OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of requiring clinical justification to override decision support alerts on repeat use of CT. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This before and after intervention study was conducted at a 793-bed tertiary hospital with computerized physician order entry and clinical decision support systems. When a CT order is placed, decision support alerts the orderer if the patient's same body part has undergone CT within the past 90 days. The study cohort included all 28,420 CT orders triggering a repeat alert in 2010. The intervention required clinical justification, selected from a predetermined menu, to override repeat CT decision support alerts to place a CT order; otherwise the order could not be placed and was dropped. The primary outcome, dropped repeat CT orders, was analyzed using three methods: chi-square tests to compare proportions dropped before and after intervention; multiple logistic regression tests to control for orderer, care setting, and patient factors; and statistical process control for temporal trends. RESULTS: The repeat CT order drop rate had an absolute increase of 1.4%; 6.1% (682/11,230) before to 7.5% (1290/17,190) after intervention, which was a 23% relative change (7.5 - 6.1)/6.1 × 100 = 23%; p < 0.0001). Orders were dropped more often after intervention (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.4; p < 0.0001). Statistical control analysis supported the association between the increase in the drop rate with intervention rather than underlying trends. CONCLUSION: Adding a requirement for clinical justification to override alerts modestly but significantly improves the impact of repeat CT decision support (23% relative change), with the overall effect of preventing one in 13 repeat CT orders.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of requiring clinical justification to override decision support alerts on repeat use of CT. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This before and after intervention study was conducted at a 793-bed tertiary hospital with computerized physician order entry and clinical decision support systems. When a CT order is placed, decision support alerts the orderer if the patient's same body part has undergone CT within the past 90 days. The study cohort included all 28,420 CT orders triggering a repeat alert in 2010. The intervention required clinical justification, selected from a predetermined menu, to override repeat CT decision support alerts to place a CT order; otherwise the order could not be placed and was dropped. The primary outcome, dropped repeat CT orders, was analyzed using three methods: chi-square tests to compare proportions dropped before and after intervention; multiple logistic regression tests to control for orderer, care setting, and patient factors; and statistical process control for temporal trends. RESULTS: The repeat CT order drop rate had an absolute increase of 1.4%; 6.1% (682/11,230) before to 7.5% (1290/17,190) after intervention, which was a 23% relative change (7.5 - 6.1)/6.1 × 100 = 23%; p < 0.0001). Orders were dropped more often after intervention (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1-1.4; p < 0.0001). Statistical control analysis supported the association between the increase in the drop rate with intervention rather than underlying trends. CONCLUSION: Adding a requirement for clinical justification to override alerts modestly but significantly improves the impact of repeat CT decision support (23% relative change), with the overall effect of preventing one in 13 repeat CT orders.
Authors: Susanna I Lee; Anuradha Saokar; Keith J Dreyer; Jeffrey B Weilburg; James H Thrall; Peter F Hahn Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jan Horsky; Gordon D Schiff; Douglas Johnston; Lauren Mercincavage; Douglas Bell; Blackford Middleton Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2012-09-17 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Anurag Gupta; Ivan K Ip; Ali S Raja; James E Andruchow; Aaron Sodickson; Ramin Khorasani Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2014-02-17 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Pavel S Roshanov; Natasha Fernandes; Jeff M Wilczynski; Brian J Hemens; John J You; Steven M Handler; Robby Nieuwlaat; Nathan M Souza; Joseph Beyene; Harriette G C Van Spall; Amit X Garg; R Brian Haynes Journal: BMJ Date: 2013-02-14
Authors: Ivan K Ip; Louise Schneider; Steven Seltzer; Allen Smith; Jessica Dudley; Andrew Menard; Ramin Khorasani Journal: Am J Med Date: 2013-06-17 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Ronilda Lacson; Michael J Healey; Laila R Cochon; Romeo Laroya; Keith D Hentel; Adam B Landman; Sunil Eappen; Giles W Boland; Ramin Khorasani Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2020-01-16 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Benjamin H Slovis; Tina Lowry; Bradley N Delman; Anton Oscar Beitia; Gilad Kuperman; Charles DiMaggio; Jason S Shapiro Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2016-05-13 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Anupam B Kharbanda; Gabriela Vazquez-Benitez; Dustin W Ballard; David R Vinson; Uli K Chettipally; Steven P Dehmer; Heidi Ekstrom; Adina S Rauchwerger; Brianna McMichael; Dale M Cotton; Mamata V Kene; Laura E Simon; Jingyi Zhu; E Margaret Warton; Patrick J O'Connor; Elyse O Kharbanda Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-02-01
Authors: Katherine R Courtright; Erich M Dress; Jaspal Singh; Brian A Bayes; Marzana Chowdhury; Dylan S Small; Timothy Hetherington; Lindsay Plickert; Michael E Detsky; Jason N Doctor; Michael O Harhay; Henry L Burke; Michael B Green; Toan Huynh; D Matthew Sullivan; Scott D Halpern Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2021-02