Clinician and staff experiences with frustrated patients during an electronic health record transition: a qualitative case study.

BACKGROUND: Electronic health record (EHR) transitions are known to be highly disruptive, can drastically impact clinician and staff experiences, and may influence patients' experiences using the electronic patient portal. Clinicians and staff can gain insights into patient experiences and be influenced by what they see and hear from patients. Through the lens of an emergency preparedness framework, we examined clinician and staff reactions to and perceptions of their patients' experiences with the portal during an EHR transition at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). METHODS: This qualitative case study was situated within a larger multi-methods evaluation of the EHR transition. We conducted a total of 122 interviews with 30 clinicians and staff across disciplines at the initial VA EHR transition site before, immediately after, and up to 12 months after go-live (September 2020-November 2021). Interview transcripts were coded using a priori and emergent codes. The coded text segments relevant to patient experience and clinician interactions with patients were extracted and analyzed to identify themes. For each theme, recommendations were defined based on each stage of an emergency preparedness framework (mitigate, prepare, respond, recover). RESULTS: In post-go-live interviews participants expressed concerns about the reliability of communicating with their patients via secure messaging within the new EHR portal. Participants felt ill-equipped to field patients' questions and frustrations navigating the new portal. Participants learned that patients experienced difficulties learning to use and accessing the portal; when unsuccessful, some had difficulties obtaining medication refills via the portal and used the call center as an alternative. However, long telephone wait times provoked patients to walk into the clinic for care, often frustrated and without an appointment. Patients needing increased in-person attention heightened participants' daily workload and their concern for patients' well-being. Recommendations for each theme fit within a stage of the emergency preparedness framework. CONCLUSIONS: Application of an emergency preparedness framework to EHR transitions could help address the concerns raised by the participants, (1) mitigating disruptions by identifying at-risk patients before the transition, (2) preparing end-users by disseminating patient-centered informational resources, (3) responding by building capacity for disrupted services, and (4) recovering by monitoring integrity of the new portal function.

"Like One Long Battle:" Employee Perspectives of the Simultaneous Impact of COVID-19 and an Electronic Health Record Transition.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare organizations regularly manage external stressors that threaten patient care, but experiences handling concurrent stressors are not well characterized. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the experience of Veterans Affairs (VA) clinicians and staff navigating simultaneous organizational stressors-an electronic health record (EHR) transition and the COVID-19 pandemic-and identify potential strategies to optimize management of co-occurring stressors. DESIGN: Qualitative case study describing employee experiences at VA's initial EHR transition site. PARTICIPANTS: Clinicians, nurses, allied health professionals, and local leaders at VA's initial EHR transition site. APPROACH: We collected longitudinal qualitative interview data between July 2020 and November 2021 once before and 2-4 times after the date on which the health system transitioned; this timing corresponded with local surges of COVID-19 cases. Interviewers conducted coding and analysis of interview transcripts. For this study, we focused on quotes related to COVID-19 and performed content analysis to describe recurring themes describing the simultaneous impact of COVID-19 and an EHR transition. KEY RESULTS: We identified five themes related to participants' experiences: (1) efforts to mitigate COVID-19 transmission led to insufficient access to EHR training and support, (2) clinical practice changes in response to the pandemic impacted EHR workflows in unexpected ways, (3) lack of clear communication and inconsistent enforcement of COVID-19 policies intensified pre-existing frustrations with the EHR, (4) managing concurrent organizational stressors increased work dissatisfaction and feelings of burnout, and (5) participants had limited bandwidth to manage competing demands that arose from concurrent organizational stressors. CONCLUSION: The expected challenges of an EHR transition were compounded by co-occurrence of the COVID-19 pandemic, which had negative impacts on clinician experience and patient care. During simultaneous organizational stressors, health care facilities should be prepared to address the complex interplay of two stressors on employee experience.

Assessing Electronic Health Record (EHR) Use during a Major EHR Transition: An Innovative Mixed Methods Approach.

BACKGROUND: Electronic health record (EHR) transitions are inherently disruptive to healthcare workers who must rapidly learn a new EHR and adapt to altered clinical workflows. Healthcare workers' perceptions of EHR usability and their EHR use patterns following transitions are poorly understood. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is currently replacing its homegrown EHR with a commercial Cerner EHR, presenting a unique opportunity to examine EHR use trends and usability perceptions. OBJECTIVE: To assess EHR usability and uptake up to 1-year post-transition at the first VA EHR transition site using a novel longitudinal, mixed methods approach. DESIGN: A concurrent mixed methods strategy using EHR use metrics and qualitative interview data. PARTICIPANTS: 141 clinicians with data from select EHR use metrics in Cerner Lights On Network®. Interviews with 25 healthcare workers in various clinical and administrative roles. APPROACH: We assessed changes in total EHR time, documentation time, and order time per patient post-transition. Interview transcripts (n = 90) were coded and analyzed for content specific to EHR usability. KEY RESULTS: Total EHR time, documentation time, and order time all decreased precipitously within the first four months after go-live and demonstrated gradual improvements over 12 months. Interview participants expressed ongoing concerns with the EHR's usability and functionality up to a year after go-live such as tasks taking longer than the old system and inefficiencies related to inadequate training and inherent features of the new system. These sentiments did not seem to reflect the observed improvements in EHR use metrics. CONCLUSIONS: The integration of quantitative and qualitative data yielded a complex picture of EHR usability. Participants described persistent challenges with EHR usability 1 year after go-live contrasting with observed improvements in EHR use metrics. Combining findings across methods can provide a clearer, contextualized understanding of EHR adoption and use patterns during EHR transitions.

Impacts of an Electronic Health Record Transition on Veterans Health Administration Health Professions Trainee Experience.

BACKGROUND: Adoption of electronic health care records (EHRs) has proliferated since 2000. While EHR transitions are widely understood to be disruptive, little attention has been paid to their effect on health professions trainees' (HPTs) ability to learn and conduct work. Veterans Health Administration's (VA) massive transition from its homegrown EHR (CPRS/Vista) to the commercial Oracle Cerner presents an unparalleled-in-scope opportunity to gain insight on trainee work functions and their ability to obtain requisite experience during transitions. OBJECTIVE: To identify how an organizational EHR transition affected HPT work and learning at the third VA go-live site. DESIGN: A formative mixed-method evaluation of HPT experiences with VHA's EHR transition including interviews with HPTs and supervisors at Chalmers P. Wylie VA Outpatient Clinic in Columbus, OH, before (~60 min), during (15-30 min), and after (~60 min) go-live (December 2021-July 2022). We also conducted pre- (March 2022-April 2022) and post-go live (May 2022-June 2022) HPT and employee surveys. PARTICIPANTS: We conducted 24 interviews with HPTs (n=4), site leaders (n=2), and academic affiliates (n=2) using snowball sampling. We recruited HPTs in pre- (n=13) and post-go-live (n=10) surveys and employees in pre- (n=408) and post-go-live (n=458) surveys. APPROACH: We conducted interviews using a semi-structured guide and grounded prompts. We coded interviews and survey free text data using a priori and emergent codes, subsequently conducting thematic analysis. We conducted descriptive statistical analysis of survey responses and merged interview and survey data streams. KEY RESULTS: Our preliminary findings indicate that the EHR transition comprehensively affected HPT experiences, disrupting processes from onboarding and training to clinical care contributions and training-to-career retention. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding HPTs' challenges during EHR transitions is critical to effective training. Mitigating the identified barriers to HPT training and providing patient care may lessen their dissatisfaction and ensure quality patient care during EHR transitions.

"Everything's so Role-Specific": VA Employee Perspectives' on Electronic Health Record (EHR) Transition Implications for Roles and Responsibilities.

BACKGROUND: Electronic health record (EHR) transitions are increasingly widespread and often highly disruptive. It is imperative we learn from past experiences to anticipate and mitigate such disruptions. Veterans Affairs (VA) is undergoing a large-scale transition from its homegrown EHR (CPRS/Vista) to a commercial EHR (Cerner), creating a unique opportunity of shedding light on large-scale EHR-to-EHR transition challenges. OBJECTIVE: To explore one facet of the organizational impact of VA's EHR transition: its implications for employees' roles and responsibilities at the first VA site to implement Cerner Millennium EHR. DESIGN: As part of a formative evaluation of frontline staff experiences with VA's EHR transition, we conducted brief (~ 15 min) and full-length interviews (~ 60 min) with clinicians and staff at Mann-Grandstaff VA Medical Center in Spokane, WA, before, during, and after transition (July 2020-November 2021). PARTICIPANTS: We conducted 111 interviews with 26 Spokane clinicians and staff, recruited via snowball sampling. APPROACH: We conducted audio interviews using a semi-structured guide with grounded prompts. We coded interview transcripts using a priori and emergent codes, followed by qualitative content analysis. KEY RESULTS: Unlike VA's previous EHR, Cerner imposes additional restrictions on access to its EHR functionality based upon "roles" assigned to users. Participants described a mismatch between established institutional duties and their EHR permissions, unanticipated changes in scope of duties brought upon by the transition, as well as impediments to communication and collaboration due to different role-based views. CONCLUSIONS: Health systems should anticipate substantive impacts on professional workflows when EHR role settings do not reflect prior workflows. Such changes may increase user error, dissatisfaction, and patient care disruptions. To mitigate employee dissatisfaction and safety risks, health systems should proactively plan for and communicate about expected modifications and monitor for unintended role-related consequences of EHR transitions, while vendors should ensure accurate role configuration and assignment.

Mortality Conversations Between Male Veterans and Their Providers Prior to Dysvascular Lower Extremity Amputation.

BACKGROUND: Among patients facing lower extremity amputation due to dysvascular disease, the mortality risk is very high. Given this, as well as the importance of a patient-centered approach to medical care, informing patients about their possible risk of dying may be important during preoperative shared decision-making. The goal of this investigation was to gain an understanding of patient and provider experiences discussing mortality within the context of amputation within the Veterans Health Administration. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were performed with Veterans with peripheral arterial disease and/or diabetes, vascular and podiatric surgeons, and physical medicine and rehabilitation physicians. Interviews were analyzed using team-based content analysis to identify themes related to amputation-level decisions. RESULTS: We interviewed 22 patients and 21 surgeons and physicians and identified 3 themes related to conversations around mortality: (1) both patients and providers report that mortality conversations are not common prior to amputation; (2) while most providers find value in mortality conversations, some express concerns around engaging in these discussions with patients; and (3) some patients perceive mortality conversations as unnecessary, but many are open to engaging in the conversation. CONCLUSIONS: Providers may benefit from introducing the topic with patients, including providing the context for why mortality conversations may be valuable, with the understanding that patients can always decline to participate should they not be interested or comfortable discussing this issue.

A mixed-methods evaluation of why an implementation trial failed to engage veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder in trauma-focused psychotherapy.

An effectiveness trial found that telemedicine collaborative care for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) significantly increased engagement in trauma-focused psychotherapy (TFP) and improved PTSD symptoms. However, in a subsequent implementation trial, very few veterans enrolled in collaborative care initiated TFP. We conducted a mixed-methods evaluation to determine why veterans did not initiate TFP in the implementation trial. After conducting chart reviews of 1,071 veterans with PTSD enrolled in collaborative care, patients were categorized into four mutually exclusive TFP groups: TFP not discussed; TFP discussed, declined; TFP discussed, did not decline; and TFP initiated. We conducted semistructured interviews with 43 unique patients and 58 unique providers (i.e., care managers and mental health specialists). Almost half (48.6%) of the veterans had no documentation of discussing TFP with their care manager; another 28.9% discussed it but declined. Most veterans (77.1%) had an encounter with a mental health specialist, 36.8% of whom never discussed TFP, and 35.7% of whom discussed it but declined. Providers reported that many veterans were not able, willing, or ready to engage in TFP and that non-trauma-focused therapies were better aligned with their treatment goals. Veterans gave numerous reasons for not initiating TFP, including having bad prior experiences with TFP and wanting to avoid thinking about past traumatic experiences. Commonly cited reasons for noninitiation were providers never discussing TFP with veterans and veterans declining TFP after discussing it with their provider. Interventions, such as shared decision-making tools, may be needed to engage providers and patients in informed discussions about TFP.

