BACKGROUND: Well-functioning clinical decision support (CDS) can facilitate provider workflow, improve patient care, promote better outcomes, and reduce costs. However, poorly functioning CDS may lead to alert fatigue, cause providers to ignore important CDS interventions, and increase provider dissatisfaction. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to describe one institution's experience in implementing a program to create and maintain properly functioning CDS by systematically monitoring CDS firing rates and patterns. METHODS: Four types of CDS monitoring activities were implemented as part of the CDS lifecycle. One type of monitoring occurs prior to releasing active CDS, while the other types occur at different points after CDS activation. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty-eight CDS interventions were monitored over a 2-year period. The rate of detecting a malfunction or significant opportunity for improvement was 37% during preactivation and 18% during immediate postactivation monitoring. Monitoring also informed the process of responding to user feedback about alerts. Finally, an automated alert detection tool identified 128 instances of alert pattern change over the same period. A subset of cases was evaluated by knowledge engineers to identify true and false positives, the results of which were used to optimize the tool's pattern detection algorithms. CONCLUSION: CDS monitoring can identify malfunctions and/or significant improvement opportunities even after careful design and robust testing. CDS monitoring provides information when responding to user feedback. Ongoing, continuous, and automated monitoring can detect malfunctions in real time, before users report problems. Therefore, CDS monitoring should be part of any systematic program of implementing and maintaining CDS. Schattauer GmbH Stuttgart.
BACKGROUND: Well-functioning clinical decision support (CDS) can facilitate provider workflow, improve patient care, promote better outcomes, and reduce costs. However, poorly functioning CDS may lead to alert fatigue, cause providers to ignore important CDS interventions, and increase provider dissatisfaction. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to describe one institution's experience in implementing a program to create and maintain properly functioning CDS by systematically monitoring CDS firing rates and patterns. METHODS: Four types of CDS monitoring activities were implemented as part of the CDS lifecycle. One type of monitoring occurs prior to releasing active CDS, while the other types occur at different points after CDS activation. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty-eight CDS interventions were monitored over a 2-year period. The rate of detecting a malfunction or significant opportunity for improvement was 37% during preactivation and 18% during immediate postactivation monitoring. Monitoring also informed the process of responding to user feedback about alerts. Finally, an automated alert detection tool identified 128 instances of alert pattern change over the same period. A subset of cases was evaluated by knowledge engineers to identify true and false positives, the results of which were used to optimize the tool's pattern detection algorithms. CONCLUSION: CDS monitoring can identify malfunctions and/or significant improvement opportunities even after careful design and robust testing. CDS monitoring provides information when responding to user feedback. Ongoing, continuous, and automated monitoring can detect malfunctions in real time, before users report problems. Therefore, CDS monitoring should be part of any systematic program of implementing and maintaining CDS. Schattauer GmbH Stuttgart.
Authors: Emily M Campbell; Dean F Sittig; Joan S Ash; Kenneth P Guappone; Richard H Dykstra Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2006-06-23 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Adam Wright; Dean F Sittig; Joan S Ash; David W Bates; Joshua Feblowitz; Greg Fraser; Saverio M Maviglia; Carmit McMullen; W Paul Nichol; Justine E Pang; Jack Starmer; Blackford Middleton Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-01-20 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Gary W Procop; Lisa M Yerian; Robert Wyllie; A Marc Harrison; Kandice Kottke-Marchant Journal: Am J Clin Pathol Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 2.493
Authors: Joan S Ash; Dean F Sittig; Kenneth P Guappone; Richard H Dykstra; Joshua Richardson; Adam Wright; James Carpenter; Carmit McMullen; Michael Shapiro; Arwen Bunce; Blackford Middleton Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2012-02-14 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Adam Wright; Joan S Ash; Jessica L Erickson; Joe Wasserman; Arwen Bunce; Ana Stanescu; Daniel St Hilaire; Morgan Panzenhagen; Eric Gebhardt; Carmit McMullen; Blackford Middleton; Dean F Sittig Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2013-09-02 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Adam Wright; Angela Ai; Joan Ash; Jane F Wiesen; Thu-Trang T Hickman; Skye Aaron; Dustin McEvoy; Shane Borkowsky; Pavithra I Dissanayake; Peter Embi; William Galanter; Jeremy Harper; Steve Z Kassakian; Rachel Ramoni; Richard Schreiber; Anwar Sirajuddin; David W Bates; Dean F Sittig Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: David Rubins; Adam Wright; Tarik Alkasab; M Stephen Ledbetter; Amy Miller; Rajesh Patel; Nancy Wei; Gianna Zuccotti; Adam Landman Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Michael C Brunner; Scott E Sheehan; Eric M Yanke; Dean F Sittig; Nasia Safdar; Barbara Hill; Kenneth S Lee; John F Orwin; David J Vanness; Christopher J Hildebrand; Michael A Bruno; Timothy J Erickson; Ryan Zea; D Paul Moberg Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2020-02-19 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Evan W Orenstein; Naveen Muthu; Asli O Weitkamp; Daria F Ferro; Mike D Zeidlhack; Jason Slagle; Eric Shelov; Marc C Tobias Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2019-10-30 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Laurie Lovett Novak; Shilo Anders; Kim M Unertl; Daniel J France; Matthew B Weinger Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2019-10-09 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Timothy S Chang; Ashwin Buchipudi; Gregg C Fonarow; Michael A Pfeffer; Jennifer S Singer; Eric M Cheng Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2019-06-19 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Barbara E Jones; Dave S Collingridge; Caroline G Vines; Herman Post; John Holmen; Todd L Allen; Peter Haug; Charlene R Weir; Nathan C Dean Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2019-01-02 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Devin Mann; Rachel Hess; Thomas McGinn; Safiya Richardson; Simon Jones; Joseph Palmisano; Sara Kuppin Chokshi; Rebecca Mishuris; Lauren McCullagh; Linda Park; Catherine Dinh-Le; Paul Smith; David Feldstein Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 5.128