Patient perceptions of a personal health record: a test of the diffusion of innovation model.

BACKGROUND: Personal health records (PHRs) have emerged as an important tool with which patients can electronically communicate with their doctors and doctor's offices. However, there is a lack of theoretical and empirical research on how patients perceive the PHR and the differences in perceptions between users and non-users of the PHR. OBJECTIVE: To apply a theoretical model, the diffusion of innovation model, to the study of PHRs and conduct an exploratory empirical study on the applicability of the model to the study of perceptions of PHRs. A secondary objective was to assess whether perceptions of PHRs predict the perceived value of the PHR for communicating with the doctor's office. METHODS: We first developed a survey capturing perceptions of PHR use and other factors such as sociodemographic characteristics, access and use of technology, perceived innovativeness in the domain of information technology, and perceptions of privacy and security. We then conducted a cross-sectional survey (N = 1500). Patients were grouped into five groups of 300: PHR users (innovators, other users, and laggards), rejecters, and non-adopters. We applied univariate statistical analysis (Pearson chi-square and one-way ANOVA) to assess differences among groups and used multivariate statistical techniques (factor analysis and multiple regression analysis) to assess the presence of factors identified by the diffusion of innovation model and the predictors of our dependent variable (value of PHR for communicating with the doctor's office). RESULTS: Of the 1500 surveys, 760 surveys were returned for an overall response rate of 51%. Computer use among non-adopters (75%) was lower than that among PHR users (99%) and rejecters (92%) (P < .001). Non-adopters also reported a lower score on personal innovativeness in information technology (mean = 2.8) compared to 3.6 and 3.1, respectively, for users and rejecters (P < .001). Four factors identified by the diffusion of innovation model emerged in the factor analysis: ease of use, relative advantage, observability, and trialability. PHR users perceived greater ease of use and relative advantage of the PHR than rejecters and non-adopters (P < .001). Multiple regression analysis showed the following factors as significant positive predictors of the value of PHR for communicating with the doctor's office: relative advantage, ease of use, trialability, perceptions of privacy and security, age, and computer use. CONCLUSION: Our study found that the diffusion of innovation model fits the study of perceptions of the PHR and provides a suitable theoretical and empirical framework to identify the factors that distinguish PHR users from non-users. The ease of use and relative advantage offered by the PHR emerged as the most important domains among perceptions of PHR use and in predicting the value of the PHR. Efforts to improve uptake and use of PHRs should focus on strategies that enhance the ease of use of PHRs and that highlight the relative advantages of PHRs.

Impact of implementing alerts about medication black-box warnings in electronic health records.

BACKGROUND: The Food and Drug Administration issues black-box warnings (BBWs) regarding medications with serious risks, yet physician adherence to the warnings is low. METHODS: We evaluated the impact of delivering BBW-based alerts about drug-drug, drug-disease, and drug-laboratory interactions for prescription medications in outpatients in an electronic health record with clinical decision support. We compared the frequency of non-adherence to all BBWs about drug-drug, drug-disease, and drug-laboratory interactions for 30 drugs/drug classes, and by individual drugs/drug groups with BBWs between the pre- and post-intervention periods. We used multivariate analysis to identify independent risk factors for non-adherence to BBWs. RESULTS: There was a slightly higher frequency of non-adherence to BBWs after the intervention (4.8% vs. 5.1%, p=0.045). In multivariate analyses, after adjustment for patient and provider characteristics and site of care, medications prescribed during the pre-intervention period were less likely to violate BBWs compared to those prescribed during the post-intervention period (OR 0.67, 95% CI, 0.47-0.96). However, black-box warning violations did decrease after the intervention for BBWs about drug-drug interactions (6.1% vs. 1.8%, p<0.0001) and drug-pregnancy interactions (5.1% vs. 3.6%, p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Ambulatory care computerized order entry with prescribing alerts about BBWs did not improve clinicians' overall adherence to BBWs, though it did improve adherence for specific clinically important subcategories.

Hospital readmissions: physician awareness and communication practices.

BACKGROUND: Patients requiring early hospital readmission may be readmitted to different physicians, potentially without the knowledge of the prior caregivers. This lost opportunity to share information about readmitted patients may be detrimental to quality of care and resident education. OBJECTIVE: To measure physician awareness of and communication about readmissions. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Two academic medical centers. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 432 patients discharged from the general medicine services and readmitted within 14 days. MEASUREMENTS: We identified patients discharged from the general medicine services and readmitted within 14 days, excluding patients readmitted to the same physician(s) and planned readmissions. We surveyed discharging and readmitting physicians 48 h after the time of readmission. RESULTS: Discharging physician teams were aware of 48.5% (95% CI 41.5%-55.5%) of patient readmissions. Communication between teams occurred on 43.7% (95% CI 37.1%-50.3%). Higher medical complexity was associated with an increased likelihood of physician communication (adjusted OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.06-1.19). When communication occurred, readmitting physicians received information about the discharging team's overall assessment (61.9%, 95% CI 51.9%-71.9%), psychosocial issues (52.6%, 95% CI 42.4%-62.8%), pending tests (34.0%, 95% CI 24.2%-43.8%), and discharge medications (30.9%, 95% CI 21.5%-40.3%). When communication did not occur, most physicians (60.8%, 95% CI 56.7%-64.9%) responded it would have been desirable to communicate. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians are frequently unaware of patient readmissions and often do not communicate when readmissions occur. This communication is often desired and frequently results in the exchange of important patient information. Further work is needed to design systems to address this potential discontinuity of care.

Classifying and predicting errors of inpatient medication reconciliation.

BACKGROUND: Failure to reconcile medications across transitions in care is an important source of potential harm to patients. Little is known about the predictors of unintentional medication discrepancies and how, when, and where they occur. OBJECTIVE: To determine the reasons, timing, and predictors of potentially harmful medication discrepancies. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. PATIENTS: Admitted general medical patients. MEASUREMENTS: Study pharmacists took gold-standard medication histories and compared them with medical teams' medication histories, admission and discharge orders. Blinded teams of physicians adjudicated all unexplained discrepancies using a modification of an existing typology. The main outcome was the number of potentially harmful unintentional medication discrepancies per patient (potential adverse drug events or PADEs). RESULTS: Among 180 patients, 2066 medication discrepancies were identified, and 257 (12%) were unintentional and had potential for harm (1.4 per patient). Of these, 186 (72%) were due to errors taking the preadmission medication history, while 68 (26%) were due to errors reconciling the medication history with discharge orders. Most PADEs occurred at discharge (75%). In multivariable analyses, low patient understanding of preadmission medications, number of medication changes from preadmission to discharge, and medication history taken by an intern were associated with PADEs. CONCLUSIONS: Unintentional medication discrepancies are common and more often due to errors taking an accurate medication history than errors reconciling this history with patient orders. Focusing on accurate medication histories, on potential medication errors at discharge, and on identifying high-risk patients for more intensive interventions may improve medication safety during and after hospitalization.

Handoffs causing patient harm: a survey of medical and surgical house staff.

BACKGROUND: Communication lapses at the time of patient handoffs are believed to be common, and yet the frequency with which patients are harmed as a result of problematic handoffs is unknown. Resident physicians were surveyed about their handoffpractices and the frequency with which they perceive problems with handoffs lead to patient harm. METHODS: A survey was conducted in 2006 of all resident physicians in internal medicine and general surgery at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) concerning the quality and effects of handoffs during their most recent inpatient rotations. Surveys were sent to 238 eligible residents; 161 responses were obtained (response rate, 67.6%). RESULTS: Fifty-nine percent of residents reported that one or more patients had been harmed during their most recent clinical rotation because of problematic handoffs, and 12% reported that this harm had been major. Overall quality of handoffs was reported to be fair or poor by 31% of residents. A minority of residents (26%) reported that handoffs usually or always took place in a quiet setting, and 37% reported that one or more interruptions during the receipt of handoffs occurred either most of the time or always. DISCUSSION: Although handoffs have long been recognized as potentially hazardous, further scrutiny of handoffs has followed recent reports that handoffs are often marked by missing, incomplete, or inaccurate information and are associated with adverse events. In this study, reports of harm to patients from problematic handoffs were common among residents in internal medicine and general surgery. Many best-practice recommendations for handoffs are not observed, although the extent to which improvement of these practices could reduce patient harm is not known. MGH has recently launched a handoff-safety educational program, along with other interventions designed to improve the safety and effectiveness of handoffs, for its house staff and clinical leadership.

