CONTEXT: "Meaningful use" of electronic health records to improve quality of care has remained understudied. We evaluated an approach to improving patients' safety and quality of care involving the secondary use of data from a hospital electronic prescribing and decision support system (ePDSS). METHODS: We conducted a case study of a large English acute care hospital with a well-established ePDSS. Our study was based on ethnographic observations of clinical settings (162 hours) and meetings (28 hours), informal conversations with clinical staff, semistructured interviews with ten senior executives, and the collection of relevant documents. Our data analysis was based on the constant comparative method. FINDINGS: This hospital's approach to quality and safety could be characterized as "technovigilance." It involved treating the ePDSS as a warehouse of data on clinical activity and performance. The hospital converted the secondary data into intelligence about the performance of individuals, teams, and clinical services and used this as the basis of action for improvement. Through a combination of rapid audit, feedback to clinical teams, detailed and critical review of apparent omissions in executive-led meetings, a focus on personal professional responsibility for patients' safety and quality care, and the correction of organizational or systems defects, technovigilance was-based on the hospital's own evidence-highly effective in improving specific indicators. Measures such as the rate of omitted doses of medication showed marked improvement. As do most interventions, however, technovigilance also had unintended consequences. These included the risk of focusing attention on aspects of patient safety made visible by the system at the expense of other, less measurable but nonetheless important, concerns. CONCLUSIONS: The secondary use of electronic data can be effective for improving specific indicators of care if accompanied by a range of interventions to ensure proper interpretation and appropriate action. But care is needed to avoid unintended consequences.
CONTEXT: "Meaningful use" of electronic health records to improve quality of care has remained understudied. We evaluated an approach to improving patients' safety and quality of care involving the secondary use of data from a hospital electronic prescribing and decision support system (ePDSS). METHODS: We conducted a case study of a large English acute care hospital with a well-established ePDSS. Our study was based on ethnographic observations of clinical settings (162 hours) and meetings (28 hours), informal conversations with clinical staff, semistructured interviews with ten senior executives, and the collection of relevant documents. Our data analysis was based on the constant comparative method. FINDINGS: This hospital's approach to quality and safety could be characterized as "technovigilance." It involved treating the ePDSS as a warehouse of data on clinical activity and performance. The hospital converted the secondary data into intelligence about the performance of individuals, teams, and clinical services and used this as the basis of action for improvement. Through a combination of rapid audit, feedback to clinical teams, detailed and critical review of apparent omissions in executive-led meetings, a focus on personal professional responsibility for patients' safety and quality care, and the correction of organizational or systems defects, technovigilance was-based on the hospital's own evidence-highly effective in improving specific indicators. Measures such as the rate of omitted doses of medication showed marked improvement. As do most interventions, however, technovigilance also had unintended consequences. These included the risk of focusing attention on aspects of patient safety made visible by the system at the expense of other, less measurable but nonetheless important, concerns. CONCLUSIONS: The secondary use of electronic data can be effective for improving specific indicators of care if accompanied by a range of interventions to ensure proper interpretation and appropriate action. But care is needed to avoid unintended consequences.
Authors: John A Spertus; Kim A Eagle; Harlan M Krumholz; Kristi R Mitchell; Sharon-Lise T Normand Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2005-04-05 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Mary Dixon-Woods; Charles L Bosk; Emma Louise Aveling; Christine A Goeschel; Peter J Pronovost Journal: Milbank Q Date: 2011-06 Impact factor: 4.911
Authors: Christopher Huckvale; Josip Car; Masanori Akiyama; Safurah Jaafar; Tawfik Khoja; Ammar Bin Khalid; Aziz Sheikh; Azeem Majeed Journal: Qual Saf Health Care Date: 2010-08
Authors: Ashly D Black; Josip Car; Claudia Pagliari; Chantelle Anandan; Kathrin Cresswell; Tomislav Bokun; Brian McKinstry; Rob Procter; Azeem Majeed; Aziz Sheikh Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2011-01-18 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Joan S Ash; Dean F Sittig; Kenneth P Guappone; Richard H Dykstra; Joshua Richardson; Adam Wright; James Carpenter; Carmit McMullen; Michael Shapiro; Arwen Bunce; Blackford Middleton Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2012-02-14 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Francesc Saigí-Rubió; José Juan Pereyra-Rodríguez; Joan Torrent-Sellens; Hans Eguia; Natasha Azzopardi-Muscat; David Novillo-Ortiz Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-27 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Rachel Gold; Celine Hollombe; Arwen Bunce; Christine Nelson; James V Davis; Stuart Cowburn; Nancy Perrin; Jennifer DeVoe; Ned Mossman; Bruce Boles; Michael Horberg; James W Dearing; Victoria Jaworski; Deborah Cohen; David Smith Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2015-10-16 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Arwen E Bunce; Rachel Gold; James V Davis; MaryBeth Mercer; Victoria Jaworski; Celine Hollombe; Christine Nelson Journal: J Ambul Care Manage Date: 2017 Jan/Mar