Search

BackgroundLimited consideration of clinical decision support (CDS) design best practices, such as a user-centered design, is often cited as a key barrier to CDS adoption and effectiveness. The application of CDS best practices is resource intensive; thus, institutions often rely on commercially available CDS tools that are created to meet the generalized needs of many institutions and are not user centered. Beyond resource availability, insufficient guidance on how to address key aspects of implementation, such as contextual factors, may also limit the application of CDS best practices. An implementation science (IS) framework could provide needed guidance and increase the reproducibility of CDS implementations. ObjectiveThis study aims to compare the effectiveness of an enhanced CDS tool informed by CDS best practices and an IS framework with a generic, commercially available CDS tool. MethodsWe conducted an explanatory sequential mixed methods study. An IS-enhanced and commercial CDS alert were compared in a cluster randomized trial across 28 primary care clinics. Both alerts aimed to improve beta-blocker prescribing for heart failure. The enhanced alert was informed by CDS best practices and the Practical, Robust, Implementation, and Sustainability Model (PRISM) IS framework, whereas the commercial alert followed vendor-supplied specifications. Following PRISM, the enhanced alert was informed by iterative, multilevel stakeholder input and the dynamic interactions of the internal and external environment. Outcomes aligned with PRISM’s evaluation measures, including patient reach, clinician adoption, and changes in prescribing behavior. Clinicians exposed to each alert were interviewed to identify design features that might influence adoption. The interviews were analyzed using a thematic approach. ResultsBetween March 15 and August 23, 2019, the enhanced alert fired for 61 patients (106 alerts, 87 clinicians) and the commercial alert fired for 26 patients (59 alerts, 31 clinicians). The adoption and effectiveness of the enhanced alert were significantly higher than those of the commercial alert (62% vs 29% alerts adopted, P

BackgroundClinical decision support (CDS) design best practices are intended to provide a narrative representation of factors that influence the success of CDS tools. However, they provide incomplete direction on evidence-based implementation principles. ObjectiveThis study aims to describe an integrated approach toward applying an existing implementation science (IS) framework with CDS design best practices to improve the effectiveness, sustainability, and reproducibility of CDS implementations. MethodsWe selected the Practical Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM) IS framework. We identified areas where PRISM and CDS design best practices complemented each other and defined methods to address each. Lessons learned from applying these methods were then used to further refine the integrated approach. ResultsOur integrated approach to applying PRISM with CDS design best practices consists of 5 key phases that iteratively interact and inform each other: multilevel stakeholder engagement, designing the CDS, design and usability testing, thoughtful deployment, and performance evaluation and maintenance. The approach is led by a dedicated implementation team that includes clinical informatics and analyst builder expertise. ConclusionsIntegrating PRISM with CDS design best practices extends user-centered design and accounts for the multilevel, interacting, and dynamic factors that influence CDS implementation in health care. Integrating PRISM with CDS design best practices synthesizes the many known contextual factors that can influence the success of CDS tools, thereby enhancing the reproducibility and sustainability of CDS implementations. Others can adapt this approach to their situation to maximize and sustain CDS implementation success.

