Clinician collaboration to improve clinical decision support: the Clickbusters initiative.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objective
We describe the Clickbusters initiative implemented at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC), which was designed to improve safety and quality and reduce burnout through the optimization of clinical decision support (CDS) alerts.Materials and methods
We developed a 10-step Clickbusting process and implemented a program that included a curriculum, CDS alert inventory, oversight process, and gamification. We carried out two 3-month rounds of the Clickbusters program at VUMC. We completed descriptive analyses of the changes made to alerts during the process, and of alert firing rates before and after the program.Results
Prior to Clickbusters, VUMC had 419 CDS alerts in production, with 488 425 firings (42 982 interruptive) each week. After 2 rounds, the Clickbusters program resulted in detailed, comprehensive reviews of 84 CDS alerts and reduced the number of weekly alert firings by more than 70 000 (15.43%). In addition to the direct improvements in CDS, the initiative also increased user engagement and involvement in CDS.Conclusions
At VUMC, the Clickbusters program was successful in optimizing CDS alerts by reducing alert firings and resulting clicks. The program also involved more users in the process of evaluating and improving CDS and helped build a culture of continuous evaluation and improvement of clinical content in the electronic health record.
SUBMITTER: McCoy AB
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9093034 | biostudies-literature | 2022 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Clinician collaboration to improve clinical decision support: the Clickbusters initiative.
McCoy Allison B AB Russo Elise M EM Johnson Kevin B KB Addison Bobby B Patel Neal N Wanderer Jonathan P JP Mize Dara E DE Jackson Jon G JG Reese Thomas J TJ Littlejohn SyLinda S Patterson Lorraine L French Tina T Preston Debbie D Rosenbury Audra A Valdez Charlie C Nelson Scott D SD Aher Chetan V CV Alrifai Mhd Wael MW Andrews Jennifer J Cobb Cheryl C Horst Sara N SN Johnson David P DP Knake Lindsey A LA Lewis Adam A AA Parks Laura L Parr Sharidan K SK Patel Pratik P Patterson Barron L BL Smith Christine M CM Suszter Krystle D KD Turer Robert W RW Wilcox Lyndy J LJ Wright Aileen P AP Wright Adam A
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA 20220501 6
<h4>Objective</h4>We describe the Clickbusters initiative implemented at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC), which was designed to improve safety and quality and reduce burnout through the optimization of clinical decision support (CDS) alerts.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>We developed a 10-step Clickbusting process and implemented a program that included a curriculum, CDS alert inventory, oversight process, and gamification. We carried out two 3-month rounds of the Clickbusters program ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:The objective of this study was to characterize clinician response following standardization of pharmacogenetic (PGx) clinical decision support alerts at University of Florida (UF) Health. A retrospective analysis of all PGx alerts that fired at a tertiary academic medical center from August 2020 through May 2022 was performed. Alert acceptance rate was calculated and compared across six gene-drug pairs, patient care setting, and clinician specialty. The disposition of the triggering medication was compared with the alert response and evaluated for congruence. There were a total of 818 alerts included for analysis of alert response, 557 alerts included in acceptance rate calculations, and 392 alerts with sufficient information to assess clinical response. The overall acceptance rate was 63%. The alert response and clinical response were congruent for 47% of alerts. Alert response was influenced by the triggering gene-drug pair, clinician specialty, patient care setting, and specialty of the provider who initially ordered the PGx test. Clinical response was mostly incongruent with alert response. Alert acceptance is influenced by the triggering gene-drug pair, clinician specialty, and care setting. Alert response is not a reliable surrogate marker for clinical action. Any future research into the impact of clinical decision support (CDS) alerts should focus on clinical response rather than alert response. Given the reliance on CDS alerts to enhance uptake of PGx, it is worthwhile to further investigate their impact on prescribing and patient outcomes.
| S-EPMC10726431 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Thoughtful integration of interruptive clinical decision support (CDS) alerts within the electronic health record is essential to guide clinicians on the application of pharmacogenomic results at point of care. St. Jude Children's Research Hospital implemented a preemptive pharmacogenomic testing program in 2011 in a multidisciplinary effort involving extensive education to clinicians about pharmacogenomic implications. We conducted a retrospective analysis of clinicians' adherence to 4783 pharmacogenomically guided CDS alerts that triggered for 12 genes and 60 drugs. Clinicians adhered to the therapeutic recommendations provided in 4392 alerts (92%). In our population of pediatric patients with catastrophic illnesses, the most frequently presented gene/drug CDS alerts were TPMT/NUDT15 and thiopurines (n = 3850), CYP2D6 and ondansetron (n = 667), CYP2D6 and oxycodone (n = 99), G6PD and G6PD high-risk medications (n = 51), and CYP2C19 and proton pump inhibitors (omeprazole and pantoprazole; n = 50). The high adherence rate was facilitated by our team approach to prescribing and our collaborative CDS design and delivery.
| S-EPMC9748527 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundReal-time clinical decision support (CDS) integrated into clinicians' workflow has the potential to profoundly affect the cost, quality, and safety of health care delivery. Recent reports have identified a surprisingly low acceptance rate for different types of CDS. We hypothesized that factors affecting CDS system acceptance could be categorized as relating to differences in patients, physicians, CDS-type, or environmental characteristics.MethodsWe conducted a survey of all adult primary care physicians (PCPs, n = 225) within our group model Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) to identify factors that affect their acceptance of CDS. We defined clinical decision support broadly as "clinical information" that is either provided to you or accessible by you, from the clinical workstation (e.g., enhanced flow sheet displays, health maintenance reminders, alternative medication suggestions, order sets, alerts, and access to any internet-based information resources).Results110 surveys were returned (49%). There were no differences in the age, gender, or years of service between those who returned the survey and the entire adult PCP population. Overall, clinicians stated that the CDS provided "helps them take better care of their patients" (3.6 on scale of 1:Never-5:Always), "is worth the time it takes" (3.5), and "reminds them of something they've forgotten" (3.2). There was no difference in the perceived acceptance rate of alerts based on their type (i.e., cost, safety, health maintenance). When asked about specific patient characteristics that would make the clinicians "more", "equally" or "less" likely to accept alerts: 41% stated that they were more (8% stated "less") likely to accept alerts on elderly patients (> 65 yrs); 38% were more (14% stated less) likely to accept alerts on patients with more than 5 current medications; and 38% were more (20% stated less) likely to accept alerts on patients with more than 5 chronic clinical conditions. Interestingly, 80% said they were less likely to accept alerts when they were behind schedule and 84% of clinicians admitted to being at least 20 minutes behind schedule "some", "most", or "all of the time".ConclusionEven though a majority of our clinical decision support suggestions are not explicitly followed, clinicians feel they are of benefit and would be even more beneficial if they had more time available to address them.
| S-EPMC1403751 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLung cancer treatment decisions are typically made among clinical experts in a multidisciplinary tumour board (MTB) based on clinical data and guidelines. The rise of artificial intelligence and cultural shifts towards patient autonomy are changing the nature of clinical decision-making towards personalized treatments. This can be supported by clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) that generate personalized treatment information as a basis for shared decision-making (SDM). Little is known about lung cancer patients' treatment decisions and the potential for SDM supported by CDSSs. The aim of this study is to understand to what extent SDM is done in current practice and what clinicians need to improve it.ObjectiveTo explore (1) the extent to which patient preferences are taken into consideration in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treatment decisions; (2) clinician perspectives on using CDSSs to support SDM.DesignMixed methods study consisting of a retrospective cohort study on patient deviation from MTB advice and reasons for deviation, qualitative interviews with lung cancer specialists and observations of MTB discussions and patient consultations.Setting and participantsNSCLC patients (N = 257) treated at a single radiotherapy clinic and nine lung cancer specialists from six Dutch clinics.ResultsWe found a 10.9% (n = 28) deviation rate from MTB advice; 50% (n = 14) were due to patient preference, of which 85.7% (n = 12) chose a less intensive treatment than MTB advice. Current MTB recommendations are based on clinician experience, guidelines and patients' performance status. Most specialists (n = 7) were receptive towards CDSSs but cited barriers, such as lack of trust, lack of validation studies and time. CDSSs were considered valuable during MTB discussions rather than in consultations.ConclusionLung cancer decisions are heavily influenced by clinical guidelines and experience, yet many patients prefer less intensive treatments. CDSSs can support SDM by presenting the harms and benefits of different treatment options rather than giving single treatment advice. External validation of CDSSs should be prioritized.Patient or public contributionThis study did not involve patients or the public explicitly; however, the study design was informed by prior interviews with volunteers of a cancer patient advocacy group. The study objectives and data collection were supported by Dutch health care insurer CZ for a project titled 'My Best Treatment' that improves patient-centeredness and the lung cancer patient pathway in the Netherlands.
