scholarly journals Clinical decision support improves the appropriateness of laboratory test ordering in primary care without increasing diagnostic error: the ELMO cluster randomized trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Delvaux ◽  
Veerle Piessens ◽  
Tine De Burghgraeve ◽  
Pavlos Mamouris ◽  
Bert Vaes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Laboratory Test ◽  
Clinical Decision Support ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Diagnostic Error ◽  
Order Sets ◽  
Cluster Randomized ◽  
Physician Order Entry ◽  
Test Ordering

Abstract Background Inappropriate laboratory test ordering poses an important burden for healthcare. Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) have been cited as promising tools to improve laboratory test ordering behavior. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the effects of an intervention that integrated a clinical decision support service into a computerized physician order entry (CPOE) on the appropriateness and volume of laboratory test ordering, and on diagnostic error in primary care. Methods This study was a pragmatic, cluster randomized, open-label, controlled clinical trial. Setting Two hundred eighty general practitioners (GPs) from 72 primary care practices in Belgium. Patients Patients aged ≥ 18 years with a laboratory test order for at least one of 17 indications: cardiovascular disease management, hypertension, check-up, chronic kidney disease (CKD), thyroid disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, fatigue, anemia, liver disease, gout, suspicion of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), suