OBJECTIVE: Computerized clinical reminder (CCR) systems can improve preventive service delivery by providing patient-specific reminders at the point of care. However, adherence varies between individual CCRs and is correlated to resolution time amongst other factors. This study aimed to evaluate how a proposed CCR redesign providing information explaining why the CCRs occurred would impact providers' prioritization of individual CCRs. DESIGN: Two CCR designs were prototyped to represent the original and the new design, respectively. The new CCR design incorporated a knowledge-based risk factor repository, a prioritization mechanism, and a role-based filter. Sixteen physicians participated in a controlled experiment to compare the use of the original and the new CCR systems. The subjects individually simulated a scenario-based patient encounter, followed by a semi-structured interview and survey. MEASUREMENTS: We collected and analyzed the order in which the CCRs were prioritized, the perceived usefulness of each design feature, and semi-structured interview data. RESULTS: We elicited the prioritization heuristics used by the physicians, and found a CCR system needed to be relevant, easy to resolve, and integrated with workflow. The redesign impacted 80% of physicians and 44% of prioritization decisions. Decisions were no longer correlated to resolution time given the new design. The proposed design features were rated useful or very useful. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that the redesign of a CCR system using a knowledge-based risk factor repository, a prioritization mechanism, and a role-based filter can impact clinicians' decision making. These features are expected to ultimately improve the quality of care and patient safety.
OBJECTIVE: Computerized clinical reminder (CCR) systems can improve preventive service delivery by providing patient-specific reminders at the point of care. However, adherence varies between individual CCRs and is correlated to resolution time amongst other factors. This study aimed to evaluate how a proposed CCR redesign providing information explaining why the CCRs occurred would impact providers' prioritization of individual CCRs. DESIGN: Two CCR designs were prototyped to represent the original and the new design, respectively. The new CCR design incorporated a knowledge-based risk factor repository, a prioritization mechanism, and a role-based filter. Sixteen physicians participated in a controlled experiment to compare the use of the original and the new CCR systems. The subjects individually simulated a scenario-based patient encounter, followed by a semi-structured interview and survey. MEASUREMENTS: We collected and analyzed the order in which the CCRs were prioritized, the perceived usefulness of each design feature, and semi-structured interview data. RESULTS: We elicited the prioritization heuristics used by the physicians, and found a CCR system needed to be relevant, easy to resolve, and integrated with workflow. The redesign impacted 80% of physicians and 44% of prioritization decisions. Decisions were no longer correlated to resolution time given the new design. The proposed design features were rated useful or very useful. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that the redesign of a CCR system using a knowledge-based risk factor repository, a prioritization mechanism, and a role-based filter can impact clinicians' decision making. These features are expected to ultimately improve the quality of care and patient safety.
Entities:
Keywords:
Decision support; HIT; computerized clinical reminders; health information technology
Authors: H I Goldberg; E H Wagner; S D Fihn; D P Martin; C R Horowitz; D B Christensen; A D Cheadle; P Diehr; G Simon Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Improv Date: 1998-03
Authors: Jeffrey A Linder; Alan F Rose; Matvey B Palchuk; Frank Chang; Jeffrey L Schnipper; Joseph C Chan; Blackford Middleton Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2006-01-06 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: R Sheldon; B J O'Brien; G Blackhouse; R Goeree; B Mitchell; G Klein; R S Roberts; M Gent; S J Connolly Journal: Circulation Date: 2001-10-02 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Jason J Saleem; Emily S Patterson; Laura Militello; Shilo Anders; Mercedes Falciglia; Jennifer A Wissman; Emilie M Roth; Steven M Asch Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2007-06-28 Impact factor: 4.497