RESUMO
BACKGROUND: A health information exchange (HIE)-based prior computed tomography (CT) alerting system may reduce avoidable CT imaging by notifying ordering clinicians of prior relevant studies when a study is ordered. For maximal effectiveness, a system would alert not only for prior same CTs (exams mapped to the same code from an exam name terminology) but also for similar CTs (exams mapped to different exam name terminology codes but in the same anatomic region) and anatomically proximate CTs (exams in adjacent anatomic regions). Notification of previous same studies across an HIE requires mapping of local site CT codes to a standard terminology for exam names (such as Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes [LOINC]) to show that two studies with different local codes and descriptions are equivalent. Notifying of prior similar or proximate CTs requires an additional mapping of exam codes to anatomic regions, ideally coded by an anatomic terminology. Several anatomic terminologies exist, but no prior studies have evaluated how well they would support an alerting use case. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the fitness of five existing standard anatomic terminologies to support similar or proximate alerts of an HIE-based prior CT alerting system. METHODS: We compared five standard anatomic terminologies (Foundational Model of Anatomy, Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine Clinical Terms, RadLex, LOINC, and LOINC/Radiological Society of North America [RSNA] Radiology Playbook) to an anatomic framework created specifically for our use case (Simple ANatomic Ontology for Proximity or Similarity [SANOPS]), to determine whether the existing terminologies could support our use case without modification. On the basis of an assessment of optimal terminology features for our purpose, we developed an ordinal anatomic terminology utility classification. We mapped samples of 100 random and the 100 most frequent LOINC CT codes to anatomic regions in each terminology, assigned utility classes for each mapping, and statistically compared each terminology's utility class rankings. We also constructed seven hypothetical alerting scenarios to illustrate the terminologies' differences. RESULTS: Both RadLex and the LOINC/RSNA Radiology Playbook anatomic terminologies ranked significantly better (P<.001) than the other standard terminologies for the 100 most frequent CTs, but no terminology ranked significantly better than any other for 100 random CTs. Hypothetical scenarios illustrated instances where no standard terminology would support appropriate proximate or similar alerts, without modification. CONCLUSIONS: LOINC/RSNA Radiology Playbook and RadLex's anatomic terminologies appear well suited to support proximate or similar alerts for commonly ordered CTs, but for less commonly ordered tests, modification of the existing terminologies with concepts and relations from SANOPS would likely be required. Our findings suggest SANOPS may serve as a framework for enhancing anatomic terminologies in support of other similar use cases.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Older adults are at risk for inadequate emergency department (ED) pain care. Unrelieved acute pain is associated with poor outcomes. Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) hold promise to improve patient care, but CDSS quality varies widely, particularly when usability evaluation is not employed. OBJECTIVE: To conduct an iterative usability and redesign process of a novel geriatric abdominal pain care CDSS. We hypothesized this process would result in the creation of more usable and favorable pain care interventions. METHODS: Thirteen emergency physicians familiar with the Electronic Health Record (EHR) in use at the study site were recruited. Over a 10-week period, 17 1-hour usability test sessions were conducted across 3 rounds of testing. Participants were given 3 patient scenarios and provided simulated clinical care using the EHR, while interacting with the CDSS interventions. Quantitative System Usability Scores (SUS), favorability scores and qualitative narrative feedback were collected for each session. Using a multi-step review process by an interdisciplinary team, positive and negative usability issues in effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction were considered, prioritized and incorporated in the iterative redesign process of the CDSS. Video analysis was used to determine the appropriateness of the CDS appearances during simulated clinical care. RESULTS: Over the 3 rounds of usability evaluations and subsequent redesign processes, mean SUS progressively improved from 74.8 to 81.2 to 88.9; mean favorability scores improved from 3.23 to 4.29 (1 worst, 5 best). Video analysis revealed that, in the course of the iterative redesign processes, rates of physicians' acknowledgment of CDS interventions increased, however most rates of desired actions by physicians (such as more frequent pain score updates) decreased. CONCLUSION: The iterative usability redesign process was instrumental in improving the usability of the CDSS; if implemented in practice, it could improve geriatric pain care. The usability evaluation process led to improved acknowledgement and favorability. Incorporating usability testing when designing CDSS interventions for studies may be effective to enhance clinician use.