Search

Background:A common challenge in the development of laboratory clinical decision support (CDS) and laboratory utilization management (UM) initiatives stems from the fact that many laboratory tests have multiple potential indications, limiting the ability to develop context-specific alerts. As a potential solution, we designed a CDS alert that asks the ordering clinician to provide the indication for testing, using D-dimer as an exemplar. Using data collected over a nearly 3-year period, we sought to determine whether the indication capture was a useful feature within the CDS alert and whether it provided actionable intelligence to guide the development of an UM strategy. Methods: We extracted results and ordering data for D-dimer testing performed in our laboratory over a 35-month period. We analyzed order patterns by clinical indication, hospital service, and length of hospitalization. Results: Our final data set included 13,971 result-order combinations and indeed provided actionable intelligence regarding test utilization patterns. For example, pulmonary embolism was the most common emergency department indication (86%), while disseminated intravascular coagulation was the most common inpatient indication (56%). D-dimer positivity rates increased with the duration of hospitalization and our data suggested limited utility for ordering this test in the setting of suspected venous thromboembolic disease in admitted patients. In addition, we found that D-dimer was ordered for unexpected indications including the assessment of stroke, dissection, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Conclusions: Indication capture within a CDS alert and correlation with result data can provide insight into order patterns which can be used to develop future CDS strategies to guide appropriate test use by clinical indication.

Background: Although pathology informatics (PI) is essential to modern pathology practice, the field is often poorly understood. Pathologists who have received little to no exposure to informatics, either in training or in practice, may not recognize the roles that informatics serves in pathology. The purpose of this study was to characterize perceptions of PI by noninformatics-oriented pathologists and to do so at two large centers with differing informatics environments. Methods: Pathology trainees and staff at Cleveland Clinic (CC) and Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) were surveyed. At MGH, pathology department leadership has promoted a pervasive informatics presence through practice, training, and research. At CC, PI efforts focus on production systems that serve a multi-site integrated health system and a reference laboratory, and on the development of applications oriented to department operations. The survey assessed perceived definition of PI, interest in PI, and perceived utility of PI. Results: The survey was completed by 107 noninformatics-oriented pathologists and trainees. A majority viewed informatics positively. Except among MGH trainees, confusion of PI with information technology (IT) and help desk services was prominent, even in those who indicated they understood informatics. Attendings and trainees indicated desire to learn more about PI. While most acknowledged that having some level of PI knowledge would be professionally useful and advantageous, only a minority plan to utilize it. Conclusions: Informatics is viewed positively by the majority of noninformatics pathologists at two large centers with differing informatics orientations. Differences in departmental informatics culture can be attributed to the varying perceptions of PI by different individuals. Incorrect perceptions exist, such as conflating PI with IT and help desk services, even among those who claim to understand PI. Further efforts by the PI community could address such misperceptions, which could help enable a better understanding of what PI is and is not, and potentially lead to increased acceptance by non-informaticist pathologists.

The clinical laboratory is a major source of health care data. Increasingly these data are being integrated with other data to inform health system-wide actions meant to improve diagnostic test utilization, service efficiency, and "meaningful use." The Academy of Clinical Laboratory Physicians and Scientists hosted a satellite meeting on clinical laboratory analytics in conjunction with their annual meeting on May 29, 2014 in San Francisco. There were 80 registrants for the clinical laboratory analytics meeting. The meeting featured short presentations on current trends in clinical laboratory analytics and several panel discussions on data science in laboratory medicine, laboratory data and its role in the larger healthcare system, integrating laboratory analytics, and data sharing for collaborative analytics. One main goal of meeting was to have an open forum of leaders that work with the "big data" clinical laboratories produce. This article summarizes the proceedings of the meeting and content discussed.

Background: Pathologists and informaticians are becoming increasingly interested in electronic clinical decision support for pathology, laboratory medicine and clinical diagnosis. Improved decision support may optimize laboratory test selection, improve test result interpretation and permit the extraction of enhanced diagnostic information from existing laboratory data. Nonetheless, the field of pathology decision support is still developing. To facilitate the exchange of ideas and preliminary studies, we convened a symposium entitled: Pathology data integration and clinical decision support. Methods: The symposium was held at the Massachusetts General Hospital, on May 10, 2013. Participants were selected to represent diverse backgrounds and interests and were from nine different institutions in eight different states. Results: The day included 16 plenary talks and three panel discussions, together covering four broad areas. Summaries of each presentation are included in this manuscript. Conclusions: A number of recurrent themes emerged from the symposium. Among the most pervasive was the dichotomy between diagnostic data and diagnostic information, including the opportunities that laboratories may have to use electronic systems and algorithms to convert the data they generate into more useful information. Differences between human talents and computer abilities were described; well-designed symbioses between humans and computers may ultimately optimize diagnosis. Another key theme related to the unique needs and challenges in providing decision support for genomics and other emerging diagnostic modalities. Finally, many talks relayed how the barriers to bringing decision support toward reality are primarily personnel, political, infrastructural and administrative challenges rather than technological limitations.

The Partners HealthCare system′s Clinical Fellowship in Pathology Informatics (Boston, MA, USA) faces ongoing challenges to the delivery of its core curriculum in the forms of: (1) New classes of fellows annually with new and varying educational needs and increasingly fractured, enterprise-wide commitments; (2) taxing electronic health record (EHR) and laboratory information system (LIS) implementations; and (3) increasing interest in the subspecialty at the academic medical centers (AMCs) in what is a large health care network. In response to these challenges, the fellowship has modified its existing didactic sessions and piloted both a network-wide pathology informatics lecture series and regular "learning laboratories". Didactic sessions, which had previously included more formal discussions of the four divisions of the core curriculum: Information fundamentals, information systems, workflow and process, and governance and management, now focus on group discussions concerning the fellows′ ongoing projects, updates on the enterprise-wide EHR and LIS implementations, and directed questions about weekly readings. Lectures are given by the informatics faculty, guest informatics faculty, current and former fellows, and information systems members in the network, and are open to all professional members of the pathology departments at the AMCs. Learning laboratories consist of small-group exercises geared toward a variety of learning styles, and are driven by both the fellows and a member of the informatics faculty. The learning laboratories have created a forum for discussing real-time and real-world pathology informatics matters, and for incorporating awareness of and timely discussions about the latest pathology informatics literature. These changes have diversified the delivery of the fellowship′s core curriculum, increased exposure of faculty, fellows and trainees to one another, and more equitably distributed teaching responsibilities among the entirety of the pathology informatics asset in the network. Though the above approach has been in place less than a year, we are presenting it now as a technical note to allow for further discussion of evolving educational opportunities in pathology informatics and clinical informatics in general, and to highlight the importance of having a flexible fellowship with active participation from its fellows.

Background: Pathology informatics is both emerging as a distinct subspecialty and simultaneously becoming deeply integrated within the breadth of pathology practice. As specialists, pathology informaticians need a broad skill set, including aptitude with information fundamentals, information systems, workflow and process, and governance and management. Currently, many of those seeking training in pathology informatics additionally choose training in a second subspecialty. Combining pathology informatics training with molecular pathology is a natural extension, as molecular pathology is a subspecialty with high potential for application of modern biomedical informatics techniques. Methods and Results: Pathology informatics and molecular pathology fellows and faculty evaluated the current fellowship program′s core curriculum topics and subtopics for relevance to molecular pathology. By focusing on the overlap between the two disciplines, a structured curriculum consisting of didactics, operational rotations, and research projects was developed for those fellows interested in both pathology informatics and molecular pathology. Conclusions: The scope of molecular diagnostics is expanding dramatically as technology advances and our understanding of disease extends to the genetic level. Here, we highlight many of the informatics challenges facing molecular pathology today, and outline specific informatics principles necessary for the training of future molecular pathologists.

Background: Pathology Informatics is a new field; a field that is still defining itself even as it begins the formalization, accreditation, and board certification process. At the same time, Pathology itself is changing in a variety of ways that impact informatics, including subspecialization and an increased use of data analysis. In this paper, we examine how these changes impact both the structure of Pathology Informatics fellowship programs and the fellows′ goals within those programs. Materials and Methods: As part of our regular program review process, the fellows evaluated the value and effectiveness of our existing fellowship tracks (Research Informatics, Clinical Two-year Focused Informatics, Clinical One-year Focused Informatics, and Clinical 1 + 1 Subspecialty Pathology and Informatics). They compared their education, informatics background, and anticipated career paths and analyzed them for correlations between those parameters and the fellowship track chosen. All current and past fellows of the program were actively involved with the project. Results: Fellows′ anticipated career paths correlated very well with the specific tracks in the program. A small set of fellows (Clinical - one or two year - Focused Informatics tracks) anticipated clinical careers primarily focused in informatics (Director of Informatics). The majority of the fellows, however, anticipated a career practicing in a Pathology subspecialty, using their informatics training to enhance that practice (Clinical 1 + 1 Subspecialty Pathology and Informatics Track). Significantly, all fellows on this track reported they would not have considered a Clinical Two-year Focused Informatics track if it was the only track offered. The Research and the Clinical One-year Focused Informatics tracks each displayed unique value for different situations. Conclusions: It seems a "one size fits all" fellowship structure does not fit the needs of the majority of potential Pathology Informatics candidates. Increasingly, these fellowships must be able to accommodate the needs of candidates anticipating a wide range of Pathology Informatics career paths, be able to accommodate Pathology′s increasingly subspecialized structure, and do this in a way that respects the multiple fellowships needed to become a subspecialty pathologist and informatician. This is further complicated as Pathology Informatics begins to look outward and takes its place in the growing, and still ill-defined, field of Clinical Informatics, a field that is not confined to just one medical specialty, to one way of practicing medicine, or to one way of providing patient care.

