Evaluation in Life Cycle of Information Technology (ELICIT) framework: Supporting the innovation life cycle from business case assessment to summative evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to develop an evaluation framework for electronic health record (EHR)-integrated innovations to support evaluation activities at each of four information technology (IT) life cycle phases: planning, development, implementation, and operation. METHODS: The evaluation framework was developed based on a review of existing evaluation frameworks from health informatics and other domains (human factors engineering, software engineering, and social sciences); expert consensus; and real-world testing in multiple EHR-integrated innovation studies. RESULTS: The resulting Evaluation in Life Cycle of IT (ELICIT) framework covers four IT life cycle phases and three measure levels (society, user, and IT). The ELICIT framework recommends 12 evaluation steps: (1) business case assessment; (2) stakeholder requirements gathering; (3) technical requirements gathering; (4) technical acceptability assessment; (5) user acceptability assessment; (6) social acceptability assessment; (7) social implementation assessment; (8) initial user satisfaction assessment; (9) technical implementation assessment; (10) technical portability assessment; (11) long-term user satisfaction assessment; and (12) social outcomes assessment. DISCUSSION: Effective evaluation requires a shared understanding and collaboration across disciplines throughout the entire IT life cycle. In contrast with previous evaluation frameworks, the ELICIT framework focuses on all phases of the IT life cycle across the society, user, and IT levels. Institutions seeking to establish evaluation programs for EHR-integrated innovations could use our framework to create such shared understanding and justify the need to invest in evaluation. CONCLUSION: As health care undergoes a digital transformation, it will be critical for EHR-integrated innovations to be systematically evaluated. The ELICIT framework can facilitate these evaluations.

Implementing lung cancer screening in primary care: needs assessment and implementation strategy design.

Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (CT) could help avert thousands of deaths each year. Since the implementation of screening is complex and underspecified, there is a need for systematic and theory-based strategies. Explore the implementation of lung cancer screening in primary care, in the context of integrating a decision aid into the electronic health record. Design implementation strategies that target hypothesized mechanisms of change and context-specific barriers. The study had two phases. The Qualitative Analysis phase included semi-structured interviews with primary care physicians to elicit key task behaviors (e.g., ordering a low-dose CT) and understand the underlying behavioral determinants (e.g., social influence). The Implementation Strategy Design phase consisted of defining implementation strategies and hypothesizing causal pathways to improve screening with a decision aid. Three key task behaviors and four behavioral determinants emerged from 14 interviews. Implementation strategies were designed to target multiple levels of influence. Strategies included increasing provider self-efficacy toward performing shared decision making and using the decision aid, improving provider performance expectancy toward ordering a low-dose CT, increasing social influence toward performing shared decision making and using the decision aid, and addressing key facilitators to using the decision aid. This study contributes knowledge about theoretical determinants of key task behaviors associated with lung cancer screening. We designed implementation strategies according to causal pathways that can be replicated and tested at other institutions. Future research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of these strategies and to determine the contexts in which they can be effectively applied.

QuitSMART Utah: an implementation study protocol for a cluster-randomized, multi-level Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial to increase Reach and Impact of tobacco cessation treatment in Community Health Centers.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco use remains the leading cause of death and disability in the USA and is disproportionately concentrated among low socioeconomic status (SES) populations. Community Health Centers (CHCs) are a key venue for reaching low SES populations with evidence-based tobacco cessation treatment such as Quitlines. Electronic health record (EHR)-based interventions at the point-of-care, text messaging (TM), and phone counseling have the potential to increase Quitline reach and are feasible to implement within CHCs. However, there is a lack of data to inform how, when, and in what combination these strategies should be implemented. The aims of this cluster-randomized trial are to evaluate multi-level implementation strategies to increase the Reach (i.e., proportion of tobacco-using patients who enroll in the Quitline) and Impact (i.e., Reach × Efficacy [efficacy is defined as the proportion of tobacco-using patients who enroll in Quitline treatment that successfully quit]) and to evaluate characteristics of healthcare system, providers, and patients that may influence tobacco-use outcomes. METHODS: This study is a multilevel, three-phase, Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial (SMART), conducted in CHCs (N = 33 clinics; N = 6000 patients). In the first phase, clinics will be randomized to two different EHR conditions. The second and third phases are patient-level randomizations based on prior treatment response. Patients who enroll in the Quitline receive no further interventions. In phase two, patients who are non-responders (i.e., patients who do not enroll in Quitline) will be randomized to receive either TM or continued-EHR. In phase three, patients in the TM condition who are non-responders will be randomized to receive either continued-TM or TM + phone coaching. DISCUSSION: This project will evaluate scalable, multi-level interventions to directly address strategic national priorities for reducing tobacco use and related disparities by increasing the Reach and Impact of evidence-based tobacco cessation interventions in low SES populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03900767) on April 4th, 2019.

High Prevalence of Medication Discrepancies Between Home Health Referrals and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Home Health Certification and Plan of Care and Their Potential to Affect Safety of Vulnerable Elderly Adults.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the prevalence of discrepancies between medication lists that referring providers and home healthcare (HH) nurses create. DESIGN: The active medication list from the hospital at time of HH initiation was compared with the HH agency's plan of care medication list. An electronic algorithm was developed to compare the two lists for discrepancies. SETTING: Single large hospital and HH agency in the western United States. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals referred for HH from the hospital in 2012 (N = 770, 96.3% male, median age 71). MEASUREMENTS: Prevalence was calculated for discrepancies, including medications missing from one list or the other and differences in dose, frequency, or route for medications contained on both lists. RESULTS: Participants had multiple medical problems (median 16 active problems) and were taking a median of 15 medications (range 1-93). Every participant had at least one discrepancy; 90.1% of HH lists were missing at least one medication that the referring provider had prescribed, 92.1% of HH lists contained medications not on the referring provider's list, 89.8% contained medication naming errors. 71.0% contained dosing discrepancies, and 76.3% contained frequency discrepancies. CONCLUSION: Discrepancies between HH and referring provider lists are common. Future work is needed to address possible safety and care coordination implications of discrepancies in this highly complex population.