Who adopts a patient portal?: An application of the diffusion of innovation model.

BACKGROUND: Patient portals have emerged as an important tool through which patients can access online health information and engage in their health care. However, we know little about how patients perceive portals and whether patient perceptions might influence portal adoption. OBJECTIVE: Apply the diffusion of innovation (DOI) theory to assess perceptions of adopters and non-adopters of a patient portal. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of adopters and non-adopters of the portal. Our survey consisted of perceived attributes from the DOI theory, socio-demographic characteristics and patient perceptions of technology adoption. RESULTS: Three factors representing perceived attributes from DOI theory accounted for 73% of the variance in the data: Factor 1 - Relative Advantage (27%); Factor 2 - Ease of Use (24%) and Factor 3 - Trialability (22%). Adopters perceived greater Relative Advantage [mean (SD)] = 3.8 (0.71) versus 3.2 (0.89), p < 0.001, Ease of Use = 4.1 (0.71) versus 3.3 (0.95), p < 0.001 and Trialability = 4.0 (0.57) versus 3.4 (0.99), p < 0.001 than non-adopters. In multivariate modelling, age [OR = 3.75, 95% CI: (2.17, 6.46), p < 0.001] and income [OR = 1.87, 95% CI: (1.17, 3.00), p < 0.01] predicted adoption of the portal. Among DOI factors, Relative advantage predicted adoption of the portal [OR = 1.48, 95% CI: (1.03, 2.11), p < 0.05]. CONCLUSION: Patients will adopt a patient portal if they perceive it to offer a relative advantage over existing practices such as telephoning or visiting the doctor's office. Organisations seeking to increase the adoption of patient portals should implement strategies to promote the relative advantage of portals as, for example, through posters in waiting and exam rooms. A digital divide in the adoption of patient portals may exist with respect to age and income.

Adherence to black box warnings for prescription medications in outpatients.

BACKGROUND: Few data are available regarding the prevalence of potentially dangerous drug-drug, drug-laboratory, and drug-disease interactions among outpatients. Our objectives were to determine how frequently clinicians prescribe drugs in violation of black box warnings for these issues and to determine how frequently such prescribing results in harm. METHODS: In an observational study of 51 outpatient practices using an electronic health record, we measured the frequency with which patients received prescriptions in violation of black box warnings for drug-drug, drug-laboratory, and/or drug-disease interactions. We performed medical record reviews in a sample of patients to detect adverse drug events. Multivariate analysis was conducted to assess the relationship of prescribing in violation of black box warnings to patient and clinician characteristics, adjusting for potential confounders and clustering. RESULTS: Of 324 548 outpatients who received a medication in 2002, 2354 (0.7%) received a prescription in violation of a black box warning. After adjustment, receipt of medication in violation of a black box warning was more likely when patients were 75 years or older or female. The number of medications taken, the number of medical problems, and the site of care were also associated with violations. Less than 1% of patients who received a drug in violation of a black box warning had an adverse drug event as a result. CONCLUSIONS: About 7 in 1000 outpatients received a prescription violating a black box warning. Few incidents resulted in detectable harm.

Physician Beliefs about the Meaningful Use of the Electronic Health Record: A Follow-Up Study.

Background There is continuing interest in how physicians are responding to the meaningful use of the electronic health record (EHR) incentive program. However, little research has been done on physician beliefs about the meaningful use of the EHR. Objective This study aims to conduct a follow-up study of physician beliefs about the meaningful use of the EHR. Methods Online survey of physicians at two academic medical centers (AMCs) in the northeast who were participating in the meaningful use of the EHR incentive program and were using an internally developed EHR was conducted. Results Of the 2,033 physicians surveyed, 1,075 completed the survey for an overall response rate of 52.9%. Only one-fifth (20.5%) of the physicians agreed or strongly agreed that meaningful use of the EHR would help them improve quality of care, and only a quarter (25.2%) agreed or strongly agreed that the meaningful use of the EHR would improve the care that their organization delivers. Physician satisfaction with the outpatient EHR was the strongest predictor of self-efficacy with achieving stage 2 of the meaningful use of the EHR incentive program (odds ratio: 2.10, 95% confidence interval: 1.61, 2.75, p < 0.001). Physicians reported more negative beliefs in stage 2 than stage 1 across all belief items. For example, 28.1% agreed or strongly agreed that the meaningful use of the EHR would decrease medical errors in stage 2 as compared with 35.9% in stage 1 (p < 0.001). Conclusion Only one-fifth of the physicians in our study believed that the meaningful use of the EHR would improve quality of care, patient-centeredness of care, or the care they personally provide. Primary care physicians expressed more negative beliefs about the meaningful use of the EHR in stage 2 than in stage 1. These findings show that physicians continue to express negative beliefs about the meaningful use of the EHR. These ongoing negative beliefs are concerning for both implementation and policy.

The denominator problem: national hospital quality measures for acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: National Hospital Quality Measures (NHQM) should accurately reflect quality of care, as they increasingly impact reimbursement and reputation. However, similar to risk adjustment of outcomes measures, NHQM process measures pose unique methodological concerns, including lack of representativeness of the final denominator population after exclusions. This study determines population size and characteristics for each acute myocardial infarction (AMI) measure, reasons for exclusion from the measures, and variation in exclusion rates among hospitals. METHODS AND RESULTS: 163 144 discharges from 172 University HealthSystem Consortium hospitals between 2008-Q4 and 2013-Q3 were examined, including characteristics and propensity scores of included and excluded groups. Measure exclusions ranged from 17.8% (discharge aspirin) to 90.1% (percutaneous coronary intervention, PCI, within 90 min), with substantial variation across hospitals. Median annual denominator size (IQR) for PCI within 90 min was 28 (20, 44) at major teaching hospitals, versus 10 (0, 25) at non-teaching hospitals. Patients most likely to be excluded (in the 10th vs 1st propensity decile) were older (mean age (SD) of 78.1 (10.8) vs 50.3 (8.6) years), more likely to have Medicare (90.5% vs 0.9%), had more documented comorbidities (15.6 (4.6) vs 6.2 (2.5) hierarchical clinical condition categories) and higher admission mortality risk (Major or Extreme 80.9% vs 7.3%, respectively), and experienced higher inpatient mortality (10.0% vs 1.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Exclusion from AMI measures varied substantially among hospitals, sample sizes were very small for some measures (PCI and ACE inhibitor measures) and measures often excluded high-risk populations. This has implications for the representativeness and comparability of the measures and provides insight for future measure development.

Design and implementation of an application and associated services to support interdisciplinary medication reconciliation efforts at an integrated healthcare delivery network.

Confusion about patients' medication regimens during the hospital admission and discharge process accounts for many preventable and serious medication errors. Many organizations have begun to redesign their clinical processes to address this patient safety concern. Partners HealthCare, an integrated delivery network in Boston, Massachusetts, has answered this interdisciplinary challenge by leveraging its multiple outpatient electronic medical records (EMR) and inpatient computerized provider order entry (CPOE) systems to facilitate the process of medication reconciliation. This manuscript describes the design of a novel application and the associated services that aggregate medication data from EMR and CPOE systems so that clinicians can efficiently generate an accurate pre-admission medication list. Information collected with the use of this application subsequently supports the writing of admission and discharge orders by physicians, performance of admission assessment by nurses, and reconciliation of inpatient orders by pharmacists. Results from early pilot testing suggest that this new medication reconciliation process is well accepted by clinicians and has significant potential to prevent medication errors during transitions of care.

Patient safety concerns arising from test results that return after hospital discharge.

