Developing the VA Geriatric Scholars Programs' Clinical Dashboards Using the PDSA Framework for Quality Improvement.

BACKGROUND: Involving clinician end users in the development process of clinical dashboards is important to ensure that user needs are adequately met prior to releasing the dashboard for use. The challenge with following this approach is that clinician end users can undergo periodic turnover, meaning, the clinicians that played a role in the initial development process may not be the same individuals that use the dashboard in future. OBJECTIVES: Here, we summarize our Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA)-guided clinical dashboard development process for the VA Geriatric Scholars Program (GSP) and the value of continuous, iterative development. We summarize dashboard adaptations that resulted from two PDSA cycles of improvement for the potentially inappropriate medication dashboard (PIMD), one of many Geriatric Scholars clinical dashboards. We also present the evaluative performance of the PIMD. METHODS: Evaluation of the PIMD was performed using the system usability scale (SUS) and through review of user interaction logs. Routine end users that were Geriatric Scholars and had evidence of 5 or more dashboard views were invited to complete an electronic form that contained the 10-item SUS. RESULTS: The proportion of Geriatric Scholars that utilized the PIMD increased for each iterative dashboard version that was produced as a byproduct from feedback (31.0% in 2017 to 60.2% in 2019). The overall usability of the PIMD among routine users was found to be above average (SUS score: 75.2 [95% CI 70.5-79.8]) in comparison to the recommended standard of acceptability (SUS score: 68) CONCLUSION: The solicitation of feedback during dashboard orientations led to iterative adaptations of the PIMD that broadened its intended use. The presented PDSA-guided process to clinical dashboard development for the VA GSP can serve as a valuable framework for development teams seeking to produce well-adopted and usable health information technology (IT) innovations.

Working with interpreters: how student behavior affects quality of patient interaction when using interpreters.

BACKGROUND: Despite the prevalence of medical interpreting in the clinical environment, few medical professionals receive training in best practices when using an interpreter. We designed and implemented an educational workshop on using interpreters as part of the cultural competency curriculum for second year medical students (MSIIs) at David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. The purpose of this study is two-fold: first, to evaluate the effectiveness of the workshop and second, if deficiencies are found, to investigate whether the deficiencies affected the quality of the patient encounter when using an interpreter. METHODS: A total of 152 MSIIs completed the 3-hour workshop and a 1-station objective-structured clinical examination, 8 weeks later to assess skills. Descriptive statistics and independent sample t-tests were used to assess workshop effectiveness. RESULTS: Based on a passing score of 70%, 39.4% of the class failed. Two skills seemed particularly problematic: assuring confidentiality (missed by 50%) and positioning the interpreter (missed by 70%). While addressing confidentiality did not have a significant impact on standardized patient satisfaction, interpreter position did. CONCLUSION: Instructing the interpreter to sit behind the patient helps sustain eye contact between clinician and patient, while assuring confidentiality is a tenet of quality clinical encounters. Teaching students and faculty to emphasize both is warranted to improve cross-language clinical encounters.