The Safety of Outpatient Health Care : Review of Electronic Health Records

BACKGROUND

Despite considerable emphasis on delivering safe care, substantial patient harm occurs. Although most care occurs in the outpatient setting, knowledge of outpatient adverse events (AEs) remains limited.

OBJECTIVE

To measure AEs in the outpatient setting.

DESIGN

Retrospective review of the electronic health record (EHR).

SETTING

11 outpatient sites in Massachusetts in 2018.

PATIENTS

3103 patients who received outpatient care.

MEASUREMENTS

Using a trigger method, nurse reviewers identified possible AEs and physicians adjudicated them, ranked severity, and assessed preventability. Generalized estimating equations were used to assess the association of having at least 1 AE with age, sex, race, and primary insurance. Variation in AE rates was analyzed across sites.

RESULTS

The 3103 patients (mean age, 52 years) were more often female (59.8%), White (75.1%), English speakers (90.8%), and privately insured (70.4%) and had a mean of 4 outpatient encounters in 2018. Overall, 7.0% (95% CI, 4.6% to 9.3%) of patients had at least 1 AE (8.6 events per 100 patients annually). Adverse drug events were the most common AE (63.8%), followed by health care-associated infections (14.8%) and surgical or procedural events (14.2%). Severity was serious in 17.4% of AEs, life-threatening in 2.1%, and never fatal. Overall, 23.2% of AEs were preventable. Having at least 1 AE was less often associated with ages 18 to 44 years than with ages 65 to 84 years (standardized risk difference, -0.05 [CI, -0.09 to -0.02]) and more often associated with Black race than with Asian race (standardized risk difference, 0.09 [CI, 0.01 to 0.17]). Across study sites, 1.8% to 23.6% of patients had at least 1 AE and clinical category of AEs varied substantially.

LIMITATION

Retrospective EHR review may miss AEs.

CONCLUSION

Outpatient harm was relatively common and often serious. Adverse drug events were most frequent. Rates were higher among older adults. Interventions to curtail outpatient harm are urgently needed.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

Controlled Risk Insurance Company and the Risk Management Foundation of the Harvard Medical Institutions.

A Multiyear Survey Evaluating Clinician Electronic Health Record Satisfaction

OBJECTIVES

We assessed how clinician satisfaction with a vendor electronic health record (EHR) changed over time in the 4 years following the transition from a homegrown EHR system to identify areas for improvement.

METHODS

We conducted a multiyear survey of clinicians across a large health care system after transitioning to a vendor EHR. Eligible clinicians from the first institution to transition received a survey invitation by email in fall 2016 and then eligible clinicians systemwide received surveys in spring 2018 and spring 2019. The survey included items assessing ease/difficulty of completing tasks and items assessing perceptions of the EHR's value, usability, and impact. One item assessing overall satisfaction and one open-ended question were included. Frequencies and means were calculated, and comparison of means was performed between 2018 and 2019 on all clinicians. A multivariable generalized linear model was performed to predict the outcome of overall satisfaction.

RESULTS

Response rates for the surveys ranged from 14 to 19%. The mean response from 3 years of surveys for one institution, Brigham and Women's Hospital, increased for overall satisfaction between 2016 (2.85), 2018 (3.01), and 2019 (3.21, p < 0.001). We found no significant differences in mean response for overall satisfaction between all responders of the 2018 survey (3.14) and those of the 2019 survey (3.19). Systemwide, tasks rated the most difficult included "Monitoring patient medication adherence," "Identifying when a referral has not been completed," and "Making a list of patients based on clinical information (e.g., problem, medication)." Clinicians disagreed the most with "The EHR helps me focus on patient care rather than the computer" and "The EHR allows me to complete tasks efficiently."

CONCLUSION

Survey results indicate room for improvement in clinician satisfaction with the EHR. Usability of EHRs should continue to be an area of focus to ease clinician burden and improve clinician experience.

Correction: Performance of a Web-Based Reference Database With Natural Language Searching Capabilities: Usability Evaluation of DynaMed and Micromedex With Watson

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/43960.].

Performance of a Web-Based Reference Database With Natural Language Searching Capabilities: Usability Evaluation of DynaMed and Micromedex With Watson

BACKGROUND

Evidence-based point-of-care information (POCI) tools can facilitate patient safety and care by helping clinicians to answer disease state and drug information questions in less time and with less effort. However, these tools may also be visually challenging to navigate or lack the comprehensiveness needed to sufficiently address a medical issue.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to collect clinicians' feedback and directly observe their use of the combined POCI tool DynaMed and Micromedex with Watson, now known as DynaMedex. EBSCO partnered with IBM Watson Health, now known as Merative, to develop the combined tool as a resource for clinicians. We aimed to identify areas for refinement based on participant feedback and examine participant perceptions to inform further development.

METHODS

Participants (N=43) within varying clinical roles and specialties were recruited from Brigham and Women's Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, United States, between August 10, 2021, and December 16, 2021, to take part in usability sessions aimed at evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of, as well as satisfaction with, the DynaMed and Micromedex with Watson tool. Usability testing methods, including think aloud and observations of user behavior, were used to identify challenges regarding the combined tool. Data collection included measurements of time on task; task ease; satisfaction with the answer; posttest feedback on likes, dislikes, and perceived reliability of the tool; and interest in recommending the tool to a colleague.

RESULTS

On a 7-point Likert scale, pharmacists rated ease (mean 5.98, SD 1.38) and satisfaction (mean 6.31, SD 1.34) with the combined POCI tool higher than the physicians, nurse practitioner, and physician's assistants (ease: mean 5.57, SD 1.64, and satisfaction: mean 5.82, SD 1.60). Pharmacists spent longer (mean 2 minutes, 26 seconds, SD 1 minute, 41 seconds) on average finding an answer to their question than the physicians, nurse practitioner, and physician's assistants (mean 1 minute, 40 seconds, SD 1 minute, 23 seconds).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the tool performed well, but this usability evaluation identified multiple opportunities for improvement that would help inexperienced users.

Pharmacists' role in detection and evaluation of adverse drug reactions: Developing proactive systems for pharmacosurveillance

PURPOSE

To identify current challenges in detection of medication-related symptoms, and review technology-based opportunities to increase the patient-centeredness of postmarketing pharmacosurveillance to promote more accountable, safer, patient-friendly, and equitable medication prescribing.

SUMMARY

Pharmacists have an important role to play in detection and evaluation of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). The pharmacist's role in medication management should extend beyond simply dispensing drugs, and this article delineates the rationale and proactive approaches for pharmacist detection and assessment of ADRs. We describe a stepwise approach for assessment, best practices, and lessons learned from a pharmacist-led randomized trial, the CEDAR (Calling for Detection of Adverse Drug Reactions) project.

CONCLUSION

Health systems need to be redesigned to more fully utilize health information technologies and pharmacists in detecting and responding to ADRs.

The Safety of Inpatient Health Care

BACKGROUND

Adverse events during hospitalization are a major cause of patient harm, as documented in the 1991 Harvard Medical Practice Study. Patient safety has changed substantially in the decades since that study was conducted, and a more current assessment of harm during hospitalization is warranted.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study to assess the frequency, preventability, and severity of patient harm in a random sample of admissions from 11 Massachusetts hospitals during the 2018 calendar year. The occurrence of adverse events was assessed with the use of a trigger method (identification of information in a medical record that was previously shown to be associated with adverse events) and from review of medical records. Trained nurses reviewed records and identified admissions with possible adverse events that were then adjudicated by physicians, who confirmed the presence and characteristics of the adverse events.