Drug-induced QT prolongation (diLQTS), and subsequent risk of torsade de pointes, is a major concern with use of many medications, including for non-cardiac conditions. The possibility that genetic risk, in the form of polygenic risk scores (PGS), could be integrated into prediction of risk of diLQTS has great potential, although it is unknown how genetic risk is related to clinical risk factors as might be applied in clinical decision-making. In this study, we examined the PGS for QT interval in 2500 subjects exposed to a known QT-prolonging drug on prolongation of the QT interval over 500ms on subsequent ECG using electronic health record data. We found that the normalized QT PGS was higher in cases than controls (0.212±0.954 vs. -0.0270±1.003, P = 0.0002), with an unadjusted odds ratio of 1.34 (95%CI 1.17–1.53, P<0.001) for association with diLQTS. When included with age and clinical predictors of QT prolongation, we found that the PGS for QT interval provided independent risk prediction for diLQTS, in which the interaction for high-risk diagnosis or with certain high-risk medications (amiodarone, sotalol, and dofetilide) was not significant, indicating that genetic risk did not modify the effect of other risk factors on risk of diLQTS. We found that a high-risk cutoff (QT PGS ≥ 2 standard deviations above mean), but not a low-risk cutoff, was associated with risk of diLQTS after adjustment for clinical factors, and provided one method of integration based on the decision-tree framework. In conclusion, we found that PGS for QT interval is an independent predictor of diLQTS, but that in contrast to existing theories about repolarization reserve as a mechanism of increasing risk, the effect is independent of other clinical risk factors. More work is needed for external validation in clinical decision-making, as well as defining the mechanism through which genes that increase QT interval are associated with risk of diLQTS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: Little is known about the prescribing of medications with potential to cause QTc‐prolongation in the ambulatory care settings. Understanding real‐world prescribing of QTc‐prolonging medications and actions taken to mitigate this risk will help guide strategies to optimize safety and appropriate prescribing among ambulatory patients. Objective: To evaluate the frequency of clinician action taken to monitor and mitigate modifiable risk factors for QTc‐prolongation when indicated. Methods: This retrospective, cross‐sectional study evaluated clinician action at the time of prescribing prespecified medications with potential to prolong QTc in adult patients in primary care. The index date was defined as the date the medication was ordered. Electronic health record (EHR) data were evaluated to assess patient, clinician and visit characteristics. Clinician action was determined if baseline or follow‐up monitoring was ordered or if action was taken to mitigate modifiable risk factors (laboratory abnormalities or electrocardiogram [ECG] monitoring) within 48 h of prescribing a medication with QTc‐prolonging risk. Descriptive statistics were used to describe current practice. Results: A total of 399 prescriptions were prescribed to 386 patients, with a mean age of 51 ± 18 years, during March 2021 from a single‐centre, multisite health system. Of these, 17 (4%) patients had a known history of QTc‐prolongation, 170 (44%) did not have a documented history of QTc‐prolongation and 199 (52%) had an unknown history (no ECG documented). Thirty‐nine patients (10%) had at least one laboratory‐related risk factor at the time of prescribing, specifically hypokalemia (16 patients), hypomagnesemia (8 patients) or hypocalcemia (19 patients). Of these 39 patients with laboratory risk factors, only 6 patients (15%) had their risk acknowledged or addressed by a clinician. Additionally, eight patients' most recent QTc was ≥500 ms and none had an ECG checked at the time the prescription was ordered. Conclusion: Despite national recommendations, medication monitoring and risk mitigation is infrequent when prescribing QTc‐prolonging medications in the ambulatory care setting. These findings call for additional research to better understand this gap, including reasons for the gap and consequences on patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To compare the effectiveness of 2 clinical decision support (CDS) tools to avoid prescription of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in patients with heart failure (HF): a "commercial" and a locally "customized" alert. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 2 CDS tools implemented within a large integrated health system. The commercial CDS tool was designed according to third-party drug content and EHR vendor specifications. The customized CDS tool underwent a user-centered design process informed by implementation science principles, with input from a cross disciplinary team. The customized CDS tool replaced the commercial CDS tool. Data were collected from the electronic health record via analytic reports and manual chart review. The primary outcome was effectiveness, defined as whether the clinician changed their behavior and did not prescribe an NSAID. Results A random sample of 366 alerts (183 per CDS tool) was evaluated that represented 355 unique patients. The commercial CDS tool was effective for 7 of 172 (4%) patients, while the customized CDS tool was effective for 81 of 183 (44%) patients. After adjusting for age, chronic kidney disease, ejection fraction, NYHA class, concurrent prescription of an opioid or acetaminophen, visit type (inpatient or outpatient), and clinician specialty, the customized alerts were at 24.3 times greater odds of effectiveness compared to the commercial alerts (OR: 24.3 CI: 10.20–58.06). Conclusion Investing additional resources to customize a CDS tool resulted in a CDS tool that was more effective at reducing the total number of NSAID orders placed for patients with HF compared to a commercially available CDS tool. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]