Jeritt G Thayer1, Jeffrey M Miller1, Alexander G Fiks1,2, Linda Tague3, Robert W Grundmeier1,2. 1. Department of Biomedical and Health Informatics, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States. 2. Department of Pediatrics, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States. 3. Department of Information Services, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the widespread adoption of vendor-supplied electronic health record (EHR) systems, clinical decision support (CDS) customization efforts beyond those anticipated by the vendor may require the use of technologies external to the EHR such as web services. Pursuing such customizations, however, is not without risk. Validating the expected behavior of a customized CDS system in the high-volume, complex environment of the live EHR is a challenging problem. OBJECTIVE: This article identifies technology failures that impacted clinical care related to web service-based advanced custom CDS systems embedded in the complex sociotechnical context of a production EHR. METHODS: In an academic health system's primary care network, we performed an inventory of incidents between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2016 related to a customized CDS system and performed a targeted review of changes in the CDS source code. Additional feedback on the root cause of individual incidents was obtained through interviews with members of the CDS project teams. RESULTS: We identified five CDS malfunctions that impaired clinical workflow. The mechanisms for these failures are mapped to four characteristics of well-behaved applications: (1) system integrity; (2) data integrity; (3) reliability; and (4) scalability. Over the 9-year period, two malfunctions of the customized CDS significantly impaired clinical workflow for a total of 5 hours. Lesser impacts-loss of individual features with straightforward workarounds-arose from three malfunctions, which affected users on 53 days. DISCUSSION: Advanced customization of EHRs for the purpose of CDS can present significant risks to clinical workflow. CONCLUSION: This case study highlights that advanced customization of CDS within a commercial EHR may support care for complex patient populations, but ongoing monitoring and support is required to ensure its safe use. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
BACKGROUND: With the widespread adoption of vendor-supplied electronic health record (EHR) systems, clinical decision support (CDS) customization efforts beyond those anticipated by the vendor may require the use of technologies external to the EHR such as web services. Pursuing such customizations, however, is not without risk. Validating the expected behavior of a customized CDS system in the high-volume, complex environment of the live EHR is a challenging problem. OBJECTIVE: This article identifies technology failures that impacted clinical care related to web service-based advanced custom CDS systems embedded in the complex sociotechnical context of a production EHR. METHODS: In an academic health system's primary care network, we performed an inventory of incidents between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2016 related to a customized CDS system and performed a targeted review of changes in the CDS source code. Additional feedback on the root cause of individual incidents was obtained through interviews with members of the CDS project teams. RESULTS: We identified five CDS malfunctions that impaired clinical workflow. The mechanisms for these failures are mapped to four characteristics of well-behaved applications: (1) system integrity; (2) data integrity; (3) reliability; and (4) scalability. Over the 9-year period, two malfunctions of the customized CDS significantly impaired clinical workflow for a total of 5 hours. Lesser impacts-loss of individual features with straightforward workarounds-arose from three malfunctions, which affected users on 53 days. DISCUSSION: Advanced customization of EHRs for the purpose of CDS can present significant risks to clinical workflow. CONCLUSION: This case study highlights that advanced customization of CDS within a commercial EHR may support care for complex patient populations, but ongoing monitoring and support is required to ensure its safe use. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
Authors: Kai Zheng; Hilary M Haftel; Ronald B Hirschl; Michael O'Reilly; David A Hanauer Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2010 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Joan S Ash; Dean F Sittig; Eric G Poon; Kenneth Guappone; Emily Campbell; Richard H Dykstra Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2007-04-25 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Alexander G Fiks; Robert W Grundmeier; Stephanie Mayne; Lihai Song; Kristen Feemster; Dean Karavite; Cayce C Hughes; James Massey; Ron Keren; Louis M Bell; Richard Wasserman; A Russell Localio Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2013-05-06 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Alexander G Fiks; Stephanie L Mayne; Dean J Karavite; Andrew Suh; Ryan O'Hara; A Russell Localio; Michelle Ross; Robert W Grundmeier Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2015-03-09 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Alexander G Fiks; Stephanie Mayne; Cayce C Hughes; Elena Debartolo; Carina Behrens; James P Guevara; Thomas Power Journal: Acad Pediatr Date: 2012-06-28 Impact factor: 3.107
Authors: L H Utidjian; A Hogan; J Michel; A R Localio; D Karavite; L Song; M J Ramos; A G Fiks; S Lorch; R W Grundmeier Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2015-12-30 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Terri H Lipman; Pamela Cousounis; Robert W Grundmeier; James Massey; Andrew J Cucchiara; Virginia A Stallings; Adda Grimberg Journal: Clin Pediatr (Phila) Date: 2015-10-27 Impact factor: 1.168
Authors: Kenneth D Mandl; Joshua C Mandel; Shawn N Murphy; Elmer Victor Bernstam; Rachel L Ramoni; David A Kreda; J Michael McCoy; Ben Adida; Isaac S Kohane Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2012-03-17 Impact factor: 4.497
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: Jeritt G Thayer; Daria F Ferro; Jeffrey M Miller; Dean Karavite; Robert W Grundmeier; Levon Utidjian; Joseph J Zorc Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-07-14 Impact factor: 4.497