Barbara E Jones1,2, Dave S Collingridge3, Caroline G Vines3, Herman Post4, John Holmen4, Todd L Allen5, Peter Haug4, Charlene R Weir6, Nathan C Dean7. 1. VA Salt Lake City IDEAS Center, VA Salt Lake City Healthcare System, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States. 2. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States. 3. Intermountain Healthcare, Murray, Utah, United States. 4. Homer Warner Center for Informatics, Intermountain Healthcare, Murray, Utah, United States. 5. Department of Emergency Medicine, Intermountain Healthcare, Murray, Utah, United States. 6. Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States. 7. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Intermountain Healthcare and University of Utah, Murray, Utah, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Local implementation of guidelines for pneumonia care is strongly recommended, but the context of care that affects implementation is poorly understood. In a learning health care system, computerized clinical decision support (CDS) provides an opportunity to both improve and track practice, providing insights into the implementation process. OBJECTIVES: This article examines physician interactions with a CDS to identify reasons for rejection of guideline recommendations. METHODS: We implemented a multicenter bedside CDS for the emergency department management of pneumonia that integrated patient data with guideline-based recommendations. We examined the frequency of adoption versus rejection of recommendations for site-of-care and antibiotic selection. We analyzed free-text responses provided by physicians explaining their clinical reasoning for rejection, using concept mapping and thematic analysis. RESULTS: Among 1,722 patient episodes, physicians rejected recommendations to send a patient home in 24%, leaving text in 53%; reasons for rejection of the recommendations included additional or alternative diagnoses beyond pneumonia, and comorbidities or signs of physiologic derangement contributing to risk of outpatient failure that were not processed by the CDS. Physicians rejected broad-spectrum antibiotic recommendations in 10%, leaving text in 76%; differences in pathogen risk assessment, additional patient information, concern about antibiotic properties, and admitting physician preferences were given as reasons for rejection. CONCLUSION: While adoption of CDS recommendations for pneumonia was high, physicians rejecting recommendations frequently provided feedback, reporting alternative diagnoses, additional individual patient characteristics, and provider preferences as major reasons for rejection. CDS that collects user feedback is feasible and can contribute to a learning health system. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
BACKGROUND: Local implementation of guidelines for pneumonia care is strongly recommended, but the context of care that affects implementation is poorly understood. In a learning health care system, computerized clinical decision support (CDS) provides an opportunity to both improve and track practice, providing insights into the implementation process. OBJECTIVES: This article examines physician interactions with a CDS to identify reasons for rejection of guideline recommendations. METHODS: We implemented a multicenter bedside CDS for the emergency department management of pneumonia that integrated patient data with guideline-based recommendations. We examined the frequency of adoption versus rejection of recommendations for site-of-care and antibiotic selection. We analyzed free-text responses provided by physicians explaining their clinical reasoning for rejection, using concept mapping and thematic analysis. RESULTS: Among 1,722 patient episodes, physicians rejected recommendations to send a patient home in 24%, leaving text in 53%; reasons for rejection of the recommendations included additional or alternative diagnoses beyond pneumonia, and comorbidities or signs of physiologic derangement contributing to risk of outpatient failure that were not processed by the CDS. Physicians rejected broad-spectrum antibiotic recommendations in 10%, leaving text in 76%; differences in pathogen risk assessment, additional patient information, concern about antibiotic properties, and admitting physician preferences were given as reasons for rejection. CONCLUSION: While adoption of CDS recommendations for pneumonia was high, physicians rejecting recommendations frequently provided feedback, reporting alternative diagnoses, additional individual patient characteristics, and provider preferences as major reasons for rejection. CDS that collects user feedback is feasible and can contribute to a learning health system. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
Authors: Barbara E Jones; Jason Jones; Thomas Bewick; Wei Shen Lim; Dominik Aronsky; Samuel M Brown; Wim G Boersma; Menno M van der Eerden; Nathan C Dean Journal: Chest Date: 2010-12-16 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Timothy A D Graham; Andre W Kushniruk; Michael J Bullard; Brian R Holroyd; David P Meurer; Brian H Rowe Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2008-11-06
Authors: T C Jenkins; S A Stella; L Cervantes; B C Knepper; A L Sabel; C S Price; L Shockley; M E Hanley; P S Mehler; W J Burman Journal: Infection Date: 2012-11-17 Impact factor: 3.553
Authors: Dustin W Ballard; Ridhima Vemula; Uli K Chettipally; Mamata V Kene; Dustin G Mark; Andrew K Elms; James S Lin; Mary E Reed; Jie Huang; Adina S Rauchwerger; David R Vinson Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2016-09-21 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: Nathan C Dean; Caroline G Vines; Jenna Rubin; Dave S Collingridge; Mark Mankivsky; Raj Srivastava; Barbara E Jones; Kathryn G Kuttler; Missy Walker; Nathan Jenson; Brandon J Webb; Todd L Allen; Peter J Haug Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2020-03-04
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: H Akhloufi; H van der Sijs; D C Melles; C P van der Hoeven; M Vogel; J W Mouton; A Verbon Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2022-05-10 Impact factor: 3.298
Authors: Jason R Carr; Barbara E Jones; Dave S Collingridge; Brandon J Webb; Caroline Vines; Blake Zobell; Todd L Allen; Rajendu Srivastava; Jenna Rubin; Nathan C Dean Journal: J Rural Health Date: 2020-11-26 Impact factor: 4.333