| S-EPMC9327823 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the interest of primary care clinicians in utilizing CDS for PSA screening. Evidence suggests that electronic clinical decision support (CDS) may decrease low-value prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing. However, physician attitudes towards CDS for PSA screening are largely unknown.MethodsA survey was sent to 201 primary care clinicians, including both physicians and Advanced Practice Providers (APP), within a large academic health system. Eligible clinicians cared for male patients aged 40 to 80 years and ordered ≥5 PSA tests in the past year. Respondents were stratified into 3 groups, appropriate screeners, low-value screeners, or rare-screeners, based on responses to survey questions assessing PSA screening practices. The degree of interest in electronic CDS was determined via a composite Likert score comprising relevant survey items.ResultsSurvey response rate was 29% (59/201) consisting of 85% MD/DO and 15% APP respondents. All clinicians surveyed were interested in CDS (P < 0.001) without significant difference between screener groups. Clinicians agreed most uniformly that CDS be evidence-based. Clinicians disagreed on whether CDS would decrease professional discretion over patient decisions.ConclusionsPrimary care clinicians are interested in CDS for PSA screening regardless of their current screening practices. Prioritizing CDS features that clinicians value, such as ensuring CDS recommendations are evidence-based, may increase the likelihood of successful implementation, whereas perceived threat to autonomy may be a hinderance to utilization.
| S-EPMC9992103 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveMost Americans with opioid use disorder (OUD) do not receive indicated medical care. A clinical decision support (CDS) tool for primary care providers (PCPs) could address this treatment gap. Our primary objective was to build OUD-CDS tool and demonstrate its functionality and accuracy. Secondary objectives were to achieve high use and approval rates and improve PCP confidence in diagnosing and treating OUD.MethodsA convenience sample of 55 PCPs participated. Buprenorphine-waivered PCPs (n = 8) were assigned to the intervention. Non-waivered PCPs (n = 47) were randomized to intervention (n = 24) or control (n = 23). Intervention PCPs received access to the OUD-CDS, which alerted them to patients at potentially increased risk for OUD or overdose and guided diagnosis and treatment. Control PCPs provided care as usual.ResultsThe OUD-CDS was functional and accurate following extensive multi-phased testing. PCPs used the OUD-CDS in 5% of encounters with at-risk patients, far less than the goal of 60%. OUD screening confidence increased for all intervention PCPs and OUD diagnosis increased for non-waivered intervention PCPs. Most PCPs (65%) would recommend the OUD-CDS and found it helpful with screening for OUD and discussing and prescribing OUD medications.DiscussionPCPs generally liked the OUD-CDS, but use rates were low, suggesting the need to modify CDS design, implementation strategies and integration with existing primary care workflows.ConclusionThe OUD-CDS tool was functional and accurate, but PCP use rates were low. Despite low use, the OUD-CDS improved confidence in OUD screening, diagnosis and use of buprenorphine. NIH Trial registration NCT03559179. Date of registration: 06/18/2018. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03559179.
| S-EPMC8207778 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveUrine cultures collected from catheterized patients have a high likelihood of false-positive results due to colonization. We examined the impact of a clinical decision support (CDS) tool that includes catheter information on test utilization and patient-level outcomes.MethodsThis before-and-after intervention study was conducted at 3 hospitals in North Carolina. In March 2021, a CDS tool was incorporated into urine-culture order entry in the electronic health record, providing education about indications for culture and suggesting catheter removal or exchange prior to specimen collection for catheters present >7 days. We used an interrupted time-series analysis with Poisson regression to evaluate the impact of CDS implementation on utilization of urinalyses and urine cultures, antibiotic use, and other outcomes during the pre- and postintervention periods.ResultsThe CDS tool was prompted in 38,361 instances of urine cultures ordered in all patients, including 2,133 catheterized patients during the postintervention study period. There was significant decrease in urine culture orders (1.4% decrease per month; P < .001) and antibiotic use for UTI indications (2.3% decrease per month; P = .006), but there was no significant decline in CAUTI rates in the postintervention period. Clinicians opted for urinary catheter removal in 183 (8.5%) instances. Evaluation of the safety reporting system revealed no apparent increase in safety events related to catheter removal or reinsertion.ConclusionCDS tools can aid in optimizing urine culture collection practices and can serve as a reminder for removal or exchange of long-term indwelling urinary catheters at the time of urine-culture collection.