Challenges to Shared Decision Making About Treatment of Advanced CKD: A Qualitative Study of Patients and Clinicians.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Greater understanding of the challenges to shared decision making about treatment of advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) is needed to support implementation of shared decision making in clinical practice. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged≥65 years with advanced CKD and their clinicians recruited from 3 medical centers participated in semi-structured interviews. In-depth review of patients' electronic medical records was also performed. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Interview transcripts and medical record notes were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients (age 73±6 years, 66% male, 59% White) and 10 of their clinicians (age 52±12 years, 30% male, 70% White) participated in interviews. Four themes emerged from qualitative analysis: (1) competing priorities-patients and their clinicians tended to differ on when to prioritize CKD and dialysis planning above other personal or medical problems; (2) focusing on present or future-patients were more focused on living well now while clinicians were more focused on preparing for dialysis and future adverse events; (3) standardized versus individualized approach to CKD-although clinicians tried to personalize care recommendations to their patients, the patients perceived their clinicians as taking a monolithic approach to CKD that was predicated on clinical practice guidelines and medical literature rather than the patients' lived experiences with CKD and personal values and goals; and (4) power dynamics-patients described cautiously navigating a power differential in their therapeutic relationship with their clinicians whereas clinicians seemed less attuned to these power dynamics. LIMITATIONS: Thematic saturation was based on patient interviews. Themes presented might incompletely reflect clinicians' perspectives. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to improve shared decision making for treatment of advanced CKD will likely need to explicitly address differences between patients and their clinicians in approaches to decision making about treatment of advanced CKD and perceived power imbalances in the therapeutic relationship.

My Goals Are Not Their Goals: Barriers and Facilitators to Delivery of Patient-Centered Care for Patients with Multimorbidity.

BACKGROUND: Patient-centered care reflecting patient preferences and needs is integral to high-quality care. Individualized care is important for psychosocially complex or high-risk patients with multiple chronic conditions (i.e., multimorbidity), given greater potential risks of interventions and reduced benefits. These patients are increasingly prevalent in primary care. Few studies have examined provision of patient-centered care from the clinician perspective, particularly from primary care physicians serving in integrated, patient-centered medical home settings within the US Veterans Health Administration. OBJECTIVE: We sought to clarify facilitators and barriers perceived by primary care physicians in the Veterans Health Administration to delivering patient-centered care for high-risk or complex patients with multimorbidity. DESIGN: We conducted semi-structured telephone interviews from April to July 2020 among physicians across 20 clinical sites. Findings were analyzed with deductive content analysis based on conceptual models of patient-centeredness and hierarchical factors affecting care delivery. PARTICIPANTS: Of 23 physicians interviewed, most were female (n = 14/23, 61%), serving in hospital-affiliated outpatient clinics (n = 14/23, 61%). Participants had a mean of 21 (SD = 11.3) years of experience. KEY RESULTS: Facilitators included the following: effective physician-patient communication to individualize care, prioritize among multiple needs, and elicit goals to improve patient engagement; access to care, enabled by interdisciplinary teams, and dictating personalized care planning; effortful but worthwhile care coordination and continuity; meeting complex needs through effective teamwork; and integrating medical and non-medical care aspects in recognition of patients' psychosocial contexts. Barriers included the following: intra- and interpersonal (e.g., perceived patient reluctance to engage in care); organizational (e.g., limited encounter time); and community or policy impediments (e.g., state decisional capacity laws) to patient-centered care. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians perceived individual physician-patient interactions were the greatest facilitators or barriers to patient-centered care. Efforts to increase primary care patient-centeredness for complex or high-risk patients with multimorbidity could focus on targeting physician-patient communication and reducing interpersonal conflict.

Interventional cardiologists' perceptions of percutaneous coronary intervention quality measurement and feedback.

BACKGROUND: Interventional cardiologists receive feedback on their clinical care from a variety of sources including registry-based quality measures, case conferences, and informal peer interactions. However, the impact of this feedback on clinical care is unclear. METHODS: We interviewed interventional cardiologists regarding the use of feedback to improve their care of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) patients. Interviews were assessed with template analysis using deductive and inductive techniques. RESULTS: Among 20 interventional cardiologists from private, academic, and Department of Veterans Affairs practice, 85% were male, 75% performed at least 100 PCIs annually, and 55% were in practice for 5 years or more. All reported receiving feedback on their practice, including formal quality measures and peer learning activities. Many respondents were critical of quality measure reporting, citing lack of trust in outcomes measures and poor applicability to clinical care. Some respondents reported the use of process measures such as contrast volume and fluoroscopy time for benchmarking their performance. Case conferences and informal peer feedback were perceived as timelier and more impactful on clinical care. Respondents identified facilitators of successful feedback interventions including transparent processes, respectful and reciprocal peer relationships, and integration of feedback into collective goals. Hierarchy and competitive environments inhibited useful feedback. CONCLUSIONS: Despite substantial resources dedicated to performance measurement and feedback for PCI, interventional cardiologists perceive existing quality measures to be of only modest value for improving clinical care. Catherization laboratories should seek to integrate quality measures into a holistic quality program that emphasizes peer learning, collective goals and mutual respect.