Examining Care Planning Efficiency and Clinical Decision Support Adoption in a System Tailoring to Nurses' Graph Literacy: National, Web-Based Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The proliferation of health care data in electronic health records (EHRs) is fueling the need for clinical decision support (CDS) that ensures accuracy and reduces cognitive processing and documentation burden. The CDS format can play a key role in achieving the desired outcomes. Building on our laboratory-based pilot study with 60 registered nurses (RNs) from 1 Midwest US metropolitan area indicating the importance of graph literacy (GL), we conducted a fully powered, innovative, national, and web-based randomized controlled trial with 203 RNs. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare care planning time (CPT) and the adoption of evidence-based CDS recommendations by RNs randomly assigned to 1 of 4 CDS format groups: text only (TO), text+table (TT), text+graph (TG), and tailored (based on the RN's GL score). We hypothesized that the tailored CDS group will have faster CPT (primary) and higher adoption rates (secondary) than the 3 nontailored CDS groups. METHODS: Eligible RNs employed in an adult hospital unit within the past 2 years were recruited randomly from 10 State Board of Nursing lists representing the 5 regions of the United States (Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, Southwest, and West) to participate in a randomized controlled trial. RNs were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 CDS format groups-TO, TT, TG, and tailored (based on the RN's GL score)-and interacted with the intervention on their PCs. Regression analysis was performed to estimate the effect of tailoring and the association between CPT and RN characteristics. RESULTS: The differences between the tailored (n=46) and nontailored (TO, n=55; TT, n=54; and TG, n=48) CDS groups were not significant for either the CPT or the CDS adoption rate. RNs with low GL had longer CPT interacting with the TG CDS format than the TO CDS format (P=.01). The CPT in the TG CDS format was associated with age (P=.02), GL (P=.02), and comfort with EHRs (P=.047). Comfort with EHRs was also associated with CPT in the TT CDS format (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although tailoring based on GL did not improve CPT or adoption, the study reinforced previous pilot findings that low GL is associated with longer CPT when graphs were included in care planning CDS. Higher GL, younger age, and comfort with EHRs were associated with shorter CPT. These findings are robust based on our new innovative testing strategy in which a diverse national sample of RN participants (randomly derived from 10 State Board of Nursing lists) interacted on the web with the intervention on their PCs. Future studies applying our innovative methodology are recommended to cost-effectively enhance the understanding of how the RN's GL, combined with additional factors, can inform the development of efficient CDS for care planning and other EHR components before use in practice.

An example of leveraging AI for documentation: ChatGPT-generated nursing care plan for an older adult with lung cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Our article demonstrates the effectiveness of using a validated framework to create a ChatGPT prompt that generates valid nursing care plan suggestions for one hypothetical older patient with lung cancer. METHOD: This study describes the methodology for creating ChatGPT prompts that generate consistent care plan suggestions and its application for a lung cancer case scenario. After entering a nursing assessment of the patient's condition into ChatGPT, we asked it to generate care plan suggestions. Subsequently, we assessed the quality of the care plans produced by ChatGPT. RESULTS: While not all the suggested care plan terms (11 out of 16) utilized standardized nursing terminology, the ChatGPT-generated care plan closely matched the gold standard in scope and nature, correctly prioritizing oxygenation and ventilation needs. CONCLUSION: Using a validated framework prompt to generate nursing care plan suggestions with ChatGPT demonstrates its potential value as a decision support tool for optimizing cancer care documentation.

Assessing the Usability of a Clinical Decision Support System: Heuristic Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Poor usability is a primary cause of unintended consequences related to the use of electronic health record (EHR) systems, which negatively impacts patient safety. Due to the cost and time needed to carry out iterative evaluations, many EHR components, such as clinical decision support systems (CDSSs), have not undergone rigorous usability testing prior to their deployment in clinical practice. Usability testing in the predeployment phase is crucial to eliminating usability issues and preventing costly fixes that will be needed if these issues are found after the system's implementation. OBJECTIVE: This study presents an example application of a systematic evaluation method that uses clinician experts with human-computer interaction (HCI) expertise to evaluate the usability of an electronic clinical decision support (CDS) intervention prior to its deployment in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: We invited 6 HCI experts to participate in a heuristic evaluation of our CDS intervention. Each expert was asked to independently explore the intervention at least twice. After completing the assigned tasks using patient scenarios, each expert completed a heuristic evaluation checklist developed by Bright et al based on Nielsen's 10 heuristics. The experts also rated the overall severity of each identified heuristic violation on a scale of 0 to 4, where 0 indicates no problems and 4 indicates a usability catastrophe. Data from the experts' coded comments were synthesized, and the severity of each identified usability heuristic was analyzed. RESULTS: The 6 HCI experts included professionals from the fields of nursing (n=4), pharmaceutical science (n=1), and systems engineering (n=1). The mean overall severity scores of the identified heuristic violations ranged from 0.66 (flexibility and efficiency of use) to 2.00 (user control and freedom and error prevention), in which scores closer to 0 indicate a more usable system. The heuristic principle user control and freedom was identified as the most in need of refinement and, particularly by nonnursing HCI experts, considered as having major usability problems. In response to the heuristic match between system and the real world, the experts pointed to the reversed direction of our system's pain scale scores (1=severe pain) compared to those commonly used in clinical practice (typically 1=mild pain); although this was identified as a minor usability problem, its refinement was repeatedly emphasized by nursing HCI experts. CONCLUSIONS: Our heuristic evaluation process is simple and systematic and can be used at multiple stages of system development to reduce the time and cost needed to establish the usability of a system before its widespread implementation. Furthermore, heuristic evaluations can help organizations develop transparent reporting protocols for usability, as required by Title IV of the 21st Century Cures Act. Testing of EHRs and CDSSs by clinicians with HCI expertise in heuristic evaluation processes has the potential to reduce the frequency of testing while increasing its quality, which may reduce clinicians' cognitive workload and errors and enhance the adoption of EHRs and CDSSs.

Conducting a representative national randomized control trial of tailored clinical decision support for nurses remotely: Methods and implications.

Clinical Decision Support (CDS) systems, patient specific evidence delivered to clinicians via the electronic health record (EHR) at the right time and in the right format, has the potential to improve patient outcomes. Unfortunately, outcomes of CDS research are mixed. A potential cause lies in its testing. Many CDS are implemented in practice without sufficient testing, potentially leading to patient harm. When testing is conducted, most research has focused on "what" evidence to provide with little attention to the impact of the CDS display format (e.g., textual, graphical) on the user. In an adequately powered randomized control trial with 220 hospital based registered nurses, we will compare 4 randomly assigned CDS format groups (text, text table, text graphs, tailored to subject's graph literacy score) for effects on decision time and simulated patient outcomes. We recruit using state based professional registries, which allows access to participants from multiple institutions across the nation. We use online survey software (REDCap) for efficient study workflow including screening, informed consent documentation, pre-experiment demographic data collection including a graph literacy questionnaire used in randomization. The CDS prototype is accessed via a web app and the simulation-based experiment is conducted remotely at a subject's local computer using video-conferencing software. Also included are 6 post intervention surveys to assess cognitive workload, usability, numeracy, format preference, CDS utilization rationale, and CDS interpretation. Our methods are replicable and scalable for testing of health information technologies and have the potential to improve the safety and effectiveness of these technologies across disciplines.