Dataset Information

Decrease in unnecessary vitamin D testing using clinical decision support tools: making it harder to do the wrong thing.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the impact of clinical decision support (CDS) tools on rates of vitamin D testing. Screening for vitamin D deficiency has increased in recent years, spurred by studies suggesting vitamin D's clinical benefits. Such screening, however, is often unsupported by evidence and can incur unnecessary costs.

Materials and methods

We evaluated how rates of vitamin D screening changed after we implemented 3 CDS tools in the electronic health record (EHR) of a large health plan: (1) a new vitamin D screening guideline, (2) an alert that requires clinician acknowledgement of current guidelines to continue ordering the test (a "hard stop"), and (3) a modification of laboratory ordering preference lists that eliminates shortcuts. We assessed rates of overall vitamin D screening and appropriate vitamin D screening 6 months pre- and post-intervention.

Results

Vitamin D screening rates decreased from 74.0 tests to 24.2 tests per 1000 members ( P < .0001). The proportion of appropriate vitamin D screening tests increased from 56.2% to 69.7% ( P < .0001), and the proportion of inappropriate screening tests decreased from 43.8% pre-implementation to 30.3% post-implementation ( P < .0001).

Discussion

To our knowledge, this is the first demonstration of how CDS can reduce rates of inappropriate vitamin D screening. We used 3 straightforward, inexpensive, and replicable CDS approaches. We know of no previous research on the impact of removing options from a preference list.

Conclusion

Similar approaches could be used to reduce unnecessary care and decrease costs without reducing quality of care.

SUBMITTER: Felcher AH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7651907 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Decrease in unnecessary vitamin D testing using clinical decision support tools: making it harder to do the wrong thing.

Felcher Andrew H AH Gold Rachel R Mosen David M DM Stoneburner Ashley B AB

Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA 20170701 4

<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the impact of clinical decision support (CDS) tools on rates of vitamin D testing. Screening for vitamin D deficiency has increased in recent years, spurred by studies suggesting vitamin D's clinical benefits. Such screening, however, is often unsupported by evidence and can incur unnecessary costs.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>We evaluated how rates of vitamin D screening changed after we implemented 3 CDS tools in the electronic health record (EHR) of a large heal ...[more]

PMID: 28339692

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPublic health professionals are increasingly expected to engage in evidence-informed decision making to inform practice and policy decisions. Evidence-informed decision making involves the use of research evidence along with expertise, existing public health resources, knowledge about community health issues, the local context and community, and the political climate. The National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools has identified a seven step process for evidence-informed decision making. Tools have been developed to support public health professionals as they work through each of these steps. This paper provides an overview of tools used in three Canadian public health departments involved in a study to develop capacity for evidence-informed decision making.MethodsAs part of a knowledge translation and exchange intervention, a Knowledge Broker worked with public health professionals to identify and apply tools for use with each of the steps of evidence-informed decision making. The Knowledge Broker maintained a reflective journal and interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of decision makers and public health professionals. This paper presents qualitative analysis of the perceived usefulness and usability of the tools.ResultsTools were used in the health departments to assist in: question identification and clarification; searching for the best available research evidence; assessing the research evidence for quality through critical appraisal; deciphering the 'actionable message(s)' from the research evidence; tailoring messages to the local context to ensure their relevance and suitability; deciding whether and planning how to implement research evidence in the local context; and evaluating the effectiveness of implementation efforts. Decision makers provided descriptions of how the tools were used within the health departments and made suggestions for improvement. Overall, the tools were perceived as valuable for advancing and sustaining evidence-informed decision making.ConclusionTools are available to support the process of evidence-informed decision making among public health professionals. The usability and usefulness of these tools for advancing and sustaining evidence-informed decision making are discussed, including recommendations for the tools' application in other public health settings beyond this study. Knowledge and awareness of these tools may assist other health professionals in their efforts to implement evidence-informed practice.

