used 3 methods (frequency of comments, cranky word list heuristic, and a Naïve Bayes classifier trained on a sample of comments) to automatically rank rules based on features of their override comments. We evaluated each ranking using the manual classification as truth. Results: Of the rules investigated, 62 were broken, 13 could be improved, and the remaining 45 were not broken. Frequency of comments performed worse than a random ranking, with precision at 20 of 8 and AUC = 0.487. The cranky comments heuristic performed better with precision at 20 of 16 and AUC = 0.723. The Naïve Bayes classifier had precision at 20 of 17 and AUC = 0.738. Discussion: Override comments uncovered malfunctions in 26% of all rules active in our system. This is a lower bound on total malfunctions and much higher than expected. Even for low-resource organizations, reviewing comments identified by the cranky word list heuristic may be an effective and feasible way of finding broken alerts. Conclusion: Override comments are a rich data source for finding alerts that are broken or could be improved. If possible, we recommend monitoring all override comments on a regular basis.

Outpatient CPOE orders discontinued due to 'erroneous entry': prospective survey of prescribers' explanations for errors.

BACKGROUND: Computerised prescriber order entry (CPOE) systems users often discontinue medications because the initial order was erroneous. OBJECTIVE: To elucidate error types by querying prescribers about their reasons for discontinuing outpatient medication orders that they had self-identified as erroneous. METHODS: During a nearly 3 year retrospective data collection period, we identified 57 972 drugs discontinued with the reason 'Error (erroneous entry)." Because chart reviews revealed limited information about these errors, we prospectively studied consecutive, discontinued erroneous orders by querying prescribers in near-real-time to learn more about the erroneous orders. RESULTS: From January 2014 to April 2014, we prospectively emailed prescribers about outpatient drug orders that they had discontinued due to erroneous initial order entry. Of 2 50 806 medication orders in these 4 months, 1133 (0.45%) of these were discontinued due to error. From these 1133, we emailed 542 unique prescribers to ask about their reason(s) for discontinuing these mediation orders in error. We received 312 responses (58% response rate). We categorised these responses using a previously published taxonomy. The top reasons for these discontinued erroneous orders included: medication ordered for wrong patient (27.8%, n=60); wrong drug ordered (18.5%, n=40); and duplicate order placed (14.4%, n=31). Other common discontinued erroneous orders related to drug dosage and formulation (eg, extended release versus not). Oxycodone (3%) was the most frequent drug discontinued error. CONCLUSION: Drugs are not infrequently discontinued 'in error.' Wrong patient and wrong drug errors constitute the leading types of erroneous prescriptions recognised and discontinued by prescribers. Data regarding erroneous medication entries represent an important source of intelligence about how CPOE systems are functioning and malfunctioning, providing important insights regarding areas for designing CPOE more safely in the future.

Development and evaluation of a novel user interface for reviewing clinical microbiology results.

Background: Microbiology laboratory results are complex and cumbersome to review. We sought to develop a new review tool to improve the ease and accuracy of microbiology results review. Methods: We observed and informally interviewed clinicians to determine areas in which existing microbiology review tools were lacking. We developed a new tool that reorganizes microbiology results by time and organism. We conducted a scenario-based usability evaluation to compare the new tool to existing legacy tools, using a balanced block design. Results: The average time-on-task decreased from 45.3 min for the legacy tools to 27.1 min for the new tool (P < .0001). Total errors decreased from 41 with the legacy tools to 19 with the new tool (P = .0068). The average Single Ease Question score was 5.65 (out of 7) for the new tool, compared to 3.78 for the legacy tools (P < .0001). The new tool scored 88 ("Excellent") on the System Usability Scale. Conclusions: The new tool substantially improved efficiency, accuracy, and usability. It was subsequently integrated into the electronic health record and rolled out system-wide. This project provides an example of how clinical and informatics teams can innovative alongside a commercial Electronic Health Record (EHR).

Best practices for preventing malfunctions in rule-based clinical decision support alerts and reminders: Results of a Delphi study.

OBJECTIVE: Developing effective and reliable rule-based clinical decision support (CDS) alerts and reminders is challenging. Using a previously developed taxonomy for alert malfunctions, we identified best practices for developing, testing, implementing, and maintaining alerts and avoiding malfunctions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified 72 initial practices from the literature, interviews with subject matter experts, and prior research. To refine, enrich, and prioritize the list of practices, we used the Delphi method with two rounds of consensus-building and refinement. We used a larger than normal panel of experts to include a wide representation of CDS subject matter experts from various disciplines. RESULTS: 28 experts completed Round 1 and 25 completed Round 2. Round 1 narrowed the list to 47 best practices in 7 categories: knowledge management, designing and specifying, building, testing, deployment, monitoring and feedback, and people and governance. Round 2 developed consensus on the importance and feasibility of each best practice. DISCUSSION: The Delphi panel identified a range of best practices that may help to improve implementation of rule-based CDS and avert malfunctions. Due to limitations on resources and personnel, not everyone can implement all best practices. The most robust processes require investing in a data warehouse. Experts also pointed to the issue of shared responsibility between the healthcare organization and the electronic health record vendor. CONCLUSION: These 47 best practices represent an ideal situation. The research identifies the balance between importance and difficulty, highlights the challenges faced by organizations seeking to implement CDS, and describes several opportunities for future research to reduce alert malfunctions.

Clinical decision support alert malfunctions: analysis and empirically derived taxonomy.

Objective: To develop an empirically derived taxonomy of clinical decision support (CDS) alert malfunctions. Materials and Methods: We identified CDS alert malfunctions using a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods: (1) site visits with interviews of chief medical informatics officers, CDS developers, clinical leaders, and CDS end users; (2) surveys of chief medical informatics officers; (3) analysis of CDS firing rates; and (4) analysis of CDS overrides. We used a multi-round, manual, iterative card sort to develop a multi-axial, empirically derived taxonomy of CDS malfunctions. Results: We analyzed 68 CDS alert malfunction cases from 14 sites across the United States with diverse electronic health record systems. Four primary axes emerged: the cause of the malfunction, its mode of discovery, when it began, and how it affected rule firing. Build errors, conceptualization errors, and the introduction of new concepts or terms were the most frequent causes. User reports were the predominant mode of discovery. Many malfunctions within our database caused rules to fire for patients for whom they should not have (false positives), but the reverse (false negatives) was also common. Discussion: Across organizations and electronic health record systems, similar malfunction patterns recurred. Challenges included updates to code sets and values, software issues at the time of system upgrades, difficulties with migration of CDS content between computing environments, and the challenge of correctly conceptualizing and building CDS. Conclusion: CDS alert malfunctions are frequent. The empirically derived taxonomy formalizes the common recurring issues that cause these malfunctions, helping CDS developers anticipate and prevent CDS malfunctions before they occur or detect and resolve them expediently.

Analysis of variations in the display of drug names in computerized prescriber-order-entry systems.

PURPOSE: The variations in how drug names are displayed in computerized prescriber-order-entry (CPOE) systems were analyzed to determine their contribution to potential medication errors. METHODS: A diverse set of 10 inpatient and outpatient CPOE system vendors and self-developed CPOE systems in 6 U.S. healthcare institutions was evaluated. A team of pharmacists, physicians, patient-safety experts, and informatics experts created a CPOE assessment tool to standardize the assessment of CPOE features across the systems studied. Hypothetical scenarios were conducted with test patients to study the medication ordering workflow and ways in which medications were displayed in each system. Brand versus generic drug name ordering was studied at 1 large outpatient system to understand why prescribers ordered both brand and generic forms of the same drug. RESULTS: Widespread variations in the display of drug names were observed both within and across the 6 study sites and 10 systems, including the inconsistent display of brand and generic names. Some displayed drugs differently even on the same screen. Combination products were often displayed inconsistently, and some systems required prescribers to know the first drug listed in the combination in order for the correct product to appear in a search. It also appeared that prescribers may have prescribed both brand and generic forms of the same medication, creating the potential for drug duplication errors. CONCLUSION: A review of 10 CPOE systems revealed that medication names were displayed inconsistently, which can result in confusion or errors in reviewing, selecting, and ordering medications.

Computerized prescriber order entry-related patient safety reports: analysis of 2522 medication errors.

