Appl Clin Inform 2024; 15(02): 204-211
DOI: 10.1055/a-2247-9355
Research Article

Randomized Comparison of Electronic Health Record Alert Types in Eliciting Responses about Prognosis in Gynecologic Oncology Patients

1   Department of Medicine, Duke University Health System, Durham, North Carolina, United States
2   Duke Health Technology Solutions, Durham, North Carolina, United States
,
Rashaud Senior
2   Duke Health Technology Solutions, Durham, North Carolina, United States
3   Duke Primary Care, Duke University Health System, Durham, North Carolina, United States
,
Laura J. Havrilesky
4   Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Health System, Durham, North Carolina, United States
,
Jordan Buuck
2   Duke Health Technology Solutions, Durham, North Carolina, United States
,
David J. Casarett
5   Section of Palliative Care, Department of Medicine, Duke University Health System, Durham, North Carolina, United States
,
Salam Ibrahim
6   Duke Health Performance Services, Duke University Health System, Durham, North Carolina, United States
,
Brittany A. Davidson
4   Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Duke University Health System, Durham, North Carolina, United States
› Author Affiliations

Funding None.


Preview

Abstract

Objectives To compare the ability of different electronic health record alert types to elicit responses from users caring for cancer patients benefiting from goals of care (GOC) conversations.

Methods A validated question asking if the user would be surprised by the patient's 6-month mortality was built as an Epic BestPractice Advisory (BPA) alert in three versions—(1) Required on Open chart (pop-up BPA), (2) Required on Close chart (navigator BPA), and (3) Optional Persistent (Storyboard BPA)—randomized using patient medical record number. Meaningful responses were defined as “Yes” or “No,” rather than deferral. Data were extracted over 6 months.

Results Alerts appeared for 685 patients during 1,786 outpatient encounters. Measuring encounters where a meaningful response was elicited, rates were highest for Required on Open (94.8% of encounters), compared with Required on Close (90.1%) and Optional Persistent (19.7%) (p < 0.001). Measuring individual alerts to which responses were given, they were most likely meaningful with Optional Persistent (98.3% of responses) and least likely with Required on Open (68.0%) (p < 0.001). Responses of “No,” suggesting poor prognosis and prompting GOC, were more likely with Optional Persistent (13.6%) and Required on Open (10.3%) than with Required on Close (7.0%) (p = 0.028).

Conclusion Required alerts had response rates almost five times higher than optional alerts. Timing of alerts affects rates of meaningful responses and possibly the response itself. The alert with the most meaningful responses was also associated with the most interruptions and deferral responses. Considering tradeoffs in these metrics is important in designing clinical decision support to maximize success.

Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

The study was performed in compliance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects, and it was reviewed by the Duke Institutional Review Board.


Author Contributions

B.A.D., L.J.H., and D.J.C. conceived the study. J.B. performed the technical build within the electronic health record. R.C.M., R.S., and S.I. supported the data extraction and analyses. R.C.M. and B.A.D. did primary composition of the document, with edits by the other authors. All authors approved the manuscript.




Publication History

Received: 06 August 2023

Accepted: 16 January 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
17 January 2024

Article published online:
13 March 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany