Development and evaluation of a comprehensive clinical decision support taxonomy: comparison of front-end tools in commercial and internally developed electronic health record systems.

BACKGROUND: Clinical decision support (CDS) is a valuable tool for improving healthcare quality and lowering costs. However, there is no comprehensive taxonomy of types of CDS and there has been limited research on the availability of various CDS tools across current electronic health record (EHR) systems. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a taxonomy of front-end CDS tools and to assess support for these tools in major commercial and internally developed EHRs. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We used a modified Delphi approach with a panel of 11 decision support experts to develop a taxonomy of 53 front-end CDS tools. Based on this taxonomy, a survey on CDS tools was sent to a purposive sample of commercial EHR vendors (n=9) and leading healthcare institutions with internally developed state-of-the-art EHRs (n=4). RESULTS: Responses were received from all healthcare institutions and 7 of 9 EHR vendors (response rate: 85%). All 53 types of CDS tools identified in the taxonomy were found in at least one surveyed EHR system, but only 8 functions were present in all EHRs. Medication dosing support and order facilitators were the most commonly available classes of decision support, while expert systems (eg, diagnostic decision support, ventilator management suggestions) were the least common. CONCLUSION: We developed and validated a comprehensive taxonomy of front-end CDS tools. A subsequent survey of commercial EHR vendors and leading healthcare institutions revealed a small core set of common CDS tools, but identified significant variability in the remainder of clinical decision support content.

Multiple perspectives on the meaning of clinical decision support.

Clinical Decision Support (CDS) is viewed as a means to improve safety and efficiency in health care. Yet the lack of a consensus around what is meant by CDS represents a barrier to effective design, use, and utilization of CDS tools. We conducted a multi-site qualitative inquiry to understand how different people define and describe CDS. Using subjects' multiple perspectives we were able to gain new insights as to what stakeholders want CDS to achieve and how to achieve it; even at times when those perspectives are competing and conflicting.

Multiple perspectives on the meaning of clinical decision support.

Clinical Decision Support (CDS) is viewed as a means to improve safety and efficiency in health care. Yet the lack of consensus about what is meant by CDS represents a barrier to effective design, implementation, and utilization of CDS tools. We conducted a multi-site qualitative inquiry to understand how different people define and describe CDS. Using subjects' multiple perspectives we were able to gain new insights as to what stakeholders want CDS to achieve and how to achieve it even when those perspectives are competing and conflicting.

Persistent paper: the myth of "going paperless".

How does paper usage change following the introduction of Computerized Physician Order Entry and the Electronic Medical Record (EMR/CPOE)? To answer that question we analyzed data collected from fourteen sites across the U.S. We found paper in widespread use in all institutions we studied. Analysis revealed psychological, ergonomic, technological, and regulatory reasons for the persistence of paper in an electronic environment. Paper has unique attributes allowing it to fill gaps in information timeliness, availability, and reliability in pursuit of improved patient care. Creative uses have led to "better paper."

Assessing the anticipated consequences of Computer-based Provider Order Entry at three community hospitals using an open-ended, semi-structured survey instrument.

OBJECTIVE: To determine what "average" clinicians in organizations that were about to implement Computer-based Provider Order Entry (CPOE) were expecting to occur, we conducted an open-ended, semi-structured survey at three community hospitals. METHODS: We created an open-ended, semi-structured, interview survey template that we customized for each organization. This interview-based survey was designed to be administered orally to clinicians and take approximately 5 min to complete, although clinicians were allowed to discuss as many advantages or disadvantages of the impending system roll-out as they wanted to. RESULTS: Our survey findings did not reveal any overly negative, critical, problematic, or striking sets of concerns. However, from the standpoint of unintended consequences, we found that clinicians were anticipating only a few of the events, emotions, and process changes that are likely to result from CPOE. CONCLUSIONS: The results of such an open-ended survey may prove useful in helping CPOE leaders to understand user perceptions and predictions about CPOE, because it can expose issues about which more communication, or discussion, is needed. Using the survey, implementation strategies and management techniques outlined in this paper, any chief information officer (CIO) or chief medical information officer (CMIO) should be able to adequately assess their organization's CPOE readiness, make the necessary mid-course corrections, and be prepared to deal with the currently identified unintended consequences of CPOE should they occur.

A survey of U.S.A. acute care hospitals' computer-based provider order entry system infusion levels.

We developed and fielded a survey to help clinical information system designers, developers, and implementers better understand the infusion level, or the extent and sophistication of CPOE feature availability and use by clinicians within acute care hospitals across the United States of America. In the 176 responding hospitals, we found that CPOE had been in place a median of 5 years and that the median percentage of orders entered electronically was 90.5%. Greater than 96% of the sites used CPOE to enter pharmacy, laboratory and imaging orders; 82% were able to access all aspects of the clinical information system with a single sign-on; 86% of the respondents had order sets, drug-drug interaction warnings, and pop-up alerts even though nearly all hospitals were community hospitals with commercial systems; and 90% had a CPOE committee with a clinician representative in place. While CPOE has not been widely adopted after over 30 years of experimentation, there is still much that can be learned from this relatively small number of highly infused (with CPOE and clinical decision support) organizations.

Recommendations for monitoring and evaluation of in-patient Computer-based Provider Order Entry systems: results of a Delphi survey.

A survey of 20 clinical informaticists with experience in implementing Computer-based Provider Order Entry (CPOE) systems revealed the lack of easily accessible measurements of success. Using a Delphi approach, the authors, together with a group of CPOE experts, selected eight key CPOE-related measures to assess system availability, use, benefits, and e-Iatrogenesis. We suggest collecting these measures on a widespread/national basis would be wise stewardship and result in tighter feedback about both clinician workflow and patient safety. Establishing reliable benchmarks against which new implementations and existing systems can be compared will enhance organizations' ability to effectively manage and hence to realize the full benefits of their CPOE implementations.