Objective: To examine medication errors potentially related to computerized prescriber order entry (CPOE) and refine a previously published taxonomy to classify them. Materials and Methods: We reviewed all patient safety medication reports that occurred in the medication ordering phase from 6 sites participating in a United States Food and Drug Administration-sponsored project examining CPOE safety. Two pharmacists independently reviewed each report to confirm whether the error occurred in the ordering/prescribing phase and was related to CPOE. For those related to CPOE, we assessed whether CPOE facilitated (actively contributed to) the error or failed to prevent the error (did not directly cause it, but optimal systems could have potentially prevented it). A previously developed taxonomy was iteratively refined to classify the reports. Results: Of 2522 medication error reports, 1308 (51.9%) were related to CPOE. Of these, CPOE facilitated the error in 171 (13.1%) and potentially could have prevented the error in 1137 (86.9%). The most frequent categories of "what happened to the patient" were delays in medication reaching the patient, potentially receiving duplicate drugs, or receiving a higher dose than indicated. The most frequent categories for "what happened in CPOE" included orders not routed to or received at the intended location, wrong dose ordered, and duplicate orders. Variations were seen in the format, categorization, and quality of reports, resulting in error causation being assignable in only 403 instances (31%). Discussion and Conclusion: Errors related to CPOE commonly involved transmission errors, erroneous dosing, and duplicate orders. More standardized safety reporting using a common taxonomy could help health care systems and vendors learn and implement prevention strategies.

Analysis of clinical decision support system malfunctions: a case series and survey.

OBJECTIVE: To illustrate ways in which clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) malfunction and identify patterns of such malfunctions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified and investigated several CDSS malfunctions at Brigham and Women's Hospital and present them as a case series. We also conducted a preliminary survey of Chief Medical Information Officers to assess the frequency of such malfunctions. RESULTS: We identified four CDSS malfunctions at Brigham and Women's Hospital: (1) an alert for monitoring thyroid function in patients receiving amiodarone stopped working when an internal identifier for amiodarone was changed in another system; (2) an alert for lead screening for children stopped working when the rule was inadvertently edited; (3) a software upgrade of the electronic health record software caused numerous spurious alerts to fire; and (4) a malfunction in an external drug classification system caused an alert to inappropriately suggest antiplatelet drugs, such as aspirin, for patients already taking one. We found that 93% of the Chief Medical Information Officers who responded to our survey had experienced at least one CDSS malfunction, and two-thirds experienced malfunctions at least annually. DISCUSSION: CDSS malfunctions are widespread and often persist for long periods. The failure of alerts to fire is particularly difficult to detect. A range of causes, including changes in codes and fields, software upgrades, inadvertent disabling or editing of rules, and malfunctions of external systems commonly contribute to CDSS malfunctions, and current approaches for preventing and detecting such malfunctions are inadequate. CONCLUSION: CDSS malfunctions occur commonly and often go undetected. Better methods are needed to prevent and detect these malfunctions.

Problem list completeness in electronic health records: A multi-site study and assessment of success factors.

OBJECTIVE: To assess problem list completeness using an objective measure across a range of sites, and to identify success factors for problem list completeness. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of electronic health record data and interviews at ten healthcare organizations within the United States, United Kingdom, and Argentina who use a variety of electronic health record systems: four self-developed and six commercial. At each site, we assessed the proportion of patients who have diabetes recorded on their problem list out of all patients with a hemoglobin A1c elevation>=7.0%, which is diagnostic of diabetes. We then conducted interviews with informatics leaders at the four highest performing sites to determine factors associated with success. Finally, we surveyed all the sites about common practices implemented at the top performing sites to determine whether there was an association between problem list management practices and problem list completeness. RESULTS: Problem list completeness across the ten sites ranged from 60.2% to 99.4%, with a mean of 78.2%. Financial incentives, problem-oriented charting, gap reporting, shared responsibility, links to billing codes, and organizational culture were identified as success factors at the four hospitals with problem list completeness at or near 90.0%. DISCUSSION: Incomplete problem lists represent a global data integrity problem that could compromise quality of care and put patients at risk. There was a wide range of problem list completeness across the healthcare facilities. Nevertheless, some facilities have achieved high levels of problem list completeness, and it is important to better understand the factors that contribute to success to improve patient safety. CONCLUSION: Problem list completeness varies substantially across healthcare facilities. In our review of EHR systems at ten healthcare facilities, we identified six success factors which may be useful for healthcare organizations seeking to improve the quality of their problem list documentation: financial incentives, problem oriented charting, gap reporting, shared responsibility, links to billing codes, and organizational culture.