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.

A position paper in support of face transplantation in the blind.

Facially disfigured blind patients have historically been considered for face transplantation with skepticism. Although no formal position paper regarding their exclusion has been published to date, functional, social, rehabilitative, and ethical concerns related to blind patients' candidacy for face transplantation may be inferred. The authors provide a summary of these reservations and a counterargument to their assumptions, drawing on outcomes measures reported for face transplant procedures performed to date, and their own institutional experience in performing face transplants on blind patients. The authors therefore provide a rationale for the inclusion of facially disfigured blind patients in face transplantation protocols in the future.

A position paper in support of hand transplantation in the blind.

Blind upper extremity amputees have historically been excluded from consideration for hand allotransplantation. Although no formal position statement regarding their exclusion has been published to date, functional, rehabilitative, and ethical concerns related to blind amputee candidacy for hand transplantation may be inferred. The authors provide a summary of these reservations and a counterargument to their assumptions, drawing on outcomes measures reported for hand transplantations completed to date. The authors therefore provide a rationale for the inclusion of blind amputees in hand transplantation protocols in the future.

Health-care referrals from direct-to-consumer genetic testing.

BACKGROUND: direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) provides personalized genetic risk information directly to consumers. Little is known about how and why consumers then communicate the results of this testing to health-care professionals. AIM: to query specialists in clinical genetics about their experience with individuals who consulted them after DTC-GT. METHODS: invitations to participate in a questionnaire were sent to three different groups of genetic professionals, totaling 4047 invitations, asking questions about individuals who consulted them after DTC-GT. For each case reported, respondents were asked to describe how the case was referred to them, the patient's rationale for DTC-GT, and the type of DTC-GT performed. Respondents were also queried about the consequences of the consultations in terms of additional testing ordered. The costs associated with each consultation were estimated. A clinical case series was compiled based upon clinician responses. RESULTS: the invitation resulted in 133 responses describing 22 cases of clinical interactions following DTC-GT. Most consultations (59.1%) were self-referred to genetics professionals, but 31.8% were physician referred. Among respondents, 52.3% deemed the DTC-GT to be "clinically useful." BRCA1/2 testing was considered clinically useful in 85.7% of cases; 35.7% of other tests were considered clinically useful. Subsequent referrals from genetics professionals to specialists and/or additional diagnostic testing were common, generating individual downstream costs estimated to range from $40 to $20,600. CONCLUSIONS: this clinical case series suggests that approximately half of clinical geneticists who saw patients after DTC-GT judged that testing was clinically useful, especially the BRCA1/2 testing. Further studies are needed in larger and more diverse populations to better understand the interactions between DTC-GT and the health-care system.