Gail M Keenan1, Karen Dunn Lopez, Yingwei Yao, Vanessa E C Sousa, Janet Stifter, Alessandro Febretti, Andrew Johnson, Diana J Wilkie. 1. Gail M. Keenan, PhD, RN, FAAN, is Professor and Annabel Davis Jenks Endowed Chair for Teaching and Research in Clinical Nursing Excellence, Department of Family, Community and Health Systems Science, College of Nursing, University of Florida, Gainesville. Karen Dunn Lopez, PhD, RN, is Assistant Professor, Department of Health Systems Science, College of Nursing, University of Illinois at Chicago. Yingwei Yao, PhD, is Research Associate Professor, Department of Biobehavioral Nursing Science, College of Nursing, University of Florida, Gainesville, and Department of Biobehavioral Health Science, College of Nursing, University of Illinois at Chicago. Vanessa E. C. Sousa, PhD, RN, is Postdoctoral Fellow; and Janet Stifter, PhD, RN, CPHQ, is the Director of Center for Care Innovation and Transformation, the American Organization of Nurse Executives (AONE), Chicago, Illinois. Alessandro Febretti, MS, is Predoctoral Student; and Andrew Johnson, PhD, is Associate Professor, Electronic Visualization Laboratory, Department of Computer Science, College of Engineering, University of Illinois at Chicago. Diana J. Wilkie, PhD, RN, FAAN, is Professor, Prairieview Trust-Earl and Margo Powers Endowed Professor, and Director, Academic Center of Excellence in Palliative Care Research and Education, Department of Biobehavioral Nursing Science, College of Nursing, University of Florida, Gainesville, and Professor, Department of Biobehavioral Health Science, College of Nursing, University of Illinois at Chicago.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical decision support (CDS) tools-with easily understood and actionable information, at the point of care-are needed to help registered nurses (RNs) make evidence-based decisions. Not clear are the optimal formats of CDS tools. Thorough, preclinical testing is desirable to avoid costly errors associated with premature implementation in electronic health records. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to determine feasibility of the protocol designed to compare multiple CDS formats and evaluate effects of numeracy and graph literacy on RN adoption of best practices and care planning time in a simulated environment. METHODS: In this pilot study, 60 RNs were randomly assigned to one of four CDS conditions (control, text, text + graph, and text + table) and asked to adjust the plan of care for two patient scenarios over three shifts. Fourteen best practices were identified for the two patients and sent as suggestions with evidence to the three CDS groups. Best practice adoption rates, care planning time, and their relationship to the RN's numeracy and graph literacy scores were assessed. RESULTS:CDS groups had a higher adoption rate of best practices (p < .001) across all shifts and decreased care planning time in shifts 2 (p = .01) and 3 (p = .02) compared with the control group. Higher numeracy and graph literacy were associated with shorter care planning times under text + table (p = .05) and text + graph (p = .01) conditions. No significant differences were found between the three CDS groups on adoption rate and care planning time. DISCUSSION: This pilot study shows the feasibility of our protocol. Findings show preliminary evidence that CDS improves the efficiency and effectiveness of care planning decisions and that the optimal format may depend on individual RN characteristics. We recommend a study with sufficient power to compare different CDS formats and assess the impact of potential covariates on adoption rates and care planning time.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Clinical decision support (CDS) tools-with easily understood and actionable information, at the point of care-are needed to help registered nurses (RNs) make evidence-based decisions. Not clear are the optimal formats of CDS tools. Thorough, preclinical testing is desirable to avoid costly errors associated with premature implementation in electronic health records. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to determine feasibility of the protocol designed to compare multiple CDS formats and evaluate effects of numeracy and graph literacy on RN adoption of best practices and care planning time in a simulated environment. METHODS: In this pilot study, 60 RNs were randomly assigned to one of four CDS conditions (control, text, text + graph, and text + table) and asked to adjust the plan of care for two patient scenarios over three shifts. Fourteen best practices were identified for the two patients and sent as suggestions with evidence to the three CDS groups. Best practice adoption rates, care planning time, and their relationship to the RN's numeracy and graph literacy scores were assessed. RESULTS: CDS groups had a higher adoption rate of best practices (p < .001) across all shifts and decreased care planning time in shifts 2 (p = .01) and 3 (p = .02) compared with the control group. Higher numeracy and graph literacy were associated with shorter care planning times under text + table (p = .05) and text + graph (p = .01) conditions. No significant differences were found between the three CDS groups on adoption rate and care planning time. DISCUSSION: This pilot study shows the feasibility of our protocol. Findings show preliminary evidence that CDS improves the efficiency and effectiveness of care planning decisions and that the optimal format may depend on individual RN characteristics. We recommend a study with sufficient power to compare different CDS formats and assess the impact of potential covariates on adoption rates and care planning time.
Authors: Jonathan M Teich; Jerome A Osheroff; Eric A Pifer; Dean F Sittig; Robert A Jenders Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2005-03-31 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Thomas R Campion; Lemuel R Waitman; Nancy M Lorenzi; Addison K May; Cynthia S Gadd Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2011-10-21 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Nam-Ju Lee; Elizabeth S Chen; Leanne M Currie; Mary Donovan; Elizabeth K Hall; Haomiao Jia; Rita Marie John; Suzanne Bakken Journal: ANS Adv Nurs Sci Date: 2009 Jul-Sep Impact factor: 1.824
Authors: Cornelia M Ruland; Harald H Holte; Jo Røislien; Cathy Heaven; Glenys A Hamilton; Jørn Kristiansen; Heidi Sandbaek; Stein O Kvaløy; Line Hasund; Misoo C Ellison Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2010 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 4.497
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: Hwayoung Cho; Gail Keenan; Olatunde O Madandola; Fabiana Cristina Dos Santos; Tamara G R Macieira; Ragnhildur I Bjarnadottir; Karen J B Priola; Karen Dunn Lopez Journal: JMIR Hum Factors Date: 2022-05-10