Emily Beth Devine1, Chia-Ju Lee2, Casey L Overby3, Neil Abernethy4, Jeannine McCune5, Joe W Smith6, Peter Tarczy-Hornoch7. 1. Department of Biomedical Informatics and Medical Education, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States; Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research and Policy Program, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States; Department of Health Services, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States. Electronic address: bdevine@uw.edu. 2. Department of Biomedical Informatics and Medical Education, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States. 3. Department of Biomedical Informatics and Medical Education, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States; Department of Medicine, Program in Personalized and Genomic Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, United States (formerly Department of Biomedical Informatics and Medical Education, University of Washington, Seattle, WA United States). 4. Department of Biomedical Informatics and Medical Education, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States; Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research and Policy Program, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States. 5. Pharmaceutical Outcomes Research and Policy Program, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States. 6. UW Medicine Pharmacy Informatics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States. 7. Department of Biomedical Informatics and Medical Education, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States; Department of Pediatrics, Division of Neonatology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States; Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pharmacogenomics (PGx) is positioned to have a widespread impact on the practice of medicine, yet physician acceptance is low. The presentation of context-specific PGx information, in the form of clinical decision support (CDS) alerts embedded in a computerized provider order entry (CPOE) system, can aid uptake. Usability evaluations can inform optimal design, which, in turn, can spur adoption. OBJECTIVES: The study objectives were to: (1) evaluate an early prototype, commercial CPOE system with PGx-CDS alerts in a simulated environment, (2) identify potential improvements to the system user interface, and (3) understand the contexts under which PGx knowledge embedded in an electronic health record is useful to prescribers. METHODS: Using a mixed methods approach, we presented seven cardiologists and three oncologists with five hypothetical clinical case scenarios. Each scenario featured a drug for which a gene encoding drug metabolizing enzyme required consideration of dosage adjustment. We used Morae(®) to capture comments and on-screen movements as participants prescribed each drug. In addition to PGx-CDS alerts, 'Infobutton(®)' and 'Evidence' icons provided participants with clinical knowledge resources to aid decision-making. RESULTS: Nine themes emerged. Five suggested minor improvements to the CPOE user interface; two suggested presenting PGx information through PGx-CDS alerts using an 'Infobutton' or 'Evidence' icon. The remaining themes were strong recommendations to provide succinct, relevant guidelines and dosing recommendations of phenotypic information from credible and trustworthy sources; any more information was overwhelming. Participants' median rating of PGx-CDS system usability was 2 on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree). CONCLUSIONS: Usability evaluation results suggest that participants considered PGx information important for improving prescribing decisions; and that they would incorporate PGx-CDS when information is presented in relevant and useful ways.
BACKGROUND: Pharmacogenomics (PGx) is positioned to have a widespread impact on the practice of medicine, yet physician acceptance is low. The presentation of context-specific PGx information, in the form of clinical decision support (CDS) alerts embedded in a computerized provider order entry (CPOE) system, can aid uptake. Usability evaluations can inform optimal design, which, in turn, can spur adoption. OBJECTIVES: The study objectives were to: (1) evaluate an early prototype, commercial CPOE system with PGx-CDS alerts in a simulated environment, (2) identify potential improvements to the system user interface, and (3) understand the contexts under which PGx knowledge embedded in an electronic health record is useful to prescribers. METHODS: Using a mixed methods approach, we presented seven cardiologists and three oncologists with five hypothetical clinical case scenarios. Each scenario featured a drug for which a gene encoding drug metabolizing enzyme required consideration of dosage adjustment. We used Morae(®) to capture comments and on-screen movements as participants prescribed each drug. In addition to PGx-CDS alerts, 'Infobutton(®)' and 'Evidence' icons provided participants with clinical knowledge resources to aid decision-making. RESULTS: Nine themes emerged. Five suggested minor improvements to the CPOE user interface; two suggested presenting PGx information through PGx-CDS alerts using an 'Infobutton' or 'Evidence' icon. The remaining themes were strong recommendations to provide succinct, relevant guidelines and dosing recommendations of phenotypic information from credible and trustworthy sources; any more information was overwhelming. Participants' median rating of PGx-CDS system usability was 2 on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree). CONCLUSIONS: Usability evaluation results suggest that participants considered PGx information important for improving prescribing decisions; and that they would incorporate PGx-CDS when information is presented in relevant and useful ways.
Keywords:
Clinical decision support systems; Clinical knowledge resources (not a MeSH term); Medical order entry systems; Pharmacogenetics; User-computer interface
Authors: David K Crockett; Perry G Ridge; Andrew R Wilson; Elaine Lyon; Marc S Williams; Scott P Narus; Julio C Facelli; Joyce A Mitchell Journal: Genome Med Date: 2012-05-28 Impact factor: 11.117
Authors: Alice C Li; Joseph L Kannry; Andre Kushniruk; Dillon Chrimes; Thomas G McGinn; Daniel Edonyabo; Devin M Mann Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2012-03-27 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Blackford Middleton; Meryl Bloomrosen; Mark A Dente; Bill Hashmat; Ross Koppel; J Marc Overhage; Thomas H Payne; S Trent Rosenbloom; Charlotte Weaver; Jiajie Zhang Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-01-25 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Maren T Scheuner; Han de Vries; Benjamin Kim; Robin C Meili; Sarah H Olmstead; Stephanie Teleki Journal: Genet Med Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Timothy M Herr; Josh F Peterson; Luke V Rasmussen; Pedro J Caraballo; Peggy L Peissig; Justin B Starren Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-02-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Bret S E Heale; Casey Lynnette Overby; Guilherme Del Fiol; Wendy S Rubinstein; Donna R Maglott; Tristan H Nelson; Aleksandar Milosavljevic; Christa L Martin; Scott R Goehringer; Robert Freimuth; Marc S Williams Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2016-08-31 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Kristen Miller; Danielle Mosby; Muge Capan; Rebecca Kowalski; Raj Ratwani; Yaman Noaiseh; Rachel Kraft; Sanford Schwartz; William S Weintraub; Ryan Arnold Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Brittany L Melton; Alan J Zillich; Jason Saleem; Alissa L Russ; James E Tisdale; Brian R Overholser Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2016-11-23 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Kristen Miller; Muge Capan; Danielle Weldon; Yaman Noaiseh; Rebecca Kowalski; Rachel Kraft; Sanford Schwartz; William S Weintraub; Ryan Arnold Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2018-05-21 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Luke V Rasmussen; Casey L Overby; John Connolly; Christopher G Chute; Joshua C Denny; Robert Freimuth; Andrea L Hartzler; Ingrid A Holm; Shannon Manzi; Jyotishman Pathak; Peggy L Peissig; Maureen Smith; Marc S Williams; Brian H Shirts; Elena M Stoffel; Peter Tarczy-Hornoch; Carolyn R Rohrer Vitek; Wendy A Wolf; Justin Starren Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2016-09-21 Impact factor: 2.342