RESULTS

In a random sample of 2809 admissions, we identified at least one adverse event in 23.6%. Among 978 adverse events, 222 (22.7%) were judged to be preventable and 316 (32.3%) had a severity level of serious (i.e., caused harm that resulted in substantial intervention or prolonged recovery) or higher. A preventable adverse event occurred in 191 (6.8%) of all admissions, and a preventable adverse event with a severity level of serious or higher occurred in 29 (1.0%). There were seven deaths, one of which was deemed to be preventable. Adverse drug events were the most common adverse events (accounting for 39.0% of all events), followed by surgical or other procedural events (30.4%), patient-care events (which were defined as events associated with nursing care, including falls and pressure ulcers) (15.0%), and health care-associated infections (11.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Adverse events were identified in nearly one in four admissions, and approximately one fourth of the events were preventable. These findings underscore the importance of patient safety and the need for continuing improvement. (Funded by the Controlled Risk Insurance Company and the Risk Management Foundation of the Harvard Medical Institutions.).

Expert Consensus on Currently Accepted Measures of Harm

BACKGROUND

Twenty-five years after the seminal work of the Harvard Medical Practice Study, the numbers and specific types of health care measures of harm have evolved and expanded. Using the World Café method to derive expert consensus, we sought to generate a contemporary list of triggers and adverse event measures that could be used for chart review to determine the current incidence of inpatient and outpatient adverse events.

METHODS

We held a modified World Café event in March 2018, during which content experts were divided into 10 tables by clinical domain. After a focused discussion of a prepopulated list of literature-based triggers and measures relevant to that domain, they were asked to rate each measure on clinical importance and suitability for chart review and electronic extraction (very low, low, medium, high, very high).

RESULTS

Seventy-one experts from 9 diverse institutions attended (primary acceptance rate, 72%). Of 525 total triggers and measures, 67% of 391 measures and 46% of 134 triggers were deemed to have high or very high clinical importance. For those triggers and measures with high or very high clinical importance, 218 overall were deemed to be highly amenable to chart review and 198 overall were deemed to be suitable for electronic surveillance.

CONCLUSIONS

The World Café method effectively prioritized measures/triggers of high clinical importance including those that can be used in chart review, which is considered the gold standard. A future goal is to validate these measures using electronic surveillance mechanisms to decrease the need for chart review.

Personal Formularies of Primary Care Physicians Across 4 Health Care Systems

IMPORTANCE

More conservative prescribing has the potential to reduce adverse drug events and patient harm and cost; however, no method exists defining the extent to which individual clinicians prescribe conservatively. One potential domain is prescribing a more limited number of drugs. Personal formularies-defined as the number and mix of unique, newly initiated drugs prescribed by a physician-may enable comparisons among clinicians, practices, and institutions.

OBJECTIVES

To develop a method of defining primary care physicians' personal formularies and examine how they differ among primary care physicians at 4 institutions; evaluate associations between personal formularies and patient, physician, and practice site characteristics; and empirically derive and examine the variability of the top 200 core drugs prescribed at the 4 sites.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cohort study was conducted at 4 US health care systems among 4655 internal and family medicine physicians and 4 930 707 patients who had at least 1 visit to these physicians between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2018.

EXPOSURES

Personal formulary size was defined as the number of unique, newly initiated drugs.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Personal formulary size and drugs used, physician and patient characteristics, core drugs, and analysis of selected drug classes.

RESULTS

The study population included 4655 primary care physicians (2274 women [48.9%]; mean [SD] age, 48.5 [4.4] years) and 4 930 707 patients (16.5% women; mean [SD] age, 51.9 [8.3] years). There were 41 378 903 outpatient prescriptions written, of which 9 496 766 (23.0%) were new starts. Institution median personal formulary size ranged from 150 (interquartile range, 82.0-212.0) to 296 (interquartile range, 230.0-347.0) drugs. In multivariable modeling, personal formulary size was significantly associated with panel size (total number of unique patients with face-to-face encounters during the study period; 1.2 medications per 100 patients), physician's total number of encounters (5.7 drugs per 10% increase), and physician's sex (-6.2 drugs per 100 patients for female physicians). There were 1527 unique, newly prescribed drugs across the 4 sites. Fewer than half the drugs (626 [41.0%]) were used at every site. Physicians' prescribing of drugs from a pooled core list varied from 0% to 100% of their prescriptions.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Personal formularies, measured at the level of individual physicians and institutions, reveal variability in size and mix of drugs. Similarly, defining a list of commonly prescribed core drugs in primary care revealed interphysician and interinstitutional differences. Personal formularies and core medication lists enable comparisons and may identify outliers and opportunities for safer and more appropriate prescribing.

How often do prescribers include indications in drug orders? Analysis of 4 million outpatient prescriptions

PURPOSE

To examine the extent to which outpatient clinicians currently document drug indications in prescription instructions.

METHODS

Free-text sigs were extracted from all outpatient prescriptions generated by the computerized prescriber order entry system of a major academic institution during a 5-year period. Natural language processing was used to identify drug indications. The data set was analyzed to determine the rates at which prescribers included indications. It was stratified by provider specialty, drug class, and specific medications, to determine how often these indications were in prescriptions for as-needed (PRN) versus non-PRN medications.

RESULTS

During the study period, 4,356,086 prescriptions were ordered. Indications were included in 322,961 orders (7.41%). From these orders, 249,262 indications (77.18%) were written for PRN orders. Although internal medicine prescribers generated the highest number of medication orders, they included indications in only 6.26% of their prescriptions, whereas orthopedic surgery providers had the highest rate of documenting indications (33.41%). Pain was the most common indication, accounting for 30.35% of all documented indications. The drug class with the highest number of sigs-containing indications was narcotic analgesics. Non-PRN chronic medication prescriptions rarely included the indication.

CONCLUSION

Prescribers rarely included drug indications in electronic free-text prescription instructions, and, when they did, it was mostly for PRN uses such as pain.

Using a Machine Learning System to Identify and Prevent Medication Prescribing Errors: A Clinical and Cost Analysis Evaluation

BACKGROUND

Clinical decision support (CDS) alerting tools can identify and reduce medication errors. However, they are typically rule-based and can identify only the errors previously programmed into their alerting logic. Machine learning holds promise for improving medication error detection and reducing costs associated with adverse events. This study evaluates the ability of a machine learning system (MedAware) to generate clinically valid alerts and estimates the cost savings associated with potentially prevented adverse events.

METHODS

Alerts were generated retrospectively by the MedAware system on outpatient data from two academic medical centers between 2009 and 2013. MedAware alerts were compared to alerts in an existing CDS system. A random sample of 300 alerts was selected for medical record review. Frequency and severity of potential outcomes of alerted medication errors of medium and high clinical value were estimated, along with associated health care costs of these potentially prevented adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 10,668 alerts were generated. Overall, 68.2% of MedAware alerts would not have been generated by the existing CDS system. Ninety-two percent of a random sample of the chart-reviewed alerts were accurate based on structured data available in the record, and 79.7% were clinically valid. Estimated cost of adverse events potentially prevented in an outpatient setting was more than $60 per drug alert and $1.3 million when extrapolating study findings to the full patient population.

CONCLUSION

A machine learning system identified clinically valid medication error alerts that might otherwise be missed with existing CDS systems. Estimates show potential for cost savings associated with potentially prevented adverse events.