BACKGROUND: Failure to relay information about test results pending when patients are discharged from the hospital may pose an important patient-safety problem. Few data are available on the epidemiology of test results pending at discharge or on physician awareness of these results. OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence, characteristics, and physician awareness of potentially actionable laboratory and radiologic test results returning after hospital discharge. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Two tertiary care academic hospitals. PATIENTS: 2644 consecutive patients discharged from hospitalist services from February to June 2004. MEASUREMENTS: The main outcomes were the prevalence and characteristics of potentially actionable test results returning after hospital discharge, awareness of these results by inpatient and primary care physicians, and satisfaction of inpatient physicians with current systems for follow-up on test results. The authors prospectively collected data on test results pending at the time of discharge and, as results returned after discharge, surveyed hospitalists, junior residents, and primary care physicians about those results that were potentially actionable according to a physician-reviewer. RESULTS: A total of 1095 patients (41%) had 2033 test results return after discharge. Of these results, 191 (9.4% [95% CI, 8.0% to 11.0%]) were potentially actionable. Surveys were sent regarding 155 results, and 105 responses were returned. Of the 105 results in the surveys with responses, physicians had been unaware of 65 (61.6% [CI, 51.3% to 70.9%]); of these 65, they agreed with physician-reviewers that 24 (37.1% [CI, 25.7% to 50.2%]) were actionable and 8 (12.6% [CI, 6.4% to 23.3%]) required urgent action. Inpatient physicians were dissatisfied with their systems for following up on test results returning after discharge. LIMITATIONS: The authors were unable to determine whether physicians' lack of awareness of test results returning after discharge was associated with adverse outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Many patients are discharged from hospitals with test results still pending, and physicians are often unaware of potentially actionable test results returning after discharge. Further work is needed to design better follow-up systems for test results returning after hospital discharge.

A randomized trial of electronic clinical reminders to improve quality of care for diabetes and coronary artery disease.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of an integrated patient-specific electronic clinical reminder system on diabetes and coronary artery disease (CAD) care and to assess physician attitudes toward this reminder system. DESIGN: We enrolled 194 primary care physicians caring for 4549 patients with diabetes and 2199 patients with CAD at 20 ambulatory clinics. Clinics were randomized so that physicians received either evidence-based electronic reminders within their patients' electronic medical record or usual care. There were five reminders for diabetes care and four reminders for CAD care. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was receipt of recommended care for diabetes and CAD. We created a summary outcome to assess the odds of increased compliance with overall diabetes care (based on five measures) and overall CAD care (based on four measures). We surveyed physicians to assess attitudes toward the reminder system. RESULTS: Baseline adherence rates to all quality measures were low. While electronic reminders increased the odds of recommended diabetes care (odds ratio [OR] 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.67) and CAD (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.01-1.55), the impact of individual reminders was variable. A total of three of nine reminders effectively increased rates of recommended care for diabetes or CAD. The majority of physicians (76%) thought that reminders improved quality of care. CONCLUSION: An integrated electronic reminder system resulted in variable improvement in care for diabetes and CAD. These improvements were often limited and quality gaps persist.

"I wish I had seen this test result earlier!": Dissatisfaction with test result management systems in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Failure to review and follow up on outpatient test results in a timely manner represents a patient safety and malpractice concern. Therefore, we sought to identify problems in current test result management systems and possible ways to improve these systems. METHODS: We surveyed 262 physicians working in 15 internal medicine practices affiliated with 2 large urban teaching hospitals (response rate, 64%). We asked physicians about systems they used and the amount of time they spent managing test results. We asked them to report delays in reviewing test results and their overall satisfaction with their management of test results. We also asked physicians to rate features they would find useful in a new test result management system. RESULTS: Overall, 83% of respondents reported at least 1 delay in reviewing test results during the previous 2 months. Despite reporting that they spent on average 74 minutes per clinical day managing test results, only 41% of physicians reported being satisfied with how they managed test results. Satisfaction was associated with fewer self-reported delays in reviewing test results. Physicians who actively tracked their test orders to completion were also more likely to be satisfied. The most highly desired features of a test result management system were tools to help physicians generate result letters to patients, prioritize their workflow, and track test orders to completion. CONCLUSIONS: Delays in test result review are common, and many physicians are not satisfied with how they manage test results. Tools to improve test result management in office practices need to improve workflow efficiency and track test orders to completion.

Adherence with osteoporosis practice guidelines: a multilevel analysis of patient, physician, and practice setting characteristics.

