Search

Background: In 2011, the American Board of Medical Specialties established clinical informatics (CI) as a subspecialty in medicine, jointly administered by the American Board of Pathology and the American Board of Preventive Medicine. Subsequently, many institutions created CI fellowship training programs to meet the growing need for informaticists. Although many programs share similar features, there is considerable variation in program funding and administrative structures., Objectives: The aim of our study was to characterize CI fellowship program features, including governance structures, funding sources, and expenses., Methods: We created a cross-sectional online REDCap survey with 44 items requesting information on program administration, fellows, administrative support, funding sources, and expenses. We surveyed program directors of programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education between 2014 and 2021., Results: We invited 54 program directors, of which 41 (76%) completed the survey. The average administrative support received was $27,732/year. Most programs (85.4%) were accredited to have two or more fellows per year. Programs were administratively housed under six departments: Internal Medicine (17; 41.5%), Pediatrics (7; 17.1%), Pathology (6; 14.6%), Family Medicine (6; 14.6%), Emergency Medicine (4; 9.8%), and Anesthesiology (1; 2.4%). Funding sources for CI fellowship program directors included: hospital or health systems (28.3%), clinical departments (28.3%), graduate medical education office (13.2%), biomedical informatics department (9.4%), hospital information technology (9.4%), research and grants (7.5%), and other sources (3.8%) that included philanthropy and external entities., Conclusion: CI fellowships have been established in leading academic and community health care systems across the country. Due to their unique training requirements, these programs require significant resources for education, administration, and recruitment. There continues to be considerable heterogeneity in funding models between programs. Our survey findings reinforce the need for reformed federal funding models for informatics practice and training., Competing Interests: None declared., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

The development and implementation of clinical decision support (CDS) that trains itself and adapts its algorithms based on new data-here referred to as Adaptive CDS-present unique challenges and considerations. Although Adaptive CDS represents an expected progression from earlier work, the activities needed to appropriately manage and support the establishment and evolution of Adaptive CDS require new, coordinated initiatives and oversight that do not currently exist. In this AMIA position paper, the authors describe current and emerging challenges to the safe use of Adaptive CDS and lay out recommendations for the effective management and monitoring of Adaptive CDS., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Board certified clinical informaticians provide expertise in leveraging health IT (HIT) and health data for patient care and quality improvement. Clinical Informatics experts possess the requisite skills and competencies to make systems-level improvements in care delivery using HIT, workflow and data analytics, knowledge acquisition, clinical decision support, data visualization, and related informatics tools. However, these physicians lack structured and sustained funding because they have no billing codes. The sustainability and growth of this new and promising medical subspecialty is threatened by outdated and inconsistent funding models that fail to support the education and professional growth of clinical informaticians. The Clinical Informatics Program Directors' Community is calling upon the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to consider novel funding structures and programs through its Innovation Center for Clinical Informatics Fellowship training. Only through structural and sustained funding for Clinical Informatics fellows will be able to fully develop the potential of electronic health records to improve the quality, safety, and cost of clinical care., Competing Interests: C.U.L. reports that he is designated to be the Fellowship program director, UT Southwestern. J.S. reports that he was employed by the American Medical Informatics Association, which serves as the professional home for Clinical Informatics Fellows., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background: The after visit summary (AVS) is a paper or electronic document given to patients after a medical appointment, which is intended to summarize patients' health and guide future care, including self-management tasks., Objective: To describe experiences of health systems implementing a redesigned outpatient AVS in commercially available electronic health record (EHR) systems to inform future optimization., Materials and Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with information technology and clinical leaders at 12 hospital and community-based healthcare institutions across the continental United States focusing on the process of AVS redesign and implementation. We also report our experience implementing a redesigned AVS in the Epic EHR at the Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, NY., Results: Health systems experienced many challenges implementing the redesigned AVS. While many IT leaders noted that the redesigned AVS is easier to understand and the document is better organized, they claim the effort is time-consuming, Epic system upgrades render AVS modifications non-functional, and primary care and specialty practices have different needs in regards to content and formatting. Our team was able to modify the document by changing the order of print groups, modifying the font size, bolding section headers, and inserting page breaks. Similar to other health systems, our team found that it is difficult to achieve some desired features due to limitations in the EHR platform., Conclusion: Health IT leaders view the AVS as a valuable source of information for patients. However, limitations to AVS modifications in EHR systems present challenges to optimizing the tool. EHR vendors should incorporate learning from healthcare systems innovation efforts and consider building more flexibility into their product development., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The Electronic Medical Records and Genomics Network is a National Human Genome Research Institute-funded consortium engaged in the development of methods and best practices for using the electronic medical record as a tool for genomic research. Now in its sixth year and second funding cycle, and comprising nine research groups and a coordinating center, the network has played a major role in validating the concept that clinical data derived from electronic medical records can be used successfully for genomic research. Current work is advancing knowledge in multiple disciplines at the intersection of genomics and health-care informatics, particularly for electronic phenotyping, genome-wide association studies, genomic medicine implementation, and the ethical and regulatory issues associated with genomics research and returning results to study participants. Here, we describe the evolution, accomplishments, opportunities, and challenges of the network from its inception as a five-group consortium focused on genotype-phenotype associations for genomic discovery to its current form as a nine-group consortium pivoting toward the implementation of genomic medicine.

Providers and hospitals have received more than $5 billion from the federal government for meaningfully using electronic health records as of April 2012. Meaningful Use stage 1 makes adoption of the personal health record optional. The proposed Meaningful Use stage 2 regulations make personal health record use mandatory. There is peer-reviewed literature to support a personal health record adoption rate of 10%, which is optional in stage 1 and required in stage 2. The literature also supports the use of secure messaging required in stage 2. However, there is little evidence to support other stage 2 personal health record requirements and dependencies. Further study is urgently needed to ensure that Meaningful Use stage 2 is meaningful for both patients and providers., (© 2012 Mount Sinai School of Medicine.)

In this article, we describe a framework that we have developed for improving the effectiveness of critical decision-making in selecting information systems. In our framework, we consider system selection in terms of strength of evidence obtained from the testing of candidate systems in order to reduce risk and increase the likelihood of selection and implementation of an effective and safe system. Two case studies, one from a major North American hospital and one from a major European hospital, are presented to illustrate how methods such as usability testing can be applied to improve system selection as well as customization (through early identification of system-organization mismatches and error-prone system features). It is argued that technology-organization fit and consideration of the potential for technology-induced error should be important selection criteria in the procurement process. Here, implications are discussed for the development of improved procurement processes to lead to safer healthcare systems.

Objectives: In the wake of the Institute of Medicine report, To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System (LT Kohn, JM Corrigan, MS Donaldson, eds; Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999), numerous advisory panels are advocating widespread implementation of physician order entry as a means to reduce errors and improve patient safety. Successful implementation of an order entry system requires that attention be given to the user interface. The authors assessed physician satisfaction with the user interface of two different order entry systems-a commercially available product, and the Department of Veterans Affairs Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS)., Design and Measurement: A standardized instrument for measuring user satisfaction with physician order entry systems was mailed to internal medicine and medicine-pediatrics house staff physicians. The subjects answered questions on each system using a 0 to 9 scale., Results: The survey response rates were 63 and 64 percent for the two order entry systems. Overall, house staff were dissatisfied with the commercial system, giving it an overall mean score of 3.67 (95 percent confidence interval [95%CI], 3.37-3.97). In contrast, the CPRS had a mean score of 7.21 (95% CI, 7.00-7.43), indicating that house staff were satisfied with the system. Overall satisfaction was most strongly correlated with the ability to perform tasks in a "straightforward" manner., Conclusions: User satisfaction differed significantly between the two order entry systems, suggesting that all order entry systems are not equally usable. Given the national usage of the two order entry systems studied, further studies are needed to assess physician satisfaction with use of these same systems at other institutions.