Comparison of a Prototype for Indications-Based Prescribing With 2 Commercial Prescribing Systems

IMPORTANCE

The indication (reason for use) for a medication is rarely included on prescriptions despite repeated recommendations to do so. One barrier has been the way existing electronic prescribing systems have been designed.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate, in comparison with the prescribing modules of 2 leading electronic health record prescribing systems, the efficiency, error rate, and satisfaction with a new computerized provider order entry prototype for the outpatient setting that allows clinicians to initiate prescribing using the indication.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This quality improvement study used usability tests requiring internal medicine physicians, residents, and physician assistants to enter prescriptions electronically, including indication, for 8 clinical scenarios. The tool order assignments were randomized and prescribers were asked to use the prototype for 4 of the scenarios and their usual system for the other 4. Time on task, number of clicks, and order details were captured. User satisfaction was measured using posttask ratings and a validated system usability scale. The study participants practiced in 2 health systems' outpatient practices. Usability tests were conducted between April and October of 2017.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Usability (efficiency, error rate, and satisfaction) of indications-based computerized provider order entry prototype vs the electronic prescribing interface of 2 electronic health record vendors.

RESULTS

Thirty-two participants (17 attending physicians, 13 residents, and 2 physician assistants) used the prototype to complete 256 usability test scenarios. The mean (SD) time on task was 1.78 (1.17) minutes. For the 20 participants who used vendor 1's system, it took a mean (SD) of 3.37 (1.90) minutes to complete a prescription, and for the 12 participants using vendor 2's system, it took a mean (SD) of 2.93 (1.52) minutes. Across all scenarios, when comparing number of clicks, for those participants using the prototype and vendor 1, there was a statistically significant difference from the mean (SD) number of clicks needed (18.39 [12.62] vs 46.50 [27.29]; difference, 28.11; 95% CI, 21.47-34.75; P < .001). For those using the prototype and vendor 2, there was also a statistically significant difference in number of clicks (20.10 [11.52] vs 38.25 [19.77]; difference, 18.14; 95% CI, 11.59-24.70; P < .001). A blinded review of the order details revealed medication errors (eg, drug-allergy interactions) in 38 of 128 prescribing sessions using a vendor system vs 7 of 128 with the prototype.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Reengineering prescribing to start with the drug indication allowed indications to be captured in an easy and useful way, which may be associated with saved time and effort, reduced medication errors, and increased clinician satisfaction.

Using drug knowledgebase information to distinguish between look-alike-sound-alike drugs

Objective

To extract drug indications from a commercial drug knowledgebase and determine to what extent drug indications can discriminate between look-alike-sound-alike (LASA) drugs.

Methods

We extracted drug indications disease concepts from the MedKnowledge Indications module from First Databank Inc. (South San Francisco, CA) and associated them with drugs on the Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) list of commonly confused drug names. We used high-level concepts (rather than granular concepts) to represent the general indications for each drug. Two pharmacists reviewed each drug's association with its high-level indications concepts for accuracy and clinical relevance. We compared the high-level indications for each commonly confused drug pair and categorized each pair as having a complete overlap, partial overlap or no overlap in high-level indications.

Results

Of 278 LASA drug pairs, 165 (59%) had no overlap and 58 (21%) had partial overlap in high-level indications. Fifty-five pairs (20%) had complete overlap in high-level indications; nearly half of these were comprised of drugs with the same active ingredient and route of administration (e.g., Adderall, Adderall XR).

Conclusions

Drug indications data from a drug knowledgebase can discriminate between many LASA drugs.

Computerized prescriber order entry-related patient safety reports: analysis of 2522 medication errors

Objective

To examine medication errors potentially related to computerized prescriber order entry (CPOE) and refine a previously published taxonomy to classify them.

Materials and Methods

We reviewed all patient safety medication reports that occurred in the medication ordering phase from 6 sites participating in a United States Food and Drug Administration-sponsored project examining CPOE safety. Two pharmacists independently reviewed each report to confirm whether the error occurred in the ordering/prescribing phase and was related to CPOE. For those related to CPOE, we assessed whether CPOE facilitated (actively contributed to) the error or failed to prevent the error (did not directly cause it, but optimal systems could have potentially prevented it). A previously developed taxonomy was iteratively refined to classify the reports.

Results

Of 2522 medication error reports, 1308 (51.9%) were related to CPOE. Of these, CPOE facilitated the error in 171 (13.1%) and potentially could have prevented the error in 1137 (86.9%). The most frequent categories of "what happened to the patient" were delays in medication reaching the patient, potentially receiving duplicate drugs, or receiving a higher dose than indicated. The most frequent categories for "what happened in CPOE" included orders not routed to or received at the intended location, wrong dose ordered, and duplicate orders. Variations were seen in the format, categorization, and quality of reports, resulting in error causation being assignable in only 403 instances (31%).

Discussion and Conclusion

Errors related to CPOE commonly involved transmission errors, erroneous dosing, and duplicate orders. More standardized safety reporting using a common taxonomy could help health care systems and vendors learn and implement prevention strategies.

Screening for medication errors using an outlier detection system

Objective

The study objective was to evaluate the accuracy, validity, and clinical usefulness of medication error alerts generated by an alerting system using outlier detection screening.

Materials and Methods

Five years of clinical data were extracted from an electronic health record system for 747 985 patients who had at least one visit during 2012-2013 at practices affiliated with 2 academic medical centers. Data were screened using the system to detect outliers suggestive of potential medication errors. A sample of 300 charts was selected for review from the 15 693 alerts generated. A coding system was developed and codes assigned based on chart review to reflect the accuracy, validity, and clinical value of the alerts.

Results

Three-quarters of the chart-reviewed alerts generated by the screening system were found to be valid in which potential medication errors were identified. Of these valid alerts, the majority (75.0%) were found to be clinically useful in flagging potential medication errors or issues.

Discussion

A clinical decision support (CDS) system that used a probabilistic, machine-learning approach based on statistically derived outliers to detect medication errors generated potentially useful alerts with a modest rate of false positives. The performance of such a surveillance and alerting system is critically dependent on the quality and completeness of the underlying data.

Conclusion

The screening system was able to generate alerts that might otherwise be missed with existing CDS systems and did so with a reasonably high degree of alert usefulness when subjected to review of patients' clinical contexts and details.

Outpatient CPOE orders discontinued due to 'erroneous entry': prospective survey of prescribers' explanations for errors

BACKGROUND

Computerised prescriber order entry (CPOE) systems users often discontinue medications because the initial order was erroneous.

OBJECTIVE

To elucidate error types by querying prescribers about their reasons for discontinuing outpatient medication orders that they had self-identified as erroneous.

METHODS

During a nearly 3 year retrospective data collection period, we identified 57 972 drugs discontinued with the reason 'Error (erroneous entry)." Because chart reviews revealed limited information about these errors, we prospectively studied consecutive, discontinued erroneous orders by querying prescribers in near-real-time to learn more about the erroneous orders.

RESULTS

From January 2014 to April 2014, we prospectively emailed prescribers about outpatient drug orders that they had discontinued due to erroneous initial order entry. Of 2 50 806 medication orders in these 4 months, 1133 (0.45%) of these were discontinued due to error. From these 1133, we emailed 542 unique prescribers to ask about their reason(s) for discontinuing these mediation orders in error. We received 312 responses (58% response rate). We categorised these responses using a previously published taxonomy. The top reasons for these discontinued erroneous orders included: medication ordered for wrong patient (27.8%, n=60); wrong drug ordered (18.5%, n=40); and duplicate order placed (14.4%, n=31). Other common discontinued erroneous orders related to drug dosage and formulation (eg, extended release versus not). Oxycodone (3%) was the most frequent drug discontinued error.

CONCLUSION

Drugs are not infrequently discontinued 'in error.' Wrong patient and wrong drug errors constitute the leading types of erroneous prescriptions recognised and discontinued by prescribers. Data regarding erroneous medication entries represent an important source of intelligence about how CPOE systems are functioning and malfunctioning, providing important insights regarding areas for designing CPOE more safely in the future.

Evaluation: A Qualitative Pilot Study of Novel Information Technology Infrastructure to Communicate Genetic Variant Updates

BACKGROUND

Partners HealthCare Personalized Medicine developed GeneInsight Clinic (GIC), a tool designed to communicate updated variant information from laboratory geneticists to treating clinicians through automated alerts, categorized by level of variant interpretation change.

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to evaluate feedback from the initial users of the GIC, including the advantages and challenges to receiving this variant information and using this technology at the point of care.

METHODS

Healthcare professionals from two clinics that ordered genetic testing for cardiomyopathy and related disorders were invited to participate in one-hour semi-structured interviews and/ or a one-hour focus group. Using a Grounded Theory approach, transcript concepts were coded and organized into themes.

RESULTS

Two genetic counselors and two physicians from two treatment clinics participated in individual interviews. Focus group participants included one genetic counselor and four physicians. Analysis resulted in 8 major themes related to structuring and communicating variant knowledge, GIC's impact on the clinic, and suggestions for improvements. The interview analysis identified longitudinal patient care, family data, and growth in genetic testing content as potential challenges to optimization of the GIC infrastructure.

DISCUSSION

Participants agreed that GIC implementation increased efficiency and effectiveness of the clinic through increased access to genetic variant information at the point of care.

CONCLUSION

Development of information technology (IT) infrastructure to aid in the organization and management of genetic variant knowledge will be critical as the genetic field moves towards whole exome and whole genome sequencing. Findings from this study could be applied to future development of IT support for genetic variant knowledge management that would serve to improve clinicians' ability to manage and care for patients.

Care coordination gaps due to lack of interoperability in the United States: a qualitative study and literature review

Background

Health information technology (HIT) could improve care coordination by providing clinicians remote access to information, improving legibility, and allowing asynchronous communication, among other mechanisms. We sought to determine, from a clinician perspective, how care is coordinated and to what extent HIT is involved when transitioning patients between emergency departments, acute care hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and home health agencies in settings across the United States.

Methods

We performed a qualitative study with clinicians and information technology professionals from six regions of the U.S. which were chosen as national leaders in HIT. We analyzed data through a two person consensus approach, assigning responses to each of nine care coordination activities. We also conducted a literature review of MEDLINE®, CINAHL®, and Embase, analyzing results of studies that examined interventions to improve information transfer during transitions of care.

Results

We enrolled 29 respondents from 17 organizations and conducted six focus groups. Respondents reported how HIT is currently used for care coordination activities. HIT is currently used to monitor patients and to align systems-level resources with population needs. However, we identified multiple areas where the lack of interoperability leads to inefficient processes and missing data. Additionally, the literature review identified ten intervention studies that address information transfer, seven of which employed HIT and three of which utilized other communication methods such as telephone calls, faxed records, and nurse case management.

Conclusions

Significant care coordination gaps exist due to the lack of interoperability across the United States. We must design, evaluate, and incentivize the use of HIT for care coordination. We should focus on the domains where we found the largest gaps: information transfer, systems to monitor patients, tools to support patients’ self-management goals, and tools to link patients and their caregivers with community resources.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1373-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A patient-centered longitudinal care plan: vision versus reality

OBJECTIVE

As healthcare systems and providers move toward meaningful use of electronic health records, longitudinal care plans (LCPs) may provide a means to improve communication and coordination as patients transition across settings. The objective of this study was to determine the current state of communication of LCPs across settings and levels of care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted surveys and interviews with professionals from emergency departments, acute care hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and home health agency settings in six regions in the USA. We coded the transcripts according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) 'Broad Approaches' to care coordination to understand the degree to which current practice meets the definition of an LCP.

RESULTS

Participants (n=22) from all settings reported that LCPs do not exist in their current state. We found LCPs in practice, and none of these were shared or reconciled across settings. Moreover, we found wide variation in the types and formats of care plan information that was communicated as patients transitioned. The most common formats, even when care plan information was communicated within the same healthcare system, were paper and fax.

DISCUSSION

These findings have implications for data reuse, interoperability, and achieving widespread adoption of LCPs.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of LCPs to support care transitions is suboptimal. Strategies are needed to transform the LCP from vision to reality.

Relationship between documentation method and quality of chronic disease visit notes

OBJECTIVE

To assses the relationship between methods of documenting visit notes and note quality for primary care providers (PCPs) and specialists, and to determine the factors that contribute to higher quality notes for two chronic diseases.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review of visit notes at two academic medical centers. Two physicians rated the subjective quality of content areas of the note (vital signs, medications, lifestyle, labs, symptoms, assessment & plan), overall quality, and completed the 9 item Physician Documentation Quality Instrument (PDQI-9). We evaluated quality ratings in relation to the primary method of documentation (templates, free-form or dictation) for both PCPs and specialists. A one factor analysis of variance test was used to examine differences in mean quality scores among the methods.

RESULTS

A total of 112 physicians, 71 primary care physicians (PCP) and 41 specialists, wrote 240 notes. For specialists, templated notes had the highest overall quality scores (p≤0.001) while for PCPs, there was no statistically significant difference in overall quality score. For PCPs, free form received higher quality ratings on vital signs (p = 0.01), labs (p = 0.002), and lifestyle (p = 0.002) than other methods; templated notes had a higher rating on medications (p≤0.001). For specialists, templated notes received higher ratings on vital signs, labs, lifestyle and medications (p = 0.001).

DISCUSSION

There was no significant difference in subjective quality of visit notes written using free-form documentation, dictation or templates for PCPs. The subjective quality rating of templated notes was higher than that of dictated notes for specialists.

CONCLUSION

As there is wide variation in physician documentation methods, and no significant difference in note quality between methods, recommending one approach for all physicians may not deliver optimal results.

Association of note quality and quality of care: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

While physician notes are known to vary in organisation, content and quality, the relationship between note quality and clinical quality is uncertain.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional study of outpatient visit physician notes by adult patients with coronary artery disease or diabetes mellitus seen in 2010. We assessed physician note quality using the 9-item Physician Documentation Quality Instrument (PDQI-9) and compared this to disease-specific clinical quality scores constructed from data extracted from the electronic health record (EHR). We also assessed the presence of typical note subsections, and indicators of quality care in physician notes.

RESULTS

We evaluated 239 notes, written by 111 physicians; 110 notes were written by primary care physicians, 52 by cardiologists and 77 by endocrinologists. Reason for visit was absent in 10% of notes, medication list was not present in the note in 19.7% and timing for follow-up was absent in 18.0% of notes. Significant copy/pasted material was present in 10.5% of notes. Laboratory quality indicators were more often found in other EHR sections than in the physician note. Clinical quality scores for diabetes and coronary artery disease (CAD) showed no significant association with subjective note quality (diabetes: r -0.119, p=0.065, CAD: r -0.124, p=0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

Notes varied in documentation method and length, and important note subsections were frequently missing. Key clinical data to support quality patient care were often not present in physician notes, but were often found elsewhere in the EHR. Subjective assessment of note quality did not correlate with clinical quality scores, suggesting that writing high-quality notes and meeting quality measures are not mutually reinforcing activities.

The current capabilities of health information technology to support care transitions

To determine whether HIT currently supports care transitions we interviewed clinicians from several healthcare settings. We learned about HIT tools to help nurses facilitate transitions, but discovered that there are few tools to promote high quality, safe transitions of care. We also found that HIT is rarely employed for patient-centered care coordination mechanisms. In conclusion, HIT tools are typically used within one healthcare setting to prepare for a transition, rather than across healthcare settings.

Overrides of medication-related clinical decision support alerts in outpatients

BACKGROUND

Electronic prescribing is increasingly used, in part because of government incentives for its use. Many of its benefits come from clinical decision support (CDS), but often too many alerts are displayed, resulting in alert fatigue.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the override rates for medication-related CDS alerts in the outpatient setting, the reasons cited for overrides at the time of prescribing, and the appropriateness of overrides.

METHODS

We measured CDS alert override rates and the coded reasons for overrides cited by providers at the time of prescribing. Our primary outcome was the rate of CDS alert overrides; our secondary outcomes were the rate of overrides by alert type, reasons cited for overrides at the time of prescribing, and override appropriateness for a subset of 600 alert overrides. Through detailed chart reviews of alert override cases, and selective literature review, we developed appropriateness criteria for each alert type, which were modified iteratively as necessary until consensus was reached on all criteria.

RESULTS

We reviewed 157,483 CDS alerts (7.9% alert rate) on 2,004,069 medication orders during the study period. 82,889 (52.6%) of alerts were overridden. The most common alerts were duplicate drug (33.1%), patient allergy (16.8%), and drug-drug interactions (15.8%). The most likely alerts to be overridden were formulary substitutions (85.0%), age-based recommendations (79.0%), renal recommendations (78.0%), and patient allergies (77.4%). An average of 53% of overrides were classified as appropriate, and rates of appropriateness varied by alert type (p<0.0001) from 12% for renal recommendations to 92% for patient allergies.

DISCUSSION

About half of CDS alerts were overridden by providers and about half of the overrides were classified as appropriate, but the likelihood of overriding an alert varied widely by alert type. Refinement of these alerts has the potential to improve the relevance of alerts and reduce alert fatigue.

A novel clinician interface to improve clinician access to up-to-date genetic results

OBJECTIVES

To understand the impact of GeneInsight Clinic (GIC), a web-based tool designed to manage genetic information and facilitate communication of test results and variant updates from the laboratory to the clinics, we measured the use of GIC and the time it took for new genetic knowledge to be available to clinicians.

METHODS

Usage data were collected across four study sites for the GIC launch and post-GIC implementation time periods. The primary outcome measures were the time (average number of days) between variant change approval and notification of clinic staff, and the time between notification and viewing the patient record.

RESULTS

Post-GIC, time between a variant change approval and provider notification was shorter than at launch (average days at launch 503.8, compared to 4.1 days post-GIC). After e-mail alerts were sent at launch, providers clicked into the patient record associated with 91% of these alerts. In the post period, clinic providers clicked into the patient record associated with 95% of the alerts, on average 12 days after the e-mail was sent.

DISCUSSION

We found that GIC greatly increased the likelihood that a provider would receive updated variant information as well as reduced the time associated with distributing that variant information, thus providing a more efficient process for incorporating new genetic knowledge into clinical care.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study results demonstrate that health information technology systems have the potential effectively to assist providers in utilizing genetic information in patient care.

Overrides of clinical decision support alerts in primary care clinics

Clinical Decision Support (CDS) systems can alert physicians about potential clinical risks and suggest suitable treatment alternatives at appropriate times in the health care process. We evaluated the frequency with which physicians overrode medication alerts and the override reasons provided. Data obtained from primary care practices affiliated with two Harvard teaching hospitals were downloaded. Physicians overrode more than half of CDS medication alerts, with formulary, age-based, and renal substitutions the most likely. Many drug-drug and drug-allergy interactions overridden had the potential to cause patient harm.

Physician satisfaction following electronic health record adoption in three massachusetts communities

Background

Despite mandates and incentives for electronic health record (EHR) adoption, little is known about factors predicting physicians’ satisfaction following EHR implementation.

Objective

To measure predictors of physician satisfaction following EHR adoption.

Methods

A total of 163 physicians completed a mailed survey before and after EHR implementation through a statewide pilot project in Massachusetts. Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of physician satisfaction with their current practice situation in 2009 and generalized estimating equations accounted for clustering.

Results

The response rate was 77% in 2005 and 68% in 2009. In 2005, prior to EHR adoption, 28% of physicians were very satisfied with their current practice situation compared to 25% in 2009, following EHR adoption (P < .001). In multivariate analysis, physician satisfaction following EHR adoption was correlated with self-reported ease of EHR implementation (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 5.7, 95% CI 2.1 - 16), resources for practice improvement (adjusted OR = 2.6, 95% CI 1.2 - 6.1), pre-intervention satisfaction (adjusted OR = 4.8, 95% CI 1.5 - 15), and stress (adjusted OR = 5.3, 95% CI 1.1 - 25). Male physicians reported lower satisfaction following EHR adoption (adjusted OR = 0.3, 95% CI 0.2 - 0.6).

Conclusions

Interventions to expand EHR use should consider additional support for practices with fewer resources for improvement and ensure ease of EHR implementation. EHR adoption may be a factor in alleviating physicians’ stress. Addressing physicians’ satisfaction prior to practice transformation and anticipating greater dissatisfaction among male physicians will be essential to retaining the physician workforce and ensuring the quality of care they deliver.

Effects of an online personal health record on medication accuracy and safety: a cluster-randomized trial

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effects of a personal health record (PHR)-linked medications module on medication accuracy and safety.

DESIGN

From September 2005 to March 2007, we conducted an on-treatment sub-study within a cluster-randomized trial involving 11 primary care practices that used the same PHR. Intervention practices received access to a medications module prompting patients to review their documented medications and identify discrepancies, generating 'eJournals' that enabled rapid updating of medication lists during subsequent clinical visits.

MEASUREMENTS

A sample of 267 patients who submitted medications eJournals was contacted by phone 3 weeks after an eligible visit and compared with a matched sample of 274 patients in control practices that received a different PHR-linked intervention. Two blinded physician adjudicators determined unexplained discrepancies between documented and patient-reported medication regimens. The primary outcome was proportion of medications per patient with unexplained discrepancies.

RESULTS

Among 121,046 patients in eligible practices, 3979 participated in the main trial and 541 participated in the sub-study. The proportion of medications per patient with unexplained discrepancies was 42% in the intervention arm and 51% in the control arm (adjusted OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.94, p=0.01). The number of unexplained discrepancies per patient with potential for severe harm was 0.03 in the intervention arm and 0.08 in the control arm (adjusted RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.92, p=0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

When used, concordance between documented and patient-reported medication regimens and reduction in potentially harmful medication discrepancies can be improved with a PHR medication review tool linked to the provider's medical record.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00251875).

How physicians document outpatient visit notes in an electronic health record

BACKGROUND

Clinical documentation, an essential process within electronic health records (EHRs), takes a significant amount of clinician time. How best to optimize documentation methods to deliver effective care remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated whether EHR visit note documentation method was influenced by physician or practice characteristics, and the association of physician satisfaction with an EHR notes module.

MEASUREMENTS

We surveyed primary care physicians (PCPs) and specialists, and used EHR and provider data to perform a multinomial logistic regression of visit notes from 2008. We measured physician documentation method use and satisfaction with an EHR notes module and determined the relationship between method and physician and practice characteristics.

RESULTS

Of 1088 physicians, 85% used a single method to document the majority of their visits. PCPs predominantly documented using templates (60%) compared to 34% of specialists, while 38% of specialists predominantly dictated. Physicians affiliated with academic medical centers (OR 1.96, CI (1.23, 3.12)), based at a hospital (OR 1.57, 95% CI (1.04, 2.36)) and using the EHR for longer (OR 1.13, 95% CI (1.03, 1.25)) were more likely to dictate than use templates. Most physicians of 383 survey responders were satisfied with the EHR notes module, regardless of their preferred documentation method.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians predominantly utilized a single method of visit note documentation and were satisfied with their approach, but the approaches they chose varied. Demographic characteristics were associated with preferred documentation method. Further research should focus on why variation exists, and the quality of the documentation resulting from different methods used.

Usability of a novel clinician interface for genetic results

The complexity and rapid growth of genetic data demand investment in information technology to support effective use of this information. Creating infrastructure to communicate genetic information to healthcare providers and enable them to manage that data can positively affect a patient's care in many ways. However, genetic data are complex and present many challenges. We report on the usability of a novel application designed to assist providers in receiving and managing a patient's genetic profile, including ongoing updated interpretations of the genetic variants in those patients. Because these interpretations are constantly evolving, managing them represents a challenge. We conducted usability tests with potential users of this application and reported findings to the application development team, many of which were addressed in subsequent versions. Clinicians were excited about the value this tool provides in pushing out variant updates to providers and overall gave the application high usability ratings, but had some difficulty interpreting elements of the interface. Many issues identified required relatively little development effort to fix suggesting that consistently incorporating this type of analysis in the development process can be highly beneficial. For genetic decision support applications, our findings suggest the importance of designing a system that can deliver the most current knowledge and highlight the significance of new genetic information for clinical care. Our results demonstrate that using a development and design process that is user focused helped optimize the value of this application for personalized medicine.

Factors associated with difficult electronic health record implementation in office practice

Little is known about physicians' perception of the ease or difficulty of implementing electronic health records (EHR). This study identified factors related to the perceived difficulty of implementing EHR. 163 physicians completed surveys before and after the implementation of EHR in an externally funded pilot program in three Massachusetts communities. Ordinal hierarchical logistic regression was used to identify baseline factors that correlated with physicians' report of difficulty with EHR implementation. Compared with physicians with ownership stake in their practices, physician employees were less likely to describe EHR implementation as difficult (adjusted OR 0.5, 95% CI 0.3 to 1.0). Physicians who perceived their staff to be innovative were also less likely to view EHR implementation as difficult (adjusted OR 0.4, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.8). Physicians who own their practice may need more external support for EHR implementation than those who do not. Innovative clinical support staff may ease the EHR implementation process and contribute to its success.

Randomized controlled trial of health maintenance reminders provided directly to patients through an electronic PHR

BACKGROUND

Provider and patient reminders can be effective in increasing rates of preventive screenings and vaccinations. However, the effect of patient-directed electronic reminders is understudied.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether providing reminders directly to patients via an electronic Personal Health Record (PHR) improved adherence to care recommendations.

DESIGN

We conducted a cluster randomized trial without blinding from 2005 to 2007 at 11 primary care practices in the Partners HealthCare system.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 21,533 patients with access to a PHR were invited to the study, and 3,979 (18.5%) consented to enroll.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients in the intervention arm received health maintenance (HM) reminders via a secure PHR "eJournal," which allowed them to review and update HM and family history information. Patients in the active control arm received access to an eJournal that allowed them to input and review information related to medications, allergies and diabetes management.

MAIN MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was adherence to guideline-based care recommendations.

KEY RESULTS

Intention-to-treat analysis showed that patients in the intervention arm were significantly more likely to receive mammography (48.6% vs 29.5%, p = 0.006) and influenza vaccinations (22.0% vs 14.0%, p = 0.018). No significant improvement was observed in rates of other screenings. Although Pap smear completion rates were higher in the intervention arm (41.0% vs 10.4%, p < 0.001), this finding was no longer significant after excluding women's health clinics. Additional on-treatment analysis showed significant increases in mammography (p = 0.019) and influenza vaccination (p = 0.015) for intervention arm patients who opened an eJournal compared to control arm patients, but no differences for any measure among patients who did not open an eJournal.

CONCLUSIONS

Providing patients with HM reminders via a PHR may be effective in improving some elements of preventive care.

Are physicians' perceptions of healthcare quality and practice satisfaction affected by errors associated with electronic health record use?

BACKGROUND

Electronic health record (EHR) adoption is a national priority in the USA, and well-designed EHRs have the potential to improve quality and safety. However, physicians are reluctant to implement EHRs due to financial constraints, usability concerns, and apprehension about unintended consequences, including the introduction of medical errors related to EHR use. The goal of this study was to characterize and describe physicians' attitudes towards three consequences of EHR implementation: (1) the potential for EHRs to introduce new errors; (2) improvements in healthcare quality; and (3) changes in overall physician satisfaction.

METHODS

Using data from a 2007 statewide survey of Massachusetts physicians, we conducted multivariate regression analysis to examine relationships between practice characteristics, perceptions of EHR-related errors, perceptions of healthcare quality, and overall physician satisfaction.

RESULTS

30% of physicians agreed that EHRs create new opportunities for error, but only 2% believed their EHR has created more errors than it prevented. With respect to perceptions of quality, there was no significant association between perceptions of EHR-associated errors and perceptions of EHR-associated changes in healthcare quality. Finally, physicians who believed that EHRs created new opportunities for error were less likely be satisfied with their practice situation (adjusted OR 0.49, p=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Almost one third of physicians perceived that EHRs create new opportunities for error. This perception was associated with lower levels of physician satisfaction.

Development and preliminary evidence for the validity of an instrument assessing implementation of human-factors principles in medication-related decision-support systems--I-MeDeSA

BACKGROUND

Medication-related decision support can reduce the frequency of preventable adverse drug events. However, the design of current medication alerts often results in alert fatigue and high over-ride rates, thus reducing any potential benefits.

METHODS

The authors previously reviewed human-factors principles for relevance to medication-related decision support alerts. In this study, instrument items were developed for assessing the appropriate implementation of these human-factors principles in drug-drug interaction (DDI) alerts. User feedback regarding nine electronic medical records was considered during the development process. Content validity, construct validity through correlation analysis, and inter-rater reliability were assessed.

RESULTS

The final version of the instrument included 26 items associated with nine human-factors principles. Content validation on three systems resulted in the addition of one principle (Corrective Actions) to the instrument and the elimination of eight items. Additionally, the wording of eight items was altered. Correlation analysis suggests a direct relationship between system age and performance of DDI alerts (p=0.0016). Inter-rater reliability indicated substantial agreement between raters (κ=0.764).

CONCLUSION

The authors developed and gathered preliminary evidence for the validity of an instrument that measures the appropriate use of human-factors principles in the design and display of DDI alerts. Designers of DDI alerts may use the instrument to improve usability and increase user acceptance of medication alerts, and organizations selecting an electronic medical record may find the instrument helpful in meeting their clinicians' usability needs.

Ambulatory prescribing errors among community-based providers in two states

OBJECTIVE

Little is known about the frequency and types of prescribing errors in the ambulatory setting among community-based, primary care providers. Therefore, the rates and types of prescribing errors were assessed among community-based, primary care providers in two states.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A non-randomized cross-sectional study was conducted of 48 providers in New York and 30 providers in Massachusetts, all of whom used paper prescriptions, from September 2005 to November 2006. Using standardized methodology, prescriptions and medical records were reviewed to identify errors.

RESULTS

9385 prescriptions were analyzed from 5955 patients. The overall prescribing error rate, excluding illegibility errors, was 36.7 per 100 prescriptions (95% CI 30.7 to 44.0) and did not vary significantly between providers from each state (p=0.39). One or more non-illegibility errors were found in 28% of prescriptions. Rates of illegibility errors were very high (175.0 per 100 prescriptions, 95% CI 169.1 to 181.3). Inappropriate abbreviation and direction errors also occurred frequently (13.4 and 4.2 errors per 100 prescriptions, respectively). Reviewers determined that the vast majority of errors could have been eliminated through the use of e-prescribing with clinical decision support.

DISCUSSION

Prescribing errors appear to occur at very high rates among community-based primary care providers, especially when compared with studies of academic-affiliated providers that have found nearly threefold lower error rates. Illegibility errors are particularly problematical.

CONCLUSIONS

Further characterizing prescribing errors of community-based providers may inform strategies to improve ambulatory medication safety, especially e-prescribing.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00225576.

Massachusetts e-Health Project increased physicians' ability to use registries, and signals progress toward better care

The ability to generate and use registries--lists of patients with specific conditions, medications, or test results--is considered a measure of physicians' engagement with electronic health record systems and a proxy for high-quality health care. We conducted a pre-post survey of registry capability among physicians participating in the Massachusetts eHealth Collaborative, a four-year, $50 million health information technology program. Physicians who participated in the program increased their ability to generate some types of registries--specifically, for laboratory results and medication use. Our analysis also suggested that physicians who used their electronic health records more intensively were more likely to use registries, particularly in caring for patients with diabetes, compared to physicians reporting less avid use of electronic health records. This statewide project may be a viable model for regional efforts to expand health information technology and improve the quality of care.

Care transitions as opportunities for clinicians to use data exchange services: how often do they occur?

BACKGROUND

The electronic exchange of health information among healthcare providers has the potential to produce enormous clinical benefits and financial savings, although realizing that potential will be challenging. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 will reward providers for 'meaningful use' of electronic health records, including participation in clinical data exchange, but the best ways to do so remain uncertain.

METHODS

We analyzed patient visits in one community in which a high proportion of providers were using an electronic health record and participating in data exchange. Using claims data from one large private payer for individuals under age 65 years, we computed the number of visits to a provider which involved transitions in care from other providers as a percentage of total visits. We calculated this 'transition percentage' for individual providers and medical groups.

RESULTS

On average, excluding radiology and pathology, approximately 51% of visits involved care transitions between individual providers in the community and 36%-41% involved transitions between medical groups. There was substantial variation in transition percentage across medical specialties, within specialties and across medical groups. Specialists tended to have higher transition percentages and smaller ranges within specialty than primary care physicians, who ranged from 32% to 95% (including transitions involving radiology and pathology). The transition percentages of pediatric practices were similar to those of adult primary care, except that many transitions occurred among pediatric physicians within a single medical group.

CONCLUSIONS

Care transition patterns differed substantially by type of practice and should be considered in designing incentives to foster providers' meaningful use of health data exchange services.

Self-reported familiarity with acute respiratory infection guidelines and antibiotic prescribing in primary care

OBJECTIVE

Familiarity with guidelines is generally thought to be associated with guideline implementation, adherence and improved quality of care. We sought to determine if self-reported familiarity with acute respiratory infection (ARI) antibiotic treatment guidelines was associated with reduced or more appropriate antibiotic prescribing for ARIs in primary care.

DESIGN

SETTING

PARTICIPANTS

and

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We surveyed primary care clinicians about their familiarity with ARI antibiotic treatment guidelines and linked responses to administrative diagnostic and prescribing data for non-pneumonia ARI visits.

RESULTS

Sixty-five percent of clinicians responded to the survey question about guideline familiarity. There were 208 survey respondents who had ARI patient visits during the study period. Respondents reported being 'not at all' (7%), 'somewhat' (30%), 'moderately' (45%) or 'extremely' (18%) familiar with the guidelines. After dichotomizing responses, compared with clinicians who reported being less familiar with the guidelines, clinicians who reported being more familiar with the guidelines had higher rates of antibiotic prescribing for all ARIs combined (46% versus 38%; n = 11 164; P < 0.0001), for antibiotic-appropriate diagnoses (69% versus 59%; n = 3213; P < 0.0001) and for non-antibiotic appropriate diagnoses (38% versus 28%; n = 7951; P < 0.0001). After adjusting for potential confounders, self-reported guideline familiarity was an independent predictor of increased antibiotic prescribing (odds ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-1.48).

CONCLUSIONS

Self-reported familiarity with an ARI antibiotic treatment guideline was, seemingly paradoxically, associated with increased antibiotic prescribing. Self-reported familiarity with guidelines should not be assumed to be associated with consistent guideline adherence or higher quality of care.

Effects of documentation-based decision support on chronic disease management

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether a new documentation-based clinical decision support system (CDSS) is effective in addressing deficiencies in the care of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and diabetes mellitus (DM).

STUDY DESIGN

Controlled trial randomized by physician.

METHODS

We assigned primary care physicians (PCPs) in 10 ambulatory practices to usual care or the CAD/DM Smart Form for 9 months. The primary outcome was the proportion of deficiencies in care that were addressed within 30 days after a patient visit.

RESULTS

The Smart Form was used for 5.6% of eligible patients. In the intention-to-treat analysis, patients of intervention PCPs had a greater proportion of deficiencies addressed within 30 days of a visit compared with controls (11.4% vs 10.1%, adjusted and clustered odds ratio =1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.28; P = .02). Differences were more pronounced in the "on-treatment" analysis: 17.0% of deficiencies were addressed after visits in which the Smart Form was used compared with 10.6% of deficiencies after visits in which it was not used (P <.001). Measures that improved included documentation of smoking status and prescription of antiplatelet agents when appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall use of the CAD/DM Smart Form was low, and improvements in management were modest. When used, documentation-based decision support shows promise, and future studies should focus on refining such tools, integrating them into current electronic health record platforms, and promoting their use, perhaps through organizational changes to primary care practices.

Electronic health record feedback to improve antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infections

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether the Acute Respiratory Infection (ARI) Quality Dashboard, an electronic health record (EHR)-based feedback system, changed antibiotic prescribing.

STUDY DESIGN

Cluster randomized, controlled trial.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 27 primary care practices to receive the ARI Quality Dashboard or usual care. The primary outcome was the intent-to-intervene antibiotic prescribing rate for ARI visits. We also compared antibiotic prescribing between ARI Quality Dashboard users and nonusers.

RESULTS

During the 9-month intervention, there was no difference between intervention and control practices in antibiotic prescribing for all ARI visits (47% vs 47%; P = .87), antibiotic-appropriate ARI visits (65% vs 64%; P = .68), or non–antibiotic-appropriate ARI visits (38% vs 40%; P = .70). Among the 258 intervention clinicians, 72 (28%) used the ARI Quality Dashboard at least once. These clinicians had a lower overall ARI antibiotic prescribing rate (42% vs 50% for nonusers; P = .02). This difference was due to less antibiotic prescribing for non-antibiotic-appropriate ARIs (32% vs 43%; P = .004), including nonstreptococcal pharyngitis (31% vs 41%; P = .01) and nonspecific upper respiratory infections (19% vs 34%; P = .01).

CONCLUSIONS

The ARI Quality Dashboard was not associated with an overall change in antibiotic prescribing for ARIs, although when used, it was associated with improved antibiotic prescribing. EHR-based quality reporting, as part of "meaningful use," may not improve care in the absence of other changes to primary care practice.

Implementing practice-linked pre-visit electronic journals in primary care: patient and physician use and satisfaction

Electronic health records (EHRs) and EHR-connected patient portals offer patient-provider collaboration tools for visit-based care. During a randomized controlled trial, primary care patients completed pre-visit electronic journals (eJournals) containing EHR-based medication, allergies, and diabetes (study arm 1) or health maintenance, personal history, and family history (study arm 2) topics to share with their provider. Assessment with surveys and usage data showed that among 2027 patients invited to complete an eJournal, 70.3% submitted one and 71.1% of submitters had one opened by their provider. Surveyed patients reported they felt more prepared for the visit (55.9%) and their provider had more accurate information about them (58.0%). More arm 1 versus arm 2 providers reported that eJournals were visit-time neutral (100% vs 53%; p<0.013), helpful to patients in visit preparation (66% vs 20%; p=0.082), and would recommend them to colleagues (78% vs 22%; p=0.0143). eJournal integration into practice warrants further study.