PURPOSE: The diagnosis and treatment of patients at risk of fragility fractures is uncommon. We examined the patient, physician, and practice characteristics associated with adherence to local osteoporosis guidelines. METHODS: Data were obtained from electronic medical records from one academic medical center. Local guidelines suggest screening and consideration of treatment for at-risk patients, including women aged > or =65 years, women aged 50 to 64 years who smoke cigarettes, persons who used more than 5 mg of oral prednisone for >3 months, and those with a history of a fracture after age 45 years. Clinical notes, medication lists, and radiology records were reviewed to determine whether patients had undergone bone mineral density testing or received any medications for osteoporosis. Possible correlates of guideline adherence, including patient, physician, and practice site characteristics, were assessed in mixed multivariable models. RESULTS: We identified 6311 at-risk patients seen by 160 doctors at 10 primary care sites during 2001 to 2002. Of these patients, 45% (n = 2820) had a prior bone mineral density test and 30% (n = 1922) had received a medication for osteoporosis; 54% (n = 3401) had one or the other. After adjusting for patient case mix, 17% to 71% of patients had been managed according to local guidelines and had undergone at least bone mineral density testing or received a medication. Patient variables that significantly lowered the probability of guideline adherence included age >74 years (odds ratio [OR] = 0.49; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.43 to 0.55), age <55 years (OR = 0.34; 95% CI: 0.28 to 0.42), male sex (OR = 0.17; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.23), black race (OR = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.47), and having more than one comorbid condition (OR = 0.79; 95% CI: 0.69 to 0.89). Patients seen by male physicians were less likely to have care that was adherent with guidelines (OR = 0.70; 95% CI: 0.55 to 0.89). CONCLUSION: Rates of adherence with local osteoporosis guidelines for patients at risk of fragility fractures vary by patient, physician, and practice site characteristic.

Automated coded ambulatory problem lists: evaluation of a vocabulary and a data entry tool.

BACKGROUND: Problem lists are fundamental to electronic medical records (EMRs). However, obtaining an appropriate problem list dictionary is difficult, and getting users to code their problems at the time of data entry can be challenging. OBJECTIVE: To develop a problem list dictionary and search algorithm for an EMR system and evaluate its use. METHODS: We developed a problem list dictionary and lookup tool and implemented it in several EMR systems. A sample of 10,000 problem entries was reviewed from each system to assess overall coding rates. We also performed a manual review of a subset of entries to determine the appropriateness of coded entries, and to assess the reasons other entries were left uncoded. RESULTS: The overall coding rate varied significantly between different EMR implementations (63-79%). Coded entries were virtually always appropriate (99%). The most frequent reasons for uncoded entries were due to user interface failures (44-45%), insufficient dictionary coverage (20-32%), and non-problem entries (10-12%). CONCLUSION: The problem list dictionary and search algorithm has achieved a good coding rate, but the rate is dependent on the specific user interface implementation. Problem coding is essential for providing clinical decision support, and improving usability should result in better coding rates.

Association of National Hospital Quality Measure adherence with long-term mortality and readmissions.

BACKGROUND: In existing studies, the association between adherence with recommended hospital care processes and subsequent outcomes has been inconsistent. This has substantial implications because process measure scores are used for accountability, quality improvement and reimbursement. Our investigation addresses methodological concerns with previous studies to better clarify the process-outcomes association for three common conditions. METHODS: The study included all patients discharged from Massachusetts General Hospital between 1 July 2004 and 31 December 2007 with a principle diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF) or pneumonia (PN) who were eligible for at least one National Hospital Quality Measure. The number of patients analysed varied by measure (374 to 3020) depending on Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services eligibility criteria. Hospital data were linked with state administrative data to determine mortality and readmissions. For patients with multiple admissions, the time-weighted impact of measure failures on mortality was estimated using exponential decay functions. All patients had follow-up for at least 1 year or until death or readmission. Cox models were used to estimate HRs adjusted for transfer status, age, gender, race, census block-group socioeconomic status, number of Elixhauser comorbidities, and do not resuscitate orders. RESULTS: Adjusted survival and freedom from readmission for AMI and PN showed superior results for 100% and 50-99% adherence compared with 0-49% adherence. For HF, the results were inconsistent and sometimes paradoxical, although several individual measures (eg, ACE inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blockade) were associated with improved outcomes. CONCLUSION: Adherence with recommended AMI and PN care processes is associated with improved long-term outcomes, whereas the results for HF measures are inconsistent. The evidence base for all process measures must be critically evaluated, including the strength of association between these care processes and outcomes in real-world populations. Some currently recommended processes may not be suitable as accountability measures.

