PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Appl Clin Inform 2022; 13(04): 820-827
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1756366
Research Article

A Qualitative Description of Clinician Free-Text Rationales Entered within Accountable Justification Interventions

Tiffany Brown
1   Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, United States
,
Brittany Zelch
2   Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, Illinois, United States
,
Ji Young Lee
1   Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, United States
,
Jason N. Doctor
3   Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, United States
,
Jeffrey A. Linder
1   Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, United States
,
Mark D. Sullivan
4   Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States
,
Noah J. Goldstein
5   Anderson School of Management, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States
,
Theresa A. Rowe
1   Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, United States
,
Daniella Meeker
3   Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, United States
,
Tara Knight
3   Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, United States
,
Mark W. Friedberg
6   Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
7   Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
,
Stephen D. Persell
1   Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, United States
8   Center for Primary Care Innovation, Institute for Public Health and Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, United States
› Institutsangaben Funding The study was funded by R21AG057395, R21AG057383, R21AG057396, R33AG057395, R33AG057383, and P30AG059988 from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The NIH had no role in the study design, in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data, in the writing of the report, and in the decision to submit the article for publication.
› Weitere Informationen
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Background Requiring accountable justifications—visible, clinician-recorded explanations for not following a clinical decision support (CDS) alert—has been used to steer clinicians away from potentially guideline-discordant decisions. Understanding themes from justifications across clinical content areas may reveal how clinicians rationalize decisions and could help inform CDS alerts.

Methods We conducted a qualitative evaluation of the free-text justifications entered by primary care physicians from three pilot interventions designed to reduce opioid prescribing and, in older adults, high-risk polypharmacy and overtesting. Clinicians encountered alerts when triggering conditions were met within the chart. Clinicians were asked to change their course of action or enter a justification for the action that would be displayed in the chart. We extracted all justifications and grouped justifications with common themes. Two authors independently coded each justification and resolved differences via discussion. Three physicians used a modified Delphi technique to rate the clinical appropriateness of the justifications.

Results There were 560 justifications from 50 unique clinicians. We grouped these into three main themes used to justify an action: (1) report of a particular diagnosis or symptom (e.g., for “anxiety” or “acute pain”); (2) provision of further contextual details about the clinical case (e.g., tried and failed alternatives, short-term supply, or chronic medication); and (3) noting communication between clinician and patient (e.g., “risks and benefits discussed”). Most accountable justifications (65%) were of uncertain clinical appropriateness.

Conclusion Most justifications clinicians entered across three separate clinical content areas fit within a small number of themes, and these common rationales may aid in the design of effective accountable justification interventions. Justifications varied in terms of level of clinical detail. On their own, most justifications did not clearly represent appropriate clinical decision making.

Keywords

electronic health records - accountable justifications - clinical decision support - qualitative analysis

Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

The Northwestern University Institutional Review Board and the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board reviewed and approved this study.




Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 30. März 2022

Angenommen: 12. Juli 2022

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
07. September 2022

© 2022. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Sant'Anna A, Vilhelmsson A, Wolf A. Nudging healthcare professionals in clinical settings: a scoping review of the literature. BMC Health Serv Res 2021; 21 (01) 543
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Last BS, Buttenheim AM, Timon CE, Mitra N, Beidas RS. Systematic review of clinician-directed nudges in healthcare contexts. BMJ Open 2021; 11 (07) e048801
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Meeker D, Linder JA, Fox CR. et al. Effect of behavioral interventions on inappropriate antibiotic prescribing among primary care practices: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2016; 315 (06) 562-570
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Persell SD, Friedberg MW, Meeker D. et al. Use of behavioral economics and social psychology to improve treatment of acute respiratory infections (BEARI): rationale and design of a cluster randomized controlled trial [1RC4AG039115-01]–study protocol and baseline practice and provider characteristics. BMC Infect Dis 2013; 13: 290
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Persell SD, Doctor JN, Friedberg MW. et al. Behavioral interventions to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing: a randomized pilot trial. BMC Infect Dis 2016; 16: 373
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kelley MA, Persell SD, Linder JA. et al. The protocol of the Application of Economics & Social psychology to improve Opioid Prescribing Safety Trial 1 (AESOPS-1): electronic health record nudges. Contemp Clin Trials 2021; 103: 106329
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Belli HM, Chokshi SK, Hegde R. et al. Implementation of a behavioral economics electronic health record (BE-EHR) module to reduce overtreatment of diabetes in older adults. J Gen Intern Med 2020; 35 (11) 3254-3261
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Brown T, Rowe TA, Lee JY. et al. Design of Behavioral Economic Applications to Geriatrics Leveraging Electronic Health Records (BEAGLE): a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial. Contemp Clin Trials 2022; 112: 106649
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kerlin MP, Small D, Fuchs BD. et al. Implementing nudges to promote utilization of low tidal volume ventilation (INPUT): a stepped-wedge, hybrid type III trial of strategies to improve evidence-based mechanical ventilation management. Implement Sci 2021; 16 (01) 78
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Joglekar NN, Patel Y, Keller MS. Evaluation of clinical decision support to reduce sedative-hypnotic prescribing in older adults. Appl Clin Inform 2021; 12 (03) 436-444
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Persell SD, Brown T, Doctor JN. et al. Development of high-risk geriatric polypharmacy electronic clinical quality measures and a pilot test of EHR nudges based on these measures. J Gen Intern Med 2022; 37 (11) 2777-2785
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 O'Mahony D, O'Sullivan D, Byrne S, O'Connor MN, Ryan C, Gallagher P. STOPP/START criteria for potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people: version 2. Age Ageing 2015; 44 (02) 213-218
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event Prevention. 2014 . Accessed August 22, 2022 at: https://health.gov/our-work/national-health-initiatives/health-care-quality/adverse-drug-events/national-ade-action-plan
    PubMed
  • 14 By the American Geriatrics Society 2015 Beers Criteria Update Expert Panel. American Geriatrics Society 2015 updated Beers Criteria for potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 2015; 63 (11) 2227-2246
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Choosing Wisely. An Initiative of the ABIM Foundation. Ten things clinicians and patients should question. 2015 . Accessed August 22, 2022 at: http://www.choosingwisely.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/AGS-Choosing-Wisely-List.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 2005; 15 (09) 1277-1288
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Dalkey N, Helmer O. An experimental application of the DELPHI method to the use of experts. Manage Sci 1963; 9 (03) 458-467
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Wright A, Ai A, Ash J. et al. Clinical decision support alert malfunctions: analysis and empirically derived taxonomy. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2018; 25 (05) 496-506
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Nanji KC, Slight SP, Seger DL. et al. Overrides of medication-related clinical decision support alerts in outpatients. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2014; 21 (03) 487-491
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Shah SN, Amato MG, Garlo KG, Seger DL, Bates DW. Renal medication-related clinical decision support (CDS) alerts and overrides in the inpatient setting following implementation of a commercial electronic health record: implications for designing more effective alerts. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2021; 28 (06) 1081-1087
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Backman R, Bayliss S, Moore D, Litchfield I. Clinical reminder alert fatigue in healthcare: a systematic literature review protocol using qualitative evidence. Syst Rev 2017; 6 (01) 255
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Shah NR, Seger AC, Seger DL. et al. Improving acceptance of computerized prescribing alerts in ambulatory care. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006; 13 (01) 5-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Persell SD, Dolan NC, Friesema EM, Thompson JA, Kaiser D, Baker DW. Frequency of inappropriate medical exceptions to quality measures. Ann Intern Med 2010; 152 (04) 225-231
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Figg-Latham J, Rajendran D. Quiet dissent: the attitudes, beliefs and behaviours of UK osteopaths who reject low back pain guidance - a qualitative study. Musculoskelet Sci Pract 2017; 27: 97-105
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Rowe TA, Brown T, Doctor JN, Linder JA, Persell SD. Examining primary care physician rationale for not following geriatric choosing wisely recommendations. BMC Fam Pract 2021; 22 (01) 95
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Smith KL, Tran D, Westra BL. Sinusitis treatment guideline adherence in the e-visit setting: a performance improvement project. Appl Clin Inform 2016; 7 (02) 299-307
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Smith MW, Brown C, Virani SS. et al. Incorporating guideline adherence and practice implementation issues into the design of decision support for beta-blocker titration for heart failure. Appl Clin Inform 2018; 9 (02) 478-489
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Fox CR, Doctor JN, Goldstein NJ, Meeker D, Persell SD, Linder JA. Details matter: predicting when nudging clinicians will succeed or fail. BMJ 2020; 370: m3256
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Elwyn G, Gwyn R, Edwards A, Grol R. Is ‘shared decision-making’ feasible in consultations for upper respiratory tract infections? Assessing the influence of antibiotic expectations using discourse analysis. Health Expect 1999; 2 (02) 105-117
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Choi J, Vordenberg SE. Older adults' perceptions of deprescribing chronic benzodiazepines. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash DC) 2021; 61 (05) 533-538.e3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Weir K, Nickel B, Naganathan V. et al. Decision-making preferences and deprescribing: perspectives of older adults and companions about their medicines. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci 2018; 73 (07) e98-e107
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci 2011; 6: 42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar