Usability of an atrial fibrillation anticoagulation decision-support tool.

INTRODUCTION: In individuals with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, anticoagulant therapy with warfarin reduces the rate of thromboembolic events but increases the risk of bleeding. Treatment decisions frequently are inconsistent with guidelines. A new web-based atrial fibrillation decision-support tool (AF-DST) provides patient-specific information on the risk-benefit tradeoff of anticoagulation. METHODS: The authors performed a pilot usability testing study of the AF-DST with 4 medical house officers and 4 attending physicians by simulating 9 outpatient clinical encounters involving tradeoffs between risks and benefits of anticoagulation. They recorded positive and negative critical incidents in the simulations and assessed satisfaction with use of the AF-DST by the Computer System Usability Questionnaire (CSUQ; score range on each item: 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). RESULTS: Users found the AF-DST to be helpful and had high CSUQ scores (mean item score, 6.3). Usability testing identified 6 positive and 14 negative critical incidents. Participants felt that the AF-DST guided them toward the correct decision. Nevertheless, they desired more information on the "black box" calculations and ignored alerts. Training level appeared to affect how the AF-DST was used, in particular, how users interacted with the AF-DST. CONCLUSIONS: Overall satisfaction with the AF-DST was high and the tool effectively communicated recommendations and uncertainty. Usability testing identified design issues and potential errors caused by decision-support tool use; these gaps should be addressed prior to clinical implementation.

Application of a decision support tool for anticoagulation in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation affects more than two million Americans and results in a fivefold increased rate of embolic strokes. The efficacy of adjusted dose warfarin is well documented, yet many patients are not receiving treatment consistent with guidelines. The use of a patient-specific computerized decision support tool may aid in closing the knowledge gap regarding the best treatment for a patient. METHODS: This retrospective, observational cohort analysis of 6,123 Ohio Medicaid patients used a patient-specific computerized decision support tool that automated the complex risk-benefit analysis for anticoagulation. Adverse outcomes included acute stroke, major gastrointestinal bleeding, and intracranial hemorrhage. Cox proportional hazards models were developed to compare the group of patients who received warfarin treatment with those who did not receive warfarin treatment, stratified by the decision support tool's recommendation. RESULTS: Our decision support tool recommended warfarin for 3,008 patients (49%); however, only 9.9% received warfarin. In patients for whom anticoagulation was recommended by the decision support tool, there was a trend towards a decreased hazard for stroke with actual warfarin treatment (hazard ratio 0.90) without significant increase in gastrointestinal hemorrhage (0.87). In contrast, in patients for whom the tool recommended no anticoagulation, receipt of warfarin was associated with statistically significant increased hazard of gastrointestinal bleeding (1.54, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: We have shown that our atrial fibrillation decision support tool is a useful predictor of those at risk of major bleeding for whom anticoagulation may not necessarily be beneficial. It may aid in weighing the benefits versus risks of anticoagulation treatment.

Effect of a Computerized Provider Order Entry (CPOE) System on medication orders at a community hospital and university hospital.

Computerized Provider Order Entry (CPOE) has been demonstrated to improve the medication ordering process, but most published studies have been performed at academic hospitals. Little is known about the effects of CPOE at community hospitals. With a pre-post study design, we assessed the effects of a CPOE system on the medication ordering process at both a community and university hospital. The time from provider ordering to pharmacist verification decreased by two hours with CPOE at the community hospital (p<0.0001) and by one hour at the university hospital (p<0.0001). The rate of medication clarifications requiring signature was 2.80 percent pre-CPOE and 0.40 percent with CPOE (p<0.0001) at the community hospital. The university hospital was 2.76 percent pre-CPOE and 0.46 percent with CPOE (p<0.0001). CPOE improved medication order processing at both community and university hospitals. These findings add to the limited literature on CPOE in community hospitals.

Effect of a Computerized Provider Order Entry (CPOE) system on provider and nurse satisfaction at a community hospital and university hospital.

Computerized Provider Order Entry (CPOE) has few community hospital implementations with even less known about the effects on providers and nurses. With a pre-post study design, we surveyed providers and nurses at a community and a university hospital about their satisfaction with the ordering process. Overall, the trend for all users was less satisfaction with CPOE. Community providers were very satisfied with the paper ordering process and less satisfied with CPOE (p<0.0001).