OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of clinical decision support (CDS) tools on rates of vitamin D testing. Screening for vitamin D deficiency has increased in recent years, spurred by studies suggesting vitamin D's clinical benefits. Such screening, however, is often unsupported by evidence and can incur unnecessary costs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated how rates of vitamin D screening changed after we implemented 3 CDS tools in the electronic health record (EHR) of a large health plan: (1) a new vitamin D screening guideline, (2) an alert that requires clinician acknowledgement of current guidelines to continue ordering the test (a "hard stop"), and (3) a modification of laboratory ordering preference lists that eliminates shortcuts. We assessed rates of overall vitamin D screening and appropriate vitamin D screening 6 months pre- and post-intervention. RESULTS: Vitamin D screening rates decreased from 74.0 tests to 24.2 tests per 1000 members ( P < .0001). The proportion of appropriate vitamin D screening tests increased from 56.2% to 69.7% ( P < .0001), and the proportion of inappropriate screening tests decreased from 43.8% pre-implementation to 30.3% post-implementation ( P < .0001). DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this is the first demonstration of how CDS can reduce rates of inappropriate vitamin D screening. We used 3 straightforward, inexpensive, and replicable CDS approaches. We know of no previous research on the impact of removing options from a preference list. CONCLUSION: Similar approaches could be used to reduce unnecessary care and decrease costs without reducing quality of care.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of clinical decision support (CDS) tools on rates of vitamin D testing. Screening for vitamin D deficiency has increased in recent years, spurred by studies suggesting vitamin D's clinical benefits. Such screening, however, is often unsupported by evidence and can incur unnecessary costs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated how rates of vitamin D screening changed after we implemented 3 CDS tools in the electronic health record (EHR) of a large health plan: (1) a new vitamin D screening guideline, (2) an alert that requires clinician acknowledgement of current guidelines to continue ordering the test (a "hard stop"), and (3) a modification of laboratory ordering preference lists that eliminates shortcuts. We assessed rates of overall vitamin D screening and appropriate vitamin D screening 6 months pre- and post-intervention. RESULTS: Vitamin D screening rates decreased from 74.0 tests to 24.2 tests per 1000 members ( P < .0001). The proportion of appropriate vitamin D screening tests increased from 56.2% to 69.7% ( P < .0001), and the proportion of inappropriate screening tests decreased from 43.8% pre-implementation to 30.3% post-implementation ( P < .0001). DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this is the first demonstration of how CDS can reduce rates of inappropriate vitamin D screening. We used 3 straightforward, inexpensive, and replicable CDS approaches. We know of no previous research on the impact of removing options from a preference list. CONCLUSION: Similar approaches could be used to reduce unnecessary care and decrease costs without reducing quality of care.
Authors: Joan S Ash; Dean F Sittig; Richard Dykstra; Adam Wright; Carmit McMullen; Joshua Richardson; Blackford Middleton Journal: Stud Health Technol Inform Date: 2010
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: Thomas J Wang; Michael J Pencina; Sarah L Booth; Paul F Jacques; Erik Ingelsson; Katherine Lanier; Emelia J Benjamin; Ralph B D'Agostino; Myles Wolf; Ramachandran S Vasan Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-01-07 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Heike A Bischoff-Ferrari; Walter C Willett; John B Wong; Andreas E Stuck; Hannes B Staehelin; E John Orav; Anna Thoma; Douglas P Kiel; Jana Henschkowski Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2009-03-23
Authors: Kuo-Kai Chin; Jason Hom; Marilyn Tan; Christopher Sharp; Suwei Wang; Yi-Ren Chen; Doris Chen Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Emily M Powers; Richard N Shiffman; Edward R Melnick; Andrew Hickner; Mona Sharifi Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2018-11-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Chase D Hendrickson; Michael F McLemore; Kathryn M Dahir; Shari Just; Zahra Shajani-Yi; Joseph LeGrand; Christoph U Lehmann; Asli Weitkamp Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2020-02-26 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: James Henderson; Zachary Bouck; Rob Holleman; Cherry Chu; Mandi L Klamerus; Robin Santiago; R Sacha Bhatia; Eve A Kerr Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Jack W O'Sullivan; Sarah Stevens; F D Richard Hobbs; Chris Salisbury; Paul Little; Ben Goldacre; Clare Bankhead; Jeffrey K Aronson; Rafael Perera; Carl Heneghan Journal: BMJ Date: 2018-11-28