L J McCullagh1, A Sofianou2, J Kannry2, D M Mann3, T G McGinn1. 1. Department of Medicine, Division of Internal Medicine, Hofstra North Shore-LIJ School of Medicine , Manhasset, NY. 2. Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, Mount Sinai School of Medicine , NYC, NY. 3. Department of Medicine, Section of Preventive Medicine & Epidemiology, Boston University School of Medicine , Boston, MA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Dissemination and adoption of clinical decision support (CDS) tools is a major initiative of the Affordable Care Act's Meaningful Use program. Adoption of CDS tools is multipronged with personal, organizational, and clinical settings factoring into the successful utilization rates. Specifically, the diffusion of innovation theory implies that 'early adopters' are more inclined to use CDS tools and younger physicians tend to be ranked in this category. OBJECTIVE: This study examined the differences in adoption of CDS tools across providers' training level. PARTICIPANTS: From November 2010 to 2011, 168 residents and attendings from an academic medical institution were enrolled into a randomized controlled trial. INTERVENTION: The intervention arm had access to the CDS tool through the electronic health record (EHR) system during strep and pneumonia patient visits. MAIN MEASURES: The EHR system recorded details on how intervention arm interacted with the CDS tool including acceptance of the initial CDS alert, completion of risk-score calculators and the signing of medication order sets. Using the EHR data, the study performed bivariate tests and general estimating equation (GEE) modeling to examine the differences in adoption of the CDS tool across residents and attendings. KEY RESULTS: The completion rates of the CDS calculator and medication order sets were higher amongst first year residents compared to all other training levels. Attendings were the less likely to accept the initial step of the CDS tool (29.3%) or complete the medication order sets (22.4%) that guided their prescription decisions, resulting in attendings ordering more antibiotics (37.1%) during an CDS encounter compared to residents. CONCLUSION: There is variation in adoption of CDS tools across training levels. Attendings tended to accept the tool less but ordered more medications. CDS tools should be tailored to clinicians' training levels.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Dissemination and adoption of clinical decision support (CDS) tools is a major initiative of the Affordable Care Act's Meaningful Use program. Adoption of CDS tools is multipronged with personal, organizational, and clinical settings factoring into the successful utilization rates. Specifically, the diffusion of innovation theory implies that 'early adopters' are more inclined to use CDS tools and younger physicians tend to be ranked in this category. OBJECTIVE: This study examined the differences in adoption of CDS tools across providers' training level. PARTICIPANTS: From November 2010 to 2011, 168 residents and attendings from an academic medical institution were enrolled into a randomized controlled trial. INTERVENTION: The intervention arm had access to the CDS tool through the electronic health record (EHR) system during strep and pneumoniapatient visits. MAIN MEASURES: The EHR system recorded details on how intervention arm interacted with the CDS tool including acceptance of the initial CDS alert, completion of risk-score calculators and the signing of medication order sets. Using the EHR data, the study performed bivariate tests and general estimating equation (GEE) modeling to examine the differences in adoption of the CDS tool across residents and attendings. KEY RESULTS: The completion rates of the CDS calculator and medication order sets were higher amongst first year residents compared to all other training levels. Attendings were the less likely to accept the initial step of the CDS tool (29.3%) or complete the medication order sets (22.4%) that guided their prescription decisions, resulting in attendings ordering more antibiotics (37.1%) during an CDS encounter compared to residents. CONCLUSION: There is variation in adoption of CDS tools across training levels. Attendings tended to accept the tool less but ordered more medications. CDS tools should be tailored to clinicians' training levels.
Entities:
Keywords:
Implementation science; clinical decision support; clinical prediction rules; evidence based medicine; primary care
Authors: H M Seidling; S P W Schmitt; T Bruckner; J Kaltschmidt; M G Pruszydlo; C Senger; T Bertsche; I Walter-Sack; W E Haefeli Journal: Qual Saf Health Care Date: 2010-04-27
Authors: Thomas D Sequist; Shane M Morong; Amy Marston; Carol A Keohane; E Francis Cook; E John Orav; Thomas H Lee Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-10-13 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Saeid Eslami; Ameen Abu-Hanna; Marcus J Schultz; Evert de Jonge; Nicolette F de Keizer Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2011-12-14 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Tiffani J Bright; Anthony Wong; Ravi Dhurjati; Erin Bristow; Lori Bastian; Remy R Coeytaux; Gregory Samsa; Vic Hasselblad; John W Williams; Michael D Musty; Liz Wing; Amy S Kendrick; Gillian D Sanders; David Lobach Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2012-07-03 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Brian J Hemens; Anne Holbrook; Marita Tonkin; Jean A Mackay; Lorraine Weise-Kelly; Tamara Navarro; Nancy L Wilczynski; R Brian Haynes Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2011-08-03 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Devin M Mann; Joseph L Kannry; Daniel Edonyabo; Alice C Li; Jacqueline Arciniega; James Stulman; Lucas Romero; Juan Wisnivesky; Rhodes Adler; Thomas G McGinn Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2011-09-19 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: James B Jones; Shuting Liang; Hannah M Husby; Jake K Delatorre-Reimer; Cory A Mosser; Andrew G Hudnut; Kevin Knobel; Karen MacDonald; Xiaowei S Yan Journal: Clin Diabetes Date: 2019-10
Authors: Rachel Gold; Arwen Bunce; Stuart Cowburn; Katie Dambrun; Marla Dearing; Mary Middendorf; Ned Mossman; Celine Hollombe; Peter Mahr; Gerardo Melgar; James Davis; Laura Gottlieb; Erika Cottrell Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Kinjal Gadhiya; Edgar Zamora; Salim M Saiyed; David Friedlander; David C Kaelber Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2021-04-28 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Hassane Alami; Pascale Lehoux; Yannick Auclair; Michèle de Guise; Marie-Pierre Gagnon; James Shaw; Denis Roy; Richard Fleet; Mohamed Ali Ag Ahmed; Jean-Paul Fortin Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-07-07 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Sara Kuppin Chokshi; Hayley M Belli; Andrea B Troxel; Saul Blecker; Caroline Blaum; Paul Testa; Devin Mann Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud Date: 2019-02-20
Authors: Sara Kuppin Chokshi; Andrea Troxel; Hayley Belli; Jessica Schwartz; Saul Blecker; Caroline Blaum; Adam Szerencsy; Paul Testa; Devin Mann Journal: Stud Health Technol Inform Date: 2019-08-21
Authors: Katy E Trinkley; Jonathan M Pell; Dario D Martinez; Nicola R Maude; Gary Hale; Michael A Rosenberg Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2021-03-10 Impact factor: 2.342