Clostridioides difficile dynamic electronic order panel, an effective automated intervention to reduce inappropriate inpatient ordering.

BACKGROUND: Ordering Clostridioides difficile diagnostics without appropriate clinical indications can result in inappropriate antibiotic prescribing and misdiagnosis of hospital onset C. difficile infection. Manual processes such as provider review of order appropriateness may detract from other infection control or antibiotic stewardship activities. METHODS: We developed an evidence-based clinical algorithm that defined appropriateness criteria for testing for C. difficile infection. We then implemented an electronic medical record-based order-entry tool that utilized discrete branches within the clinical algorithm including history of prior C. difficile test results, laxative or stool-softener administration, and documentation of unformed bowel movements. Testing guidance was then dynamically displayed with supporting patient data. We compared the rate of completed C. difficile tests after implementation of this intervention at 5 hospitals to a historic baseline in which a best-practice advisory was used. RESULTS: Using mixed-effects Poisson regression, we found that the intervention was associated with a reduction in the incidence rate of both C. difficile ordering (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-0.88; P = .001) and C. difficile-positive tests (IRR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.76-0.91; P < .001). On segmented regression analysis, we identified a sustained reduction in orders over time among academic hospitals and a new reduction in orders over time among community hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: An evidence-based dynamic order panel, integrated within the electronic medical record, was associated with a reduction in both C. difficile ordering and positive tests in comparison to a best practice advisory, although the impact varied between academic and community facilities.

Effect of Nudges to Clinicians, Patients, or Both to Increase Statin Prescribing: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Statins reduce the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, but less than one-half of individuals in America who meet guideline criteria for a statin are actively prescribed this medication. Objective: To evaluate whether nudges to clinicians, patients, or both increase initiation of statin prescribing during primary care visits. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cluster randomized clinical trial evaluated statin prescribing of 158 clinicians from 28 primary care practices including 4131 patients. The design included a 12-month preintervention period and a 6-month intervention period between October 19, 2019, and April 18, 2021. Interventions: The usual care group received no interventions. The clinician nudge combined an active choice prompt in the electronic health record during the patient visit and monthly feedback on prescribing patterns compared with peers. The patient nudge was an interactive text message delivered 4 days before the visit. The combined nudge included the clinician and patient nudges. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was initiation of a statin prescription during the visit. Results: The sample comprised 4131 patients with a mean (SD) age of 65.5 (10.5) years; 2120 (51.3%) were male; 1210 (29.3%) were Black, 106 (2.6%) were Hispanic, 2732 (66.1%) were White, and 83 (2.0%) were of other race or ethnicity, and 933 (22.6%) had atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. In unadjusted analyses during the preintervention period, statins were prescribed to 5.6% of patients (105 of 1876) in the usual care group, 4.8% (97 of 2022) in the patient nudge group, 6.0% (104 of 1723) in the clinician nudge group, and 4.7% (82 of 1752) in the combined group. During the intervention, statins were prescribed to 7.3% of patients (75 of 1032) in the usual care group, 8.5% (100 of 1181) in the patient nudge group, 13.0% (128 of 981) in the clinician nudge arm, and 15.5% (145 of 937) in the combined group. In the main adjusted analyses relative to usual care, the clinician nudge significantly increased statin prescribing alone (5.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 3.4 to 7.8 percentage points; P = .01) and when combined with the patient nudge (7.2 percentage points; 95% CI, 5.1 to 9.1 percentage points; P = .001). The patient nudge alone did not change statin prescribing relative to usual care (0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.8 to 2.5 percentage points; P = .32). Conclusions and Relevance: Nudges to clinicians with and without a patient nudge significantly increased initiation of a statin prescription during primary care visits. The patient nudge alone was not effective. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04307472.

Effect of a Default Order vs an Alert in the Electronic Health Record on Hepatitis C Virus Screening Among Hospitalized Patients: A Stepped-Wedge Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening has been recommended for patients born between 1945 and 1965, but rates remain low. Objective: To evaluate whether a default order within the admission order set increases HCV screening compared with a preexisting alert within the electronic health record. Design, Setting, and Participants: This stepped-wedge randomized clinical trial was conducted from June 23, 2020, to April 10, 2021, at 2 hospitals within an academic medical center. Hospitalized patients born between 1945 and 1965 with no history of screening were included in the analysis. Interventions: During wedge 1 (a preintervention period), both hospital sites had an electronic alert prompting clinicians to consider HCV screening. During wedge 2, the first intervention wedge, the hospital site randomized to intervention (hospital B) had a default order for HCV screening implemented within the admission order set. During wedge 3, the second intervention wedge, the hospital site randomized to control (hospital A) had the default order set implemented. Main Outcomes and Measures: Percentage of eligible patients who received HCV screening during the hospital stay. Results: The study included 7634 patients (4405 in the control group and 3229 in the intervention group). The mean (SD) age was 65.4 (5.8) years; 4246 patients (55.6%) were men; 2142 (28.1%) were Black and 4625 (60.6%) were White; and 2885 (37.8%) had commercial insurance and 3950 (51.7%) had Medicare. The baseline rate of HCV screening in wedge 1 was 585 of 1560 patients (37.5% [95% CI, 35.1%-40.0%]) in hospital A and 309 of 1003 patients (30.8% [95% CI, 27.9%-33.7%]) in hospital B. The main adjusted model showed an increase of 31.8 (95% CI, 29.7-33.8) percentage points in test completion in the intervention group compared with the control group (P <. 001). Conclusions and Relevance: This stepped-wedge randomized clinical trial found that embedding HCV screening as a default order in the electronic health record substantially increased ordering and completion of testing in the hospital compared with a conventional interruptive alert. Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04525690.

Usability and impact of a computerized clinical decision support intervention designed to reduce urinary catheter utilization and catheter-associated urinary tract infections.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the usability and effectiveness of a computerized clinical decision support (CDS) intervention aimed at reducing the duration of urinary tract catheterizations. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Academic healthcare system. PATIENTS: All adult patients admitted from March 2009 through May 2012. INTERVENTION: A CDS intervention was integrated into a commercial electronic health record. Providers were prompted at order entry to specify the indication for urinary catheter insertion. On the basis of the indication chosen, providers were alerted to reassess the need for the urinary catheter if it was not removed within the recommended time. Three time periods were examined: baseline, after implementation of the first intervention (stock reminder), and after a second iteration (homegrown reminder). The primary endpoint was the usability of the intervention as measured by the proportion of reminders through which providers submitted a remove urinary catheter order. Secondary endpoints were the urinary catheter utilization ratio and the rate of hospital-acquired catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs). RESULT: The first intervention displayed limited usability, with 2% of reminders resulting in a remove order. Usability improved to 15% with the revised reminder. The catheter utilization ratio declined over the 3 time periods (0.22, 0.20, and 0.19, respectively; P < .001), as did CAUTIs per 1,000 patient-days (0.84, 0.70, and 0.51, respectively; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A urinary catheter removal reminder system was successfully integrated within a healthcare system's electronic health record. The usability of the reminder was highly dependent on its user interface, with a homegrown version of the reminder resulting in higher impact than a stock reminder.