Project description:BackgroundMinistries of health in low- and middle-income countries often lack timely quality data for data-driven decision making in healthcare networks. We describe the design and implementation of decision-support electronic tools by the Ministry of Health of the State of Chiapas, in Mexico, as part of Salud Mesoamerica Initiative.MethodsThree electronic decision-support tools were designed through an iterative process focused on streamlined implementation: 1) to collect and report health facility data at health facilities; 2) to compile and analyze data at health district and central level; and, 3) to support stratified sampling of health facilities. Data was collected for five composite indicators measuring availability of equipment, medicines, and supplies for maternal and child health. Quality Assurance Teams collected data, evaluated results and supported quality improvement. Data was also analyzed at the central level and health districts for decision-making.ResultsData from 300 health facilities in four health districts was collected and analyzed (November 2014-June 2015). The first wave revealed gaps on availability of equipment and supplies in more than half of health facilities. Electronic tools provided the ministry of health officers new ways to visualize data, identify patterns and make hypothesis on root-causes. Between the first and second measurement, the number of missing items decreased, and actions performed by quality improvement teams became more proactive. In the final measurement, 89.7-100% of all health facilities achieved all the required items for each indicator.ConclusionsOur experience could help guide others seeking to implement electronic decision-support tools in low- and middle-income countries. Electronic decision-support tools supported data-driven decision-making by identifying gaps on heatmaps and graphs at the health facility, subdistrict, district or state level. Through a rapid improvement process, the Ministry of Health met targets of externally verified indicators. Using available information technology resources facilitated prompt implementation and adoption of technology.

Project description:BackgroundShared decision-making improves the quality of patient care. Unfortunately, shared decision-making is not yet common practice among vascular surgeons. Thus, decision support tools were developed to assist vascular surgeons and their patients in using shared decision-making. This trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of decision support tools to improve shared decision-making during vascular surgical consultations in which a treatment decision is to be made.MethodsThe study design is a multicentre stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial. Eligible patients are adult patients, visiting the outpatient clinic of a participating medical centre for whom several treatment options are feasible and who face a primary treatment decision for their abdominal aortic aneurysm, carotid artery disease, intermittent claudication, or varicose veins. Patients and vascular surgeons in the intervention group receive decision support tools that may help them adopt shared decision-making when making the final treatment decision. These decision support tools are decision aids, consultation cards, decision cards, and a practical training. Decision aids are informative websites that help patients become more aware of the pros and cons of the treatment options and their preferences regarding the treatment choice. Consultation cards with text or decision cards with images are used by vascular surgeons during consultation to determine which aspect of a treatment is most important to their patient. In the training vascular surgeons can practice shared decision-making with a patient actor, guided by a medical psychologist. This trial aims to include 502 vascular surgical patients to achieve a clinically relevant improvement in shared decision-making of 10 out of 100 points, using the 5-item OPTION instrument to score the audio-recordings of consultations.DiscussionIn the OVIDIUS trial the available decision support tools for vascular surgical patients are implemented in clinical practice. We will evaluate whether these tools actually improve shared decision-making in the consultation room. The stepped-wedge cluster-randomised study design will ensure that at the end of the study all participating centres have implemented at least some of the decision support tools and thereby a certain level of shared decision-making.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Registry, NTR6487 . Registered 7 June 2017. URL: http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=6487.

Project description:Rationale & objectiveDigital health system tools to support shared decision making and preparation for kidney replacement treatments for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are needed.Study designDescriptive study of the implementation of digital infrastructure to support a patient-centered health system intervention.Setting & participants4 CKD clinics within a large integrated health system.ExposureWe developed an integrated suite of digital engagement tools to support patients' shared decision making and preparation for kidney failure treatments. Tools included an automated CKD patient registry and risk prediction algorithm within the electronic health record (EHR) to identify and prioritize patients in need of nurse case management to facilitate shared decision making and preparation for kidney replacement treatments, an electronic patient-facing values clarification tool, a tracking application to document patients' preparation for treatments, and an EHR work flow to broadcast patients' treatment preferences to all health care providers.OutcomesUptake and acceptability.Analytic approachMixed methods.ResultsFrom July 1, 2017, through June 30, 2018, the CKD registry identified 1,032 patients in 4 nephrology clinics, of whom 243 (24%) were identified as high risk for progressing to kidney failure within 2 years. Kidney Transitions Specialists enrolled 117 (48%) high-risk patients by the end of year 1. The values tool was completed by 30/33 (91%) patients who attended kidney modality education. Nurse case managers used the tracking application for 100% of patients to document 287 planning steps for kidney replacement therapy. Most (87%) high-risk patients had their preferred kidney replacement modality documented and displayed in the EHR. Nurse case managers reported that the tools facilitated their identification of patients needing support and their navigation activities.LimitationsSingle institution, short duration.ConclusionsDigital health system tools facilitated rapid identification of patients needing shared and informed decision making and their preparation for kidney replacement treatments.FundingThis work was supported through a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Project Program Award (IHS-1409-20967).Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02722382.

Dataset Information

Decrease in unnecessary vitamin D testing using clinical decision support tools: making it harder to do the wrong thing.

Objective

Materials and methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Publications

Decrease in unnecessary vitamin D testing using clinical decision support tools: making it harder to do the wrong thing.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets