Pencille, Laurie J.

Objectives: Patient involvement in the choice of whether to undergo emergency department observation unit (EDOU) admission and cardiac stress testing or follow-up with a physician could increase knowledge, increase satisfaction, and safely decrease resource use. We test this hypothesis in a randomized trial. Methods: We developed and tested Chest Pain Choice, a decision aid that communicates the pre-test probability of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) within 45 days and makes management options (EDOU admission and stress testing or 24-72 hr follow-up with a physician) explicit to the patient. Patients with a primary complaint of chest pain and no known coronary artery disease who were being considered for EDOU admission were eligible. Patient-clinician pairs were randomized to intervention (decision aid plus risk estimate) or usual care (no decision aid, no risk estimate). We used patient surveys and 30-day phone follow-up to assess the primary outcome (patient knowledge regarding their short-term risk for ACS), patient satisfaction, safety (delayed or missed ACS defined as acute myocardial infarction, ventricular arrhythmia, cardiogenic shock, or cardiac/unknown death), and resource use. Analysis was by intention to treat. Results: The 205 patients had the following characteristics: mean age (SD) 54.7 (11.8), 59% female, 36% history of HTN and 10% history of diabetes. Compared with usual care patients (n=104), patients receiving the decision aid (n=101) less frequently decided to be admitted to the EDOU for cardiac stress testing (58% vs 77%, absolute difference = 19%, 95% CI 6, 31), had a lower rate of stress testing (74% vs 90%, absolute difference = 16%, 95% CI 6, 26), greater knowledge of their exact pre-test probability of ACS (25% vs 1%, absolute difference = 24%, 95% CI 15, 33) and reported greater satisfaction with the decision-making process (strongly agree: 61% vs 40%, absolute difference = 21%, 95% CI 7, 33). There were no cases of delayed or missed ACS in either arm. Conclusion: Use of a decision aid in ED chest pain patients increased knowledge, increased satisfaction, and safely decreased resource use. In an era of health care reform, shared decision-making is a promising approach that may both increase patient engagement and decrease resource use.Funding(This research has received full or partial funding support from the American Heart Association, National Center)

AbstractObjective Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), a prevalent genomic disorder that increases risk of coronary heart disease, remains significantly underdiagnosed. Clinical decision support (CDS) tools have the potential to increase FH detection. We describe our experience in the development and implementation of a genomic CDS for FH at a large academic medical center.Methods CDS development and implementation were conducted in four phases: (1) development and validation of an algorithm to identify “possible FH”; (2) obtaining approvals from institutional committees to develop the CDS; (3) development of the initial prototype; and (4) use of an implementation science framework to evaluate the CDS.Results The timeline for this work was approximately 4 years; algorithm development and validation occurred from August 2018 to February 2020. During this 4-year period, we engaged with 15 stakeholder groups to build and integrate the CDS, including health care providers who gave feedback at each stage of development. During CDS implementation six main challenges were identified: (1) need for multiple institutional committee approvals; (2) need to align the CDS with institutional knowledge resources; (3) need to adapt the CDS to differing workflows; (4) lack of institutional guidelines for CDS implementation; (5) transition to a new institutional electronic health record (EHR) system; and (6) limitations of the EHR related to genomic medicine.Conclusion We identified multiple challenges in different domains while developing CDS for FH and integrating it with the EHR. The lessons learned herein may be helpful in streamlining the development and deployment of CDS to facilitate genomic medicine implementation.

Electronic health record (EHR)-based clinical decision support (CDS) can address the low awareness and undertreatment of familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), a disorder associated with a markedly increased risk of coronary heart disease. We aimed to incorporate provider perspectives into the development and implementation of a CDS tool for FH. An implementation science framework and a user-centered design process were used to create a CDS tool for FH. Primary care physicians and specialist physicians participated in qualitative interviews, usability testing and an implementation survey. The CDS was configured in two formats—a best practice alert (BPA) and an in-basket message and subsequently deployed in the EHR in silent mode. The key themes that emerged from the analysis of interview transcripts included understanding and awareness of FH, clinical workflow, physician preferences and value of CDS tools, perspectives on patient needs and values and dissemination and implementation. Recommendations related to usability included preferred CDS format and placement, content, timing and frequency, and level of alert urgency/prioritization. In response to the survey, 84.6% of physicians agreed that the CDS would improve early FH diagnosis and 92.3% agreed that it would help them identify and manage FH patients. Physician feedback led to iterative CDS refinement. In summary, we developed a CDS tool for FH using an implementation science framework and physician feedback. Initial deployment revealed a significant burden of FH and the potential for the CDS tool to have a large impact.

The objective was to quantitatively evaluate clinician characteristics associated with unwarranted practice variation, and how clinical care algorithms influence this variation. Participants (142 physicians, 53 nurse practitioners, and 9 physician assistants in family medicine, internal medicine, and cardiology) described their management of 4 clinical vignettes, first based on their own practice (unguided), then using care algorithms (guided). The authors quantitatively estimated variation in management. Cardiologists demonstrated 17% lower variation in unguided responses than generalists (fold-change 0.83 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68, 0.97]), and those who agreed that practice variation can realistically be reduced had 16% lower variation than those who did not (fold-change 0.84 [CI, 0.71, 0.99]). A 17% reduction in variation was observed for guided responses compared with baseline (unguided) responses (fold-change 0.83 [CI, 0.76, 0.90]). Differences were otherwise similar across clinician subgroups and attitudes. Unwarranted practice variation was similar across most clinician subgroups. The authors conclude that care algorithms can reduce variation in management.

Purpose The authors sought to summarize quantitative and qualitative research addressing electronic knowledge resources and point-of-care learning in a scoping review. Method The authors searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Database for studies addressing electronic knowledge resources and point-of-care learning. They iteratively revised inclusion criteria and operational definitions of study features and research themes of interest. Two reviewers independently performed each phase of study selection and data extraction. Results Of 10,811 studies identified, 305 were included and reviewed. Most studies (225; 74%) included physicians or medical students. The most frequently mentioned electronic resources were UpToDate (88; 29%), Micromedex (59; 19%), Epocrates (50; 16%), WebMD (46; 15%), MD Consult (32; 10%), and LexiComp (31; 10%). Eight studies (3%) evaluated electronic resources or point-of-care learning using outcomes of patient effects, and 36 studies (12%) reported objectively measured clinician behaviors. Twenty-five studies (8%) examined the clinical or educational impact of electronic knowledge resource use on patient care or clinician knowledge, 124 (41%) compared use rates of various knowledge resources, 69 (23%) examined the quality of knowledge resource content, and 115 (38%) explored the process of point-of-care learning. Two conceptual clarifications were identified, distinguishing the impact on clinical or educational outcomes versus the impact on test setting decision support, and the quality of information content versus the correctness of information obtained by a clinician–user. Conclusions Research on electronic knowledge resources is dominated by studies involving physicians and evaluating use rates. Studies involving nonphysician users, and evaluating resource impact and implementation, are needed.

Introduction Clinical practice guidelines facilitate optimal clinical practice. Point of care access, interpretation and application of such guidelines, however, is inconsistent. Informatics-based tools may help clinicians apply guidelines more consistently. We have developed a novel clinical decision support tool that presents guideline-relevant information and actionable items to clinicians at the point of care. We aim to test whether this tool improves the management of hyperlipidaemia, atrial fibrillation and heart failure by primary care clinicians. Methods/analysis Clinician care teams were cluster randomised to receive access to the clinical decision support tool or passive access to institutional guidelines on 16 May 2016. The trial began on 1 June 2016 when access to the tool was granted to the intervention clinicians. The trial will be run for 6 months to ensure a sufficient number of patient encounters to achieve 80% power to detect a twofold increase in the primary outcome at the 0.05 level of significance. The primary outcome measure will be the percentage of guideline-based recommendations acted on by clinicians for hyperlipidaemia, atrial fibrillation and heart failure. We hypothesise care teams with access to the clinical decision support tool will act on recommendations at a higher rate than care teams in the standard of care arm. Ethics and dissemination The Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board approved all study procedures. Informed consent was obtained from clinicians. A waiver of informed consent and of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) authorisation for patients managed by clinicians in the study was granted. In addition to publication, results will be disseminated via meetings and newsletters. Trial registration number NCT02742545 .

AbstractObjective: To better understand clinician information needs and learning opportunities by exploring the use of best-practice algorithms across different training levels and specialties.Methods: We developed interactive online algorithms (care process models [CPMs]) that integrate current guidelines, recent evidence, and local expertise to represent cross-disciplinary best practices for managing clinical problems. We reviewed CPM usage logs from January 2014 to June 2015 and compared usage across specialty and provider type.Results: During the study period, 4009 clinicians (2014 physicians in practice, 1117 resident physicians, and 878 nurse practitioners/physician assistants [NP/PAs]) viewed 140 CPMs a total of 81 764 times. Usage varied from 1 to 809 views per person, and from 9 to 4615 views per CPM. Residents and NP/PAs viewed CPMs more often than practicing physicians. Among 2742 users with known specialties, generalists (N = 1397) used CPMs more often (mean 31.8, median 7 views) than specialists (N = 1345; mean 6.8, median 2; P < .0001). The topics used by specialists largely aligned with topics within their specialties. The top 20% of available CPMs (28/140) collectively accounted for 61% of uses. In all, 2106 clinicians (52%) returned to the same CPM more than once (average 7.8 views per topic; median 4, maximum 195). Generalists revisited topics more often than specialists (mean 8.8 vs 5.1 views per topic; P < .0001).Conclusions: CPM usage varied widely across topics, specialties, and individual clinicians. Frequently viewed and recurrently viewed topics might warrant special attention. Specialists usually view topics within their specialty and may have unique information needs.