| S-EPMC10539479 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectivesChildren with congenital heart disease (CHD) are at risk of deterioration in the face of common childhood illnesses, and their resuscitation and acute treatment requires guidance of CHD experts. Many children with CHD, however, present to their local emergency departments (ED) with gastrointestinal and respiratory symptoms that closely mimic symptoms of CHD related heart failure. This can lead to incorrect or delayed diagnosis and treatment where CHD expertise is limited. An understanding of the differences in cognitive decision-making processes between CHD experts and ED physicians can inform how best to support ED physicians when treating CHD patients.MethodsCardiac intensivists (CHD experts) and pediatric emergency department physicians (ED physicians) in a major academic cardiac center were interviewed using the critical decision method. Interview transcripts were coded deductively based on Schubert and Klein's macrocognitive frameworks and inductively to allow for new or modified characterization of dimensions.ResultsIn total, 6 CHD experts and 7 ED physicians were interviewed for this study. Although both CHD experts and ED physicians spent a lot of time sensemaking, their approaches to sensemaking differed. CHD experts reported readily recognizing the physiology of complex congenital heart disease and focused primarily on ruling out cardiac causes for the presenting illness. ED physicians reported a delay in attributing the signs and symptoms of the presenting illness to congenital heart disease, because these clinical findings were often non-specific, and thus explored different diagnoses. CHD experts moved quickly to treatment and more time anticipating potential problems and making specific contingency plans, while ED physicians spent more time gathering a range of data prior to arriving at a diagnosis. These findings were then applied to develop a prototype web-based decision support application for patients with CHD.ConclusionThere are differences in the cognitive processes used by CHD experts and ED physicians when managing CHD patients. An understanding of differences in the cognitive processes used by CHD experts and ED physicians can inform the development of potential interventions, such as clinical decision support systems and training pathways, to support decision making pertaining to the acute treatment of pediatric CHD patients.
| S-EPMC8850471 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEvidence-based therapy for heart failure remains underutilized at hospital discharge, particularly for patients with heart failure who are hospitalized for another cause. We developed clinical decision support (CDS) to recommend an angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor during hospitalization to promote its continuation at discharge. The CDS was designed to be implemented in both interruptive and non-interruptive versions.ObjectivesTo compare the effectiveness and implementation of interruptive and non-interruptive versions of a CDS to improve care for heart failure.MethodsHospitalizations of patients with reduced ejection fraction were pseudo-randomized to deliver interruptive or non-interruptive CDS alerts to providers based on even or odd medical record number. We compared discharge utilization of an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) for these two implementation approaches. We also assessed adoption and implementation fidelity of the CDS.ResultsOf 958 hospitalizations, interruptive alert hospitalizations had higher rates of discharge utilization of ACE inhibitors or ARBs than non-interruptive alert hospitalizations (79.6% vs. 74.2%, p = 0.05). Utilization was higher for interruptive alert versus non-interruptive alert hospitalizations which were principally for causes other than heart failure (79.8% vs. 73.4%; p = 0.05) but no difference was observed among hospitalizations with a principal heart failure diagnosis (85.9% vs.81.7%; p = 0.49). As compared to non-interruptive hospitalizations, interruptive alert hospitalizations were more likely to have had: an alert with any response (40.6% vs. 13.1%, p < 0.001), contraindications reported (33.1% vs 11.3%, p < 0.001), and an ACE inhibitor ordered within twelve hours of the alert (17.6% vs 10.3%, p < 0.01). The response rate for the interruptive alert was 1.7%, and a median (25th, 75th percentile) of 14 (5,32) alerts were triggered per hospitalization.ConclusionsA CDS implemented as an interruptive alert was associated with improved quality of care for heart failure. Whether the potential benefits of CDS in improving cardiovascular care were worth the high burden of interruptive alerts deserves further consideration. CLINICALTRIALS.Gov identifierNCT02858674.
| S-EPMC6994190 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Positive patient identification (PPID) is an integral step to ensure the correct patient identity prior to a healthcare delivery event. Following implementation of a new EHR in November 2017, Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) experienced frequent and inconsistent failure of barcode scanners which impacted the electronic PPID (ePPID) and blood verification processes. Following multiple iterations of troubleshooting, vendor engagement, and device upgrades, we developed a clinical decision support (CDS) tool as a visual reminder to perform ePPID. If ePPID was initially bypassed, the clinician received a passive alert which remained visible throughout the procedure or until ePPID was completed successfully. We conducted a retrospective observational study using an interrupted time series analysis and analysis of variance pre- and post- CDS intervention. Following CDS intervention, we observed an immediate 20.8% increase in successful ePPID (p < 0.001). The mean success rate of ePPID attempts increased from 62.0% pre-intervention to 94.4% post-intervention (p < 0.001). There were 108 providers who had less than 80.0% success in the six-months prior to CDS intervention, of whom all improved to an average of 95.9% success. Our CDS approach highlights the utility of non-interruptive but continually visible alerts to improve patient safety workflows. By making errors clearly visible to users and their peers, performance improved to only 5.6% of alerts bypassed.
| S-EPMC8862728 | biostudies-literature