David A Cook1,2,3, Miguel T Teixeira3, Bret Se Heale4, James J Cimino5, Guilherme Del Fiol4. 1. Knowledge Delivery Center, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN, USA. 2. Mayo Clinic Online Learning, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, MN, USA. 3. Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. 4. Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 5. Informatics Institute, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Infobuttons appear as small icons adjacent to electronic health record (EHR) data (e.g., medications, diagnoses, or test results) that, when clicked, access online knowledge resources tailored to the patient, care setting, or task. Infobuttons are required for "Meaningful Use" certification of US EHRs. We sought to evaluate infobuttons' impact on clinical practice and identify features associated with improved outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review, searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and other databases from inception to July 6, 2015. We included and cataloged all original research in any language describing implementation of infobuttons or other context-sensitive links. Studies evaluating clinical implementations with outcomes of usage or impact were reviewed in greater detail. Reviewers worked in duplicate to select articles, evaluate quality, and abstract information. RESULTS: Of 599 potential articles, 77 described infobutton implementation. The 17 studies meriting detailed review, including 3 randomized trials, yielded the following findings. Infobutton usage frequency ranged from 0.3 to 7.4 uses per month per potential user. Usage appeared to be influenced by EHR task. Five studies found that infobuttons are used less often than non-context-sensitive links (proportionate usage 0.20-0.34). In 3 studies, users answered their clinical question in > 69% of infobutton sessions. Seven studies evaluated alternative approaches to infobutton design and implementation. No studies isolated the impact of infobuttons on objectively measured patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Weak evidence suggests that infobuttons can help providers answer clinical questions. Research on optimal infobutton design and implementation, and on the impact on patient outcomes and provider behaviors, is needed.
OBJECTIVE: Infobuttons appear as small icons adjacent to electronic health record (EHR) data (e.g., medications, diagnoses, or test results) that, when clicked, access online knowledge resources tailored to the patient, care setting, or task. Infobuttons are required for "Meaningful Use" certification of US EHRs. We sought to evaluate infobuttons' impact on clinical practice and identify features associated with improved outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review, searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and other databases from inception to July 6, 2015. We included and cataloged all original research in any language describing implementation of infobuttons or other context-sensitive links. Studies evaluating clinical implementations with outcomes of usage or impact were reviewed in greater detail. Reviewers worked in duplicate to select articles, evaluate quality, and abstract information. RESULTS: Of 599 potential articles, 77 described infobutton implementation. The 17 studies meriting detailed review, including 3 randomized trials, yielded the following findings. Infobutton usage frequency ranged from 0.3 to 7.4 uses per month per potential user. Usage appeared to be influenced by EHR task. Five studies found that infobuttons are used less often than non-context-sensitive links (proportionate usage 0.20-0.34). In 3 studies, users answered their clinical question in > 69% of infobutton sessions. Seven studies evaluated alternative approaches to infobutton design and implementation. No studies isolated the impact of infobuttons on objectively measured patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Weak evidence suggests that infobuttons can help providers answer clinical questions. Research on optimal infobutton design and implementation, and on the impact on patient outcomes and provider behaviors, is needed.
Authors: Darcy A Reed; Colin P West; Eric S Holmboe; Andrew J Halvorsen; Rebecca S Lipner; Carola Jacobs; Furman S McDonald Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-02-29 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Caroline Lubick Goldzweig; Greg Orshansky; Neil M Paige; Ali Alexander Towfigh; David A Haggstrom; Isomi Miake-Lye; Jessica M Beroes; Paul G Shekelle Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2013-11-19 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Lauren A Maggio; Christopher A Aakre; Guilherme Del Fiol; Jane Shellum; David A Cook Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2019-07-25 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Marc S Williams; Casey Overby Taylor; Nephi A Walton; Scott R Goehringer; Samuel Aronson; Robert R Freimuth; Luke V Rasmussen; Eric S Hall; Cynthia A Prows; Wendy K Chung; Alexander Fedotov; Jordan Nestor; Chunhua Weng; Robb K Rowley; Georgia L Wiesner; Gail P Jarvik; Guilherme Del Fiol Journal: Front Genet Date: 2019-10-29 Impact factor: 4.599
Authors: Hugo J T van Mens; Mirte M van Eysden; Remko Nienhuis; Johannes J M van Delden; Nicolette F de Keizer; Ronald Cornet Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2020-12-15 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Reed T Sutton; David Pincock; Daniel C Baumgart; Daniel C Sadowski; Richard N Fedorak; Karen I Kroeker Journal: NPJ Digit Med Date: 2020-02-06