BACKGROUND: In a previous study, we reported on a successful clinical decision support (CDS) intervention designed to improve electronic problem list accuracy, but did not study variability of provider response to the intervention or provider attitudes towards it. The alert system accurately predicted missing problem list items based on health data captured in a patient's electronic medical record. OBJECTIVE: To assess provider attitudes towards a rule-based CDS alert system as well as heterogeneity of acceptance rates across providers. METHODS: We conducted a by-provider analysis of alert logs from the previous study. In addition, we assessed provider opinions of the intervention via an email survey of providers who received the alerts (n = 140). RESULTS: Although the alert acceptance rate was 38.1%, individual provider acceptance rates varied widely, with an interquartile range (IQR) of 14.8%-54.4%, and many outliers accepting none or nearly all of the alerts they received. No demographic variables, including degree, gender, age, assigned clinic, medical school or graduation year predicted acceptance rates. Providers' self-reported acceptance rate and perceived alert frequency were only moderately correlated with actual acceptance rates and alert frequency. CONCLUSIONS: Acceptance of this CDS intervention among providers was highly variable but this heterogeneity is not explained by measured demographic factors, suggesting that alert acceptance is a complex and individual phenomenon. Furthermore, providers' self-reports of their use of the CDS alerting system correlated only modestly with logged usage.
BACKGROUND: In a previous study, we reported on a successful clinical decision support (CDS) intervention designed to improve electronic problem list accuracy, but did not study variability of provider response to the intervention or provider attitudes towards it. The alert system accurately predicted missing problem list items based on health data captured in a patient's electronic medical record. OBJECTIVE: To assess provider attitudes towards a rule-based CDS alert system as well as heterogeneity of acceptance rates across providers. METHODS: We conducted a by-provider analysis of alert logs from the previous study. In addition, we assessed provider opinions of the intervention via an email survey of providers who received the alerts (n = 140). RESULTS: Although the alert acceptance rate was 38.1%, individual provider acceptance rates varied widely, with an interquartile range (IQR) of 14.8%-54.4%, and many outliers accepting none or nearly all of the alerts they received. No demographic variables, including degree, gender, age, assigned clinic, medical school or graduation year predicted acceptance rates. Providers' self-reported acceptance rate and perceived alert frequency were only moderately correlated with actual acceptance rates and alert frequency. CONCLUSIONS: Acceptance of this CDS intervention among providers was highly variable but this heterogeneity is not explained by measured demographic factors, suggesting that alert acceptance is a complex and individual phenomenon. Furthermore, providers' self-reports of their use of the CDS alerting system correlated only modestly with logged usage.
Entities:
Keywords:
Patient problem list; electronic medical records; primary care
Authors: Amit X Garg; Neill K J Adhikari; Heather McDonald; M Patricia Rosas-Arellano; P J Devereaux; Joseph Beyene; Justina Sam; R Brian Haynes Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-03-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jerome A Osheroff; Jonathan M Teich; Blackford Middleton; Elaine B Steen; Adam Wright; Don E Detmer Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2007-01-09 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Steven M Asch; Elizabeth A McGlynn; Mary M Hogan; Rodney A Hayward; Paul Shekelle; Lisa Rubenstein; Joan Keesey; John Adams; Eve A Kerr Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2004-12-21 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Shobha Phansalkar; Heleen van der Sijs; Alisha D Tucker; Amrita A Desai; Douglas S Bell; Jonathan M Teich; Blackford Middleton; David W Bates Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2012-09-25 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Adam Wright; Justine Pang; Joshua C Feblowitz; Francine L Maloney; Allison R Wilcox; Harley Z Ramelson; Louise I Schneider; David W Bates Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-05-25 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Brian H Shirts; Joseph S Salama; Samuel J Aronson; Wendy K Chung; Stacy W Gray; Lucia A Hindorff; Gail P Jarvik; Sharon E Plon; Elena M Stoffel; Peter Z Tarczy-Hornoch; Eliezer M Van Allen; Karen E Weck; Christopher G Chute; Robert R Freimuth; Robert W Grundmeier; Andrea L Hartzler; Rongling Li; Peggy L Peissig; Josh F Peterson; Luke V Rasmussen; Justin B Starren; Marc S Williams; Casey L Overby Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2015-07-03 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Sarah L Cutrona; Hassan Fouayzi; Laura Burns; Rajani S Sadasivam; Kathleen M Mazor; Jerry H Gurwitz; Lawrence Garber; Devi Sundaresan; Thomas K Houston; Terry S Field Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2017-08-14 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Devida Long; Muge Capan; Susan Mascioli; Danielle Weldon; Ryan Arnold; Kristen Miller Journal: Crit Care Nurse Date: 2018-08 Impact factor: 1.708
Authors: John D McGreevey; Colleen P Mallozzi; Randa M Perkins; Eric Shelov; Richard Schreiber Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2020-01-01 Impact factor: 2.342