6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Clinical decision support alert malfunctions: analysis and empirically derived taxonomy

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          To develop an empirically derived taxonomy of clinical decision support (CDS) alert malfunctions.

          Materials and Methods

          We identified CDS alert malfunctions using a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods: (1) site visits with interviews of chief medical informatics officers, CDS developers, clinical leaders, and CDS end users; (2) surveys of chief medical informatics officers; (3) analysis of CDS firing rates; and (4) analysis of CDS overrides. We used a multi-round, manual, iterative card sort to develop a multi-axial, empirically derived taxonomy of CDS malfunctions.

          Results

          We analyzed 68 CDS alert malfunction cases from 14 sites across the United States with diverse electronic health record systems. Four primary axes emerged: the cause of the malfunction, its mode of discovery, when it began, and how it affected rule firing. Build errors, conceptualization errors, and the introduction of new concepts or terms were the most frequent causes. User reports were the predominant mode of discovery. Many malfunctions within our database caused rules to fire for patients for whom they should not have (false positives), but the reverse (false negatives) was also common.

          Discussion

          Across organizations and electronic health record systems, similar malfunction patterns recurred. Challenges included updates to code sets and values, software issues at the time of system upgrades, difficulties with migration of CDS content between computing environments, and the challenge of correctly conceptualizing and building CDS.

          Conclusion

          CDS alert malfunctions are frequent. The empirically derived taxonomy formalizes the common recurring issues that cause these malfunctions, helping CDS developers anticipate and prevent CDS malfunctions before they occur or detect and resolve them expediently.

          Related collections

          Most cited references74

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Review: Knowledge Management and Knowledge Management Systems: Conceptual Foundations and Research Issues

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review.

            Developers of health care software have attributed improvements in patient care to these applications. As with any health care intervention, such claims require confirmation in clinical trials. To review controlled trials assessing the effects of computerized clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) and to identify study characteristics predicting benefit. We updated our earlier reviews by searching the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Inspec, and ISI databases and consulting reference lists through September 2004. Authors of 64 primary studies confirmed data or provided additional information. We included randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials that evaluated the effect of a CDSS compared with care provided without a CDSS on practitioner performance or patient outcomes. Teams of 2 reviewers independently abstracted data on methods, setting, CDSS and patient characteristics, and outcomes. One hundred studies met our inclusion criteria. The number and methodologic quality of studies improved over time. The CDSS improved practitioner performance in 62 (64%) of the 97 studies assessing this outcome, including 4 (40%) of 10 diagnostic systems, 16 (76%) of 21 reminder systems, 23 (62%) of 37 disease management systems, and 19 (66%) of 29 drug-dosing or prescribing systems. Fifty-two trials assessed 1 or more patient outcomes, of which 7 trials (13%) reported improvements. Improved practitioner performance was associated with CDSSs that automatically prompted users compared with requiring users to activate the system (success in 73% of trials vs 47%; P = .02) and studies in which the authors also developed the CDSS software compared with studies in which the authors were not the developers (74% success vs 28%; respectively, P = .001). Many CDSSs improve practitioner performance. To date, the effects on patient outcomes remain understudied and, when studied, inconsistent.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Systematic review: impact of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of medical care.

              Experts consider health information technology key to improving efficiency and quality of health care. To systematically review evidence on the effect of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of health care. The authors systematically searched the English-language literature indexed in MEDLINE (1995 to January 2004), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and the Periodical Abstracts Database. We also added studies identified by experts up to April 2005. Descriptive and comparative studies and systematic reviews of health information technology. Two reviewers independently extracted information on system capabilities, design, effects on quality, system acquisition, implementation context, and costs. 257 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies addressed decision support systems or electronic health records. Approximately 25% of the studies were from 4 academic institutions that implemented internally developed systems; only 9 studies evaluated multifunctional, commercially developed systems. Three major benefits on quality were demonstrated: increased adherence to guideline-based care, enhanced surveillance and monitoring, and decreased medication errors. The primary domain of improvement was preventive health. The major efficiency benefit shown was decreased utilization of care. Data on another efficiency measure, time utilization, were mixed. Empirical cost data were limited. Available quantitative research was limited and was done by a small number of institutions. Systems were heterogeneous and sometimes incompletely described. Available financial and contextual data were limited. Four benchmark institutions have demonstrated the efficacy of health information technologies in improving quality and efficiency. Whether and how other institutions can achieve similar benefits, and at what costs, are unclear.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Am Med Inform Assoc
                J Am Med Inform Assoc
                jamia
                Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA
                Oxford University Press
                1067-5027
                1527-974X
                May 2018
                16 October 2017
                16 October 2017
                : 25
                : 5
                : 496-506
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
                [2 ]Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
                [3 ]Clinical and Quality Analysis, Partners Healthcare, Somerville, MA, USA
                [4 ]Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA
                [5 ]Department of Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
                [6 ]Department of Pathology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
                [7 ]Regenstrief Institute, Indianapolis, IN, USA
                [8 ]Department of Medicine, Pharmacy Practices, and Pharmacy Systems, Outcomes and Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
                [9 ]Department of Biomedical Informatics, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA
                [10 ]Department of Oral Health Policy and Epidemiology, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
                [11 ]Department of Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
                [12 ]Department of Medicine and Information Technology, Holy Spirit Hospital – A Geisinger Affiliate, Camp Hill, PA, USA
                [13 ]Department of Medical Informatics, Memorial Hermann Health System, Houston, TX, USA
                [14 ]Department of Biomedical Informatics, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, TX, USA
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Adam Wright, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 1620 Tremont St., Boston, MA 02115, USA. E-mail: awright@ 123456bwh.harvard.edu . Phone: (617) 525-9811. Fax: (617) 732-7072
                Article
                ocx106
                10.1093/jamia/ocx106
                6019061
                29045651
                24fa902c-1e95-4ef0-ab1e-bfdd784a16f5
                © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com

                History
                : 23 February 2017
                : 7 August 2017
                : 2 September 2017
                Page count
                Pages: 11
                Funding
                Funded by: National Institutes of Health 10.13039/100000002
                Award ID: R01LM011966
                Categories
                Research and Applications

                Bioinformatics & Computational biology
                clinical decision support,electronic health records,safety,anomaly detection

                Comments

                Comment on this article