Implementation of a Clinical Decision Support System for Children With Minor Blunt Head Trauma Who Are at Nonnegligible Risk for Traumatic Brain Injuries.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of providing risk estimates of clinically important traumatic brain injuries and management recommendations on emergency department (ED) outcomes for children with isolated intermediate Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network clinically important traumatic brain injury risk factors. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a nonrandomized clinical trial with concurrent controls, conducted at 5 pediatric and 8 general EDs between November 2011 and June 2014, enrolling patients younger than 18 years who had minor blunt head trauma. After a baseline period, intervention sites received electronic clinical decision support providing patient-level clinically important traumatic brain injury risk estimates and management recommendations. The following primary outcomes in patients with one intermediate Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network risk factor were compared before and after clinical decision support: proportion of ED computed tomography (CT) scans, adjusted for age, time trend, and site; and prevalence of clinically important traumatic brain injuries. RESULTS: The risk of clinically important traumatic brain injuries was known for 3,859 children with isolated findings (1,711 at intervention sites before clinical decision support, 1,702 at intervention sites after clinical decision support, and 446 at control sites). In this group, pooled CT proportion decreased from 24.2% to 21.6% after clinical decision support (odds ratio 0.86; 95% confidence interval 0.73 to 1.01). Decreases in CT use were noted across intervention EDs, but not in controls. The pooled adjusted odds ratio for CT use after clinical decision support was 0.73 (95% confidence interval 0.60 to 0.88). Among the entire cohort, clinically important traumatic brain injury was diagnosed at the index ED visit for 37 of 37 (100%) patients before clinical decision support and 32 of 33 patients (97.0%) after clinical decision support. CONCLUSION: Providing specific risks of clinically important traumatic brain injury through electronic clinical decision support was associated with a modest and safe decrease in ED CT use for children at nonnegligible risk of clinically important traumatic brain injuries.

Use of Traumatic Brain Injury Prediction Rules With Clinical Decision Support.

OBJECTIVES: We determined whether implementing the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) traumatic brain injury (TBI) prediction rules and providing risks of clinically important TBIs (ciTBIs) with computerized clinical decision support (CDS) reduces computed tomography (CT) use for children with minor head trauma. METHODS: Nonrandomized trial with concurrent controls at 5 pediatric emergency departments (PEDs) and 8 general EDs (GEDs) between November 2011 and June 2014. Patients were <18 years old with minor blunt head trauma. Intervention sites received CDS with CT recommendations and risks of ciTBI, both for patients at very low risk of ciTBI (no Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network rule factors) and those not at very low risk. The primary outcome was the rate of CT, analyzed by site, controlling for time trend. RESULTS: We analyzed 16 635 intervention and 2394 control patients. Adjusted for time trends, CT rates decreased significantly (P < .05) but modestly (2.3%-3.7%) at 2 of 4 intervention PEDs for children at very low risk. The other 2 PEDs had small (0.8%-1.5%) nonsignificant decreases. CT rates did not decrease consistently at the intervention GEDs, with low baseline CT rates (2.1%-4.0%) in those at very low risk. The control PED had little change in CT use in similar children (from 1.6% to 2.9%); the control GED showed a decrease in the CT rate (from 7.1% to 2.6%). For all children with minor head trauma, intervention sites had small decreases in CT rates (1.7%-6.2%). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of TBI prediction rules and provision of risks of ciTBIs by using CDS was associated with modest, safe, but variable decreases in CT use. However, some secular trends were also noted.

Clinical Decision Support for a Multicenter Trial of Pediatric Head Trauma: Development, Implementation, and Lessons Learned.

INTRODUCTION: For children who present to emergency departments (EDs) due to blunt head trauma, ED clinicians must decide who requires computed tomography (CT) scanning to evaluate for traumatic brain injury (TBI). The Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) derived and validated two age-based prediction rules to identify children at very low risk of clinically-important traumatic brain injuries (ciTBIs) who do not typically require CT scans. In this case report, we describe the strategy used to implement the PECARN TBI prediction rules via electronic health record (EHR) clinical decision support (CDS) as the intervention in a multicenter clinical trial. METHODS: Thirteen EDs participated in this trial. The 10 sites receiving the CDS intervention used the Epic(®) EHR. All sites implementing EHR-based CDS built the rules by using the vendor's CDS engine. Based on a sociotechnical analysis, we designed the CDS so that recommendations could be displayed immediately after any provider entered prediction rule data. One central site developed and tested the intervention package to be exported to other sites. The intervention package included a clinical trial alert, an electronic data collection form, the CDS rules and the format for recommendations. RESULTS: The original PECARN head trauma prediction rules were derived from physician documentation while this pragmatic trial led each site to customize their workflows and allow multiple different providers to complete the head trauma assessments. These differences in workflows led to varying completion rates across sites as well as differences in the types of providers completing the electronic data form. Site variation in internal change management processes made it challenging to maintain the same rigor across all sites. This led to downstream effects when data reports were developed. CONCLUSIONS: The process of a centralized build and export of a CDS system in one commercial EHR system successfully supported a multicenter clinical trial.

Use of a remote clinical decision support service for a multicenter trial to implement prediction rules for children with minor blunt head trauma.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the architecture, integration requirements, and execution characteristics of a remote clinical decision support (CDS) service used in a multicenter clinical trial. The trial tested the efficacy of implementing brain injury prediction rules for children with minor blunt head trauma. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We integrated the Epic(®) electronic health record (EHR) with the Enterprise Clinical Rules Service (ECRS), a web-based CDS service, at two emergency departments. Patterns of CDS review included either a delayed, near-real-time review, where the physician viewed CDS recommendations generated by the nursing assessment, or a real-time review, where the physician viewed recommendations generated by their own documentation. A backstopping, vendor-based CDS triggered with zero delay when no recommendation was available in the EHR from the web-service. We assessed the execution characteristics of the integrated system and the source of the generated recommendations viewed by physicians. RESULTS: The ECRS mean execution time was 0.74 ±0.72 s. Overall execution time was substantially different at the two sites, with mean total transaction times of 19.67 and 3.99 s. Of 1930 analyzed transactions from the two sites, 60% (310/521) of all physician documentation-initiated recommendations and 99% (1390/1409) of all nurse documentation-initiated recommendations originated from the remote web service. DISCUSSION: The remote CDS system was the source of recommendations in more than half of the real-time cases and virtually all the near-real-time cases. Comparisons are limited by allowable variation in user workflow and resolution of the EHR clock. CONCLUSION: With maturation and adoption of standards for CDS services, remote CDS shows promise to decrease time-to-trial for multicenter evaluations of candidate decision support interventions.