Background: In 2007, our healthcare system established a clinical fellowship program in Pathology Informatics. In 2010 a core didactic course was implemented to supplement the fellowship research and operational rotations. In 2011, the course was enhanced by a formal, structured core curriculum and reading list. We present and discuss our rationale and development process for the Core Curriculum and the role it plays in our Pathology Informatics Fellowship Training Program. Materials and Methods: The Core Curriculum for Pathology Informatics was developed, and is maintained, through the combined efforts of our Pathology Informatics Fellows and Faculty. The curriculum was created with a three-tiered structure, consisting of divisions, topics, and subtopics. Primary (required) and suggested readings were selected for each subtopic in the curriculum and incorporated into a curated reading list, which is reviewed and maintained on a regular basis. Results: Our Core Curriculum is composed of four major divisions, 22 topics, and 92 subtopics that cover the wide breadth of Pathology Informatics. The four major divisions include: (1) Information Fundamentals, (2) Information Systems, (3) Workflow and Process, and (4) Governance and Management. A detailed, comprehensive reading list for the curriculum is presented in the Appendix to the manuscript and contains 570 total readings (current as of March 2012). Discussion: The adoption of a formal, core curriculum in a Pathology Informatics fellowship has significant impacts on both fellowship training and the general field of Pathology Informatics itself. For a fellowship, a core curriculum defines a basic, common scope of knowledge that the fellowship expects all of its graduates will know, while at the same time enhancing and broadening the traditional fellowship experience of research and operational rotations. For the field of Pathology Informatics itself, a core curriculum defines to the outside world, including departments, companies, and health systems considering hiring a pathology informatician, the core knowledge set expected of a person trained in the field and, more fundamentally, it helps to define the scope of the field within Pathology and healthcare in general.

Background: Last year, our pathology informatics fellowship added informatics-based interactive case studies to its existing educational platform of operational and research rotations, clinical conferences, a common core curriculum with an accompanying didactic course, and national meetings. Methods: The structure of the informatics case studies was based on the traditional business school case study format. Three different formats were used, varying in length from short, 15-minute scenarios to more formal multiple hour-long case studies. Case studies were presented over the course of three retreats (Fall 2011, Winter 2012, and Spring 2012) and involved both local and visiting faculty and fellows. Results: Both faculty and fellows found the case studies and the retreats educational, valuable, and enjoyable. From this positive feedback, we plan to incorporate the retreats in future academic years as an educational component of our fellowship program. Conclusions: Interactive case studies appear to be valuable in teaching several aspects of pathology informatics that are difficult to teach in more traditional venues (rotations and didactic class sessions). Case studies have become an important component of our fellowship′s educational platform.

Background: Laboratory ordering functions within computerized provider order entry (CPOE) systems typically support the display of electronic alert messages to improve test utilization or implement new ordering policies. However, alert strategies have been shown to vary considerably in their success and the characteristics contributing to an alert′s success are poorly understood. Improved methodologies are needed to evaluate alerts and their mechanisms of action. Materials and Methods: Clinicians order inpatient and emergency department laboratory tests using our institutional CPOE system. We analyzed user interaction data captured by our CPOE system to evaluate how clinicians responded to an alert. We evaluated an alert designed to implement an institutional policy restricting the indications for ordering creatine kinase-MB (CKMB). Results: Within 2 months of alert implementation, CKMB-associated searches declined by 79% with a corresponding decline in CKMB orders. Furthermore, while prior to alert implementation, clinicians searching for CKMB ultimately ordered this test 99% of the time, following implementation, only 60% of CKMB searches ultimately led to CKMB test orders. This difference presumably represents clinicians who reconsidered the need for CKMB in response to the alert, demonstrating the alert′s just-in-time advisory capability. In addition, as clinicians repeatedly viewed the alert, there was a "dose-dependant" decrease in the fraction of searches without orders. This presumably reflects the alerting strategy′s long-term educational component, as clinicians aware of the new policy will not search for CKMB when not indicated. Conclusions: Our analytic approach provides insight into the mechanism of a CPOE alert and demonstrates that alerts may act through a combination of just-in-time advice and longer term education. Use of this approach when implementing alerts may prove useful to improve the success of a given alerting strategy.

Clinicians have traditionally ordered laboratory tests using paper-based orders and requisitions. However, paper orders are becoming increasingly incompatible with the complexities, challenges, and resource constraints of our modern healthcare systems and are being replaced by electronic order entry systems. Electronic systems that allow direct provider input of diagnostic testing or medication orders into a computer system are known as Computerized Provider Order Entry (CPOE) systems. Adoption of laboratory CPOE systems may offer institutions many benefits, including reduced test turnaround time, improved test utilization, and better adherence to practice guidelines. In this review, we outline the functionality of various CPOE implementations, review the reported benefits, and discuss strategies for using CPOE to improve the test ordering process. Further, we discuss barriers to the implementation of CPOE systems that have prevented their more widespread adoption.