Physician opinions of the importance, accessibility, and quality of health information and their use of the information

This study compared physicians' perceptions of the importance, accessibility, and quality of different types of patient information that could potentially be available with Health Information Exchange (HIE) with how they use patient information. The results showed that while the physicians rated the majority of 11 data types as very important, accessible, and of high quality, they regularly used only a few data types before having access to a new HIE system. The three major types of information regularly used by the physicians were diagnoses, current medication lists, and allergy information. This study provides new data about how opinions on the importance of information relate to reported information use. Our findings suggest that having important, accessible, and high quality information does not necessarily lead to routine use, but that much of the early value of HIE may lie in improving access to a few data areas.

Documentation-based clinical decision support to improve antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infections in primary care: a cluster randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Clinical guidelines discourage antibiotic prescribing for many acute respiratory infections (ARIs), especially for non-antibiotic appropriate diagnoses. Electronic health record (EHR)-based clinical decision support has the potential to improve antibiotic prescribing for ARIs.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 27 primary care clinics to receive an EHR-integrated, documentation-based clinical decision support system for the care of patients with ARIs - the ARI Smart Form - or to offer usual care. The primary outcome was the antibiotic prescribing rate for ARIs in an intent-to-intervene analysis based on administrative diagnoses.

RESULTS

During the intervention period, patients made 21 961 ARI visits to study clinics. Intervention clinicians used the ARI Smart Form in 6% of 11 954 ARI visits. The antibiotic prescribing rate in the intervention clinics was 39% versus 43% in the control clinics (odds ratio (OR), 0.8; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.6-1.2, adjusted for clustering by clinic). For antibiotic appropriate ARI diagnoses, the antibiotic prescribing rate was 54% in the intervention clinics and 59% in the control clinics (OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.5-1.3). For non-antibiotic appropriate diagnoses, the antibiotic prescribing rate was 32% in the intervention clinics and 34% in the control clinics (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.6-1.4). When the ARI Smart Form was used, based on diagnoses entered on the form, the antibiotic prescribing rate was 49% overall, 88% for antibiotic appropriate diagnoses and 27% for non-antibiotic appropriate diagnoses. In an as-used analysis, the ARI Smart Form was associated with a lower antibiotic prescribing rate for acute bronchitis (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-0.8).

CONCLUSIONS

The ARI Smart Form neither reduced overall antibiotic prescribing nor significantly improved the appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing for ARIs, but it was not widely used. When used, the ARI Smart Form may improve diagnostic accuracy compared to administrative diagnoses and may reduce antibiotic prescribing for certain diagnoses.

Physician attitudes toward health information exchange: results of a statewide survey

OBJECTIVE

To assess physicians' attitudes toward health information exchange (HIE) and physicians' willingness to pay to participate in HIE.

DESIGN

We conducted a cross-sectional mail survey of 1296 licensed physicians (77% response rate) in Massachusetts in 2007.

MEASUREMENTS

Perceptions of the potential effects of HIE on healthcare costs, quality of care, clinicians' time, patients' privacy concerns, and willingness to pay for HIE.

RESULTS

After excluding 253 physicians who did not see any outpatients, we analyzed 1043 responses. Overall, 70% indicated that HIE would reduce costs, while 86% said it would improve quality and 76% believed that it would save time. On the other hand, 16% reported being very concerned about HIE's effect on privacy, while 55.0% were somewhat concerned and 29% not at all concerned. Slightly more than half of the physicians (54%) said they would be willing to pay an unspecified monthly fee to participate in HIE, but only 37% said they would be willing to pay $150 per month for it. Primary care physicians and those in larger practices tended to have more positive attitudes toward HIE.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians perceive that HIE will have generally positive effects, though a considerable fraction harbor concerns about privacy. While physicians may be willing to participate in HIE, they are not consistently willing to pay to participate. HIE business models that require substantial physician subscription fees may face significant challenges.

Survey analysis of patient experience using a practice-linked PHR for type 2 diabetes mellitus

Patient experience was assessed by survey as part of a large, randomized controlled trial of a secure, practice-linked personal health record called Patient Gateway at Partners HealthCare in Boston, MA. The subjects were patients with Type 2 diabetes who prepared for their upcoming primary care visit using a previsit electronic journal. The journal generated a diabetes care plan using patient chart information and patient responses to questions in preparation for a scheduled office visit. Review of 37 surveys revealed that a diabetes care plan took 5-9 minutes (modal) to be created by the patient and helped many patients to feel more prepared for their visit (60%) and give more accurate information to their provider (53%). Study limitations included small numbers of survey participants and a bias toward white, better educated patients with better controlled diabetes. Nevertheless, the electronic journal is a promising tool for visit preparation and process improvement.

Imminent adopters of electronic health records in ambulatory care

BACKGROUND

Although evidence suggests electronic health records (EHRs) can improve quality and efficiency, provider adoption rates in the US ambulatory setting are relatively low. Prior studies have identified factors correlated with EHR use, but less is known about characteristics of physicians on the verge of adoption.

OBJECTIVE

To compare characteristics of physicians who are imminent adopters of EHRs with EHR users and non-users.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

A survey was mailed (June - November 2005) to a stratified random sample of all medical practices in Massachusetts. One physician from each practice (n=1884) was randomly selected to participate. Overall, 1345 physicians (71.4%) responded to the survey, with 1082 eligible for analysis due to exclusion criteria. 'Imminent adopters' were those planning to adopt EHRs within 12 months.

MEASUREMENTS

We assessed physician and practice characteristics, availability of technology, barriers to adoption or expansion of health information technology (HIT), computer proficiency, and financial considerations.

RESULTS

Compared to non-users, imminent adopters were younger, more experienced with technology, and more often in practices engaged in quality improvement. More imminent adopters owned or partly owned their practices (57.4%) than users (33.5%; p<0.001), but fewer imminent adopters owned their practices than non-users (65.7%; p<0.001). Additionally, more imminent adopters (26.0%) reported personal financial incentives for HIT use than users (14.8%; p<0.001) and non-users (10.8%; p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Imminent adopters of EHRs differed from users and non-users. Financial considerations appear to play a major role in adoption decisions. Knowledge of these differences may assist policy-makers and healthcare leaders as they work to increase EHR adoption rates.

The relationship between electronic health record use and quality of care over time

OBJECTIVE Electronic health records (EHRs) have the potential to advance the quality of care, but studies have shown mixed results. The authors sought to examine the extent of EHR usage and how the quality of care delivered in ambulatory care practices varied according to duration of EHR availability. METHODS The study linked two data sources: a statewide survey of physicians' adoption and use of EHR and claims data reflecting quality of care as indicated by physicians' performance on widely used quality measures. Using four years of measurement, we combined 18 quality measures into 6 clinical condition categories. While the survey of physicians was cross-sectional, respondents indicated the year in which they adopted EHR. In an analysis accounting for duration of EHR use, we examined the relationship between EHR adoption and quality of care. RESULTS The percent of physicians reporting adoption of EHR and availability of EHR core functions more than doubled between 2000 and 2005. Among EHR users in 2005, the average duration of EHR use was 4.8 years. For all 6 clinical conditions, there was no difference in performance between EHR users and non-users. In addition, for these 6 clinical conditions, there was no consistent pattern between length of time using an EHR and physicians performance on quality measures in both bivariate and multivariate analyses. CONCLUSIONS In this cross-sectional study, we found no association between duration of using an EHR and performance with respect to quality of care, although power was limited. Intensifying the use of key EHR features, such as clinical decision support, may be needed to realize quality improvement from EHRs. Future studies should examine the relationship between the extent to which physicians use key EHR functions and their performance on quality measures over time.