Risk of thiazide-induced hyponatremia in patients with hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Although hyponatremia is a well-recognized complication of treatment with thiazide diuretics, the risk of thiazide-induced hyponatremia remains uncertain in routine care. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using a multicenter clinical research registry to identify 2613 adult outpatients that were newly treated for hypertension between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2005 at 2 teaching hospitals in Boston, Massachusetts, and followed them for up to 10 years. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty patients exposed to ongoing thiazide therapy were compared with 2393 patients who were not exposed. In the exposed group, 66 (30%) developed hyponatremia (sodium ≤130 mmol/L). The adjusted incidence rate of hyponatremia was 140 cases per 1000 person-years for patients treated with thiazides, compared with 87 cases per 1000 person-years in those without thiazides. Patients exposed to thiazides were more likely to develop hyponatremia (adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-2.25). There was no significant difference in the risk of hospitalizations associated with hyponatremia (adjusted rate ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.46-2.32) or mortality (adjusted rate ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.12-1.42). The number needed to harm (to result in one excess case of incident hyponatremia in 5 years) was 15.02 (95% CI, 7.88-160.30). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 3 in 10 patients exposed to thiazides who continue to take them develop hyponatremia.

Predictors of nonadherence to national hospital quality measures for heart failure and pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Understanding factors associated with process measure nonadherence may improve both patient care and future measure design. METHODS: We analyzed 3401 patients with heart failure and 2186 patients with pneumonia who were eligible for at least 1 National Hospital Quality Measure at an urban tertiary medical center from July 1, 2004, to June 30, 2008. We investigated the association of socioeconomic, demographic, clinical, and care delivery factors with process measure nonadherence, using multivariable analysis. RESULTS: Demographic and socioeconomic variables were unrelated to heart failure measure adherence. Nonadherence with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker use was more common in patients with renal failure (odds ratio [OR] 2.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.46-4.49), and patients admitted to noncardiac units more often failed the heart failure all-or-none measure (OR 2.22; 95% CI, 1.79-2.75). Patients with pneumonia who were admitted via the emergency department were less likely to fail antibiotic timing (OR 0.41; 95% CI, 0.27-0.63), whereas those with a history of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (OR 2.63; 95% CI, 1.31-5.28) or requiring intensive care unit admission (OR 11.4; 95% CI, 6.3-20.8) were more likely to fail the antibiotic selection measure. CONCLUSION: Demographic and socioeconomic factors were generally unrelated to process measure nonadherence, demonstrating that excellent inpatient care can be delivered even to vulnerable populations. Clinical predictors suggest opportunities for improving both medical record documentation of appropriate exclusions and future measure specifications, especially for complex patients. Care delivery factors substantially affect process adherence.

Lessons learned from implementation of a computerized application for pending tests at hospital discharge.

BACKGROUND: Patients are often discharged from the hospital before test results are finalized. Awareness of these results is poor and therefore an important patient safety concern. Few computerized systems have been deployed at care transitions to address this problem. We describe an attempt to implement a computerized application to help inpatient physicians manage these test results. METHODS: We modified an ambulatory electronic medical record (EMR)-based results management application to track pending tests at hospital discharge (Hospitalist Results Manager, HRM). We trained inpatient physicians at 2 academic medical centers to track these tests using this application. We surveyed inpatient physicians regarding usage of and satisfaction with the application, barriers to use, and the characteristics of an ideal system to track pending tests at discharge. RESULTS: Of 29 survey respondents, 14 (48%) reported never using HRM, and 13 (45%) used it 1 to 2 times per week. A total of 23 (79%) reported barriers prohibiting use, including being inundated with clinically "irrelevant" results, not having sufficient time, and a lack of integration of post-discharge test result management into usual workflow. Twenty-one (72%) wanted to receive notification of abnormal and clinician-designated pending test results. Twenty-seven physicians (93%) agreed that an ideally designed computerized application would be valuable for managing pending tests at discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Although inpatient physicians would highly value a computerized application to manage pending tests at discharge, the characteristics of an ideal system are unclear and there are important barriers prohibiting adoption and optimal usage of such systems. We outline suggestions for future electronic systems to manage pending tests at discharge.