Using the Electronic Health Record User Context in Clinical Decision Support CriteriaFunding None.
Background Computerized clinical decision support (CDS) used in electronic health record systems (EHRs) has led to positive outcomes as well as unintended consequences, such as alert fatigue. Characteristics of the EHR session can be used to restrict CDS tools and increase their relevance, but implications of this approach are not rigorously studied.
Objectives To assess the utility of using “login location” of EHR users—that is, the location they chose on the login screen—as a variable in the CDS logic.
Methods We measured concordance between user's login location and the location of the patients they placed orders for and conducted stratified analyses by user groups. We also estimated how often login location data may be stale or inaccurate.
Results One in five CDS alerts incorporated the EHR users' login location into their logic. Analysis of nearly 2 million orders placed by nearly 8,000 users showed that concordance between login location and patient location was high for nurses, nurse practitioners, and physician assistance (all >95%), but lower for fellows (77%) and residents (55%). When providers switched between patients in the EHR, they usually did not update their login location accordingly.
Conclusion CDS alerts commonly incorporate user's login location into their logic. User's login location is often the same as the location of the patient the user is providing care for, but substantial discordance can be observed for certain user groups. While this may provide additional information that could be useful to the CDS logic, a substantial amount of discordance happened in specific user groups or when users appeared not to change their login location across different sessions. Those who design CDS alerts should consider a data-driven approach to evaluate the appropriateness of login location for each use case.
Protection of Human and Animal Subjects
The study protocol was evaluated by the Mass General Brigham Institutional Review Board (IRB) and was deemed exempt from IRB review.
Eingereicht: 06. Dezember 2021
Angenommen: 28. Juli 2022
Artikel online veröffentlicht:
28. September 2022
© 2022. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
- 1 Hunt DL, Haynes RB, Hanna SE, Smith K. Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems on physician performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA 1998; 280 (15) 1339-1346
- 2 Bright TJ, Wong A, Dhurjati R. et al. Effect of clinical decision-support systems: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2012; 157 (01) 29-43
- 3 Kwan JL, Lo L, Ferguson J. et al. Computerised clinical decision support systems and absolute improvements in care: meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 2020; 370: m3216
- 4 Campbell EM, Sittig DF, Ash JS, Guappone KP, Dykstra RH. Types of unintended consequences related to computerized provider order entry. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006; 13 (05) 547-556
- 5 Embi PJ, Leonard AC. Evaluating alert fatigue over time to EHR-based clinical trial alerts: findings from a randomized controlled study. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2012; 19 (e1): e145-e148
- 6 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
- 7 Shortliffe EH, Sepúlveda MJ. Clinical decision support in the era of artificial intelligence. JAMA 2018; 320 (21) 2199-2200
- 8 Mamykina L, Vawdrey DK, Hripcsak G. How do residents spend their shift time? A time and motion study with a particular focus on the use of computers. Acad Med 2016; 91 (06) 827-832
- 9 Young RA, Burge SK, Kumar KA, Wilson JM, Ortiz DF. A time-motion study of primary care physicians' work in the electronic health record era. Fam Med 2018; 50 (02) 91-99
- 10 R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. 2017 . Accessed August 6, 2022 at: https://www.r-project.org