Straight to the point: evaluation of a Point of Care Information (POCI) resource in answering disease-related questions.

Objective: To evaluate the ability of DynaMedex, an evidence-based drug and disease Point of Care Information (POCI) resource, in answering clinical queries using keyword searches. Methods: Real-world disease-related questions compiled from clinicians at an academic medical center, DynaMedex search query data, and medical board review resources were categorized into five clinical categories (complications & prognosis, diagnosis & clinical presentation, epidemiology, prevention & screening/monitoring, and treatment) and six specialties (cardiology, endocrinology, hematology-oncology, infectious disease, internal medicine, and neurology). A total of 265 disease-related questions were evaluated by pharmacist reviewers based on if an answer was found (yes, no), whether the answer was relevant (yes, no), difficulty in finding the answer (easy, not easy), cited best evidence available (yes, no), clinical practice guidelines included (yes, no), and level of detail provided (detailed, limited details). Results: An answer was found for 259/265 questions (98%). Both reviewers found an answer for 241 questions (91%), neither found the answer for 6 questions (2%), and only one reviewer found an answer for 18 questions (7%). Both reviewers found a relevant answer 97% of the time when an answer was found. Of all relevant answers found, 68% were easy to find, 97% cited best quality of evidence available, 72% included clinical guidelines, and 95% were detailed. Recommendations for areas of resource improvement were identified. Conclusions: The resource enabled reviewers to answer most questions easily with the best quality of evidence available, providing detailed answers and clinical guidelines, with a high level of replication of results across users.

Advancing health information during interhospital transfer: An interrupted time series.

INTRODUCTION: Although the transfer of patients between acute care hospitals (interhospital transfer, IHT) is common, health information exchange (HIE) during IHT remains inadequate, with fragmented communication and unreliable access to clinical information. This study aims to design, implement, and rigorously evaluate the implementation of a HIE platform to improve data access during IHT. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Study subjects include patients aged >18 transferred to the medical, cardiology, oncology, or intensive care unit (ICU) services at an 800-bed quaternary care hospital; and healthcare workers involved in their care. The first aim of this study is to optimize clinician workflow, data visualization, and interoperability through user-centered design sessions for HIE platform development. The second aim is to evaluate the impact of the intervention on clinician-reported medical errors among 500 pre- and 500 postintervention IHT patients using interrupted time series methodology, adjusting for confounding variables and temporal trends. The third aim is to evaluate intervention fidelity, use and perceived usability of the platform, and barriers and facilitators of implementation from interprofessional stakeholder input, using mixed-methods evaluation. The fourth aim is to consolidate key findings to create a toolkit for spread and sustainability. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We will track patient safety endpoints and clinician workflow burdens and ensure the protection of patient data throughout the study. We will disseminate our findings via the creation of a toolkit for spread and sustainability, partnering with our funder (AHRQ) for dissemination, and communicating our results via abstracts and publications.

Use, Perceived Usability, and Barriers to Implementation of a Patient Safety Dashboard Integrated within a Vendor EHR.

BACKGROUND: Preventable adverse events continue to be a threat to hospitalized patients. Clinical decision support in the form of dashboards may improve compliance with evidence-based safety practices. However, limited research describes providers' experiences with dashboards integrated into vendor electronic health record (EHR) systems. OBJECTIVE: This study was aimed to describe providers' use and perceived usability of the Patient Safety Dashboard and discuss barriers and facilitators to implementation. METHODS: The Patient Safety Dashboard was implemented in a cluster-randomized stepped wedge trial on 12 units in neurology, oncology, and general medicine services over an 18-month period. Use of the Dashboard was tracked during the implementation period and analyzed in-depth for two 1-week periods to gather a detailed representation of use. Providers' perceptions of tool usability were measured using the Health Information Technology Usability Evaluation Scale (rated 1-5). Research assistants conducted field observations throughout the duration of the study to describe use and provide insight into tool adoption. RESULTS: The Dashboard was used 70% of days the tool was available, with use varying by role, service, and time of day. On general medicine units, nurses logged in throughout the day, with many logins occurring during morning rounds, when not rounding with the care team. Prescribers logged in typically before and after morning rounds. On neurology units, physician assistants accounted for most logins, accessing the Dashboard during daily brief interdisciplinary rounding sessions. Use on oncology units was rare. Satisfaction with the tool was highest for perceived ease of use, with attendings giving the highest rating (4.23). The overall lowest rating was for quality of work life, with nurses rating the tool lowest (2.88). CONCLUSION: This mixed methods analysis provides insight into the use and usability of a dashboard tool integrated within a vendor EHR and can guide future improvements and more successful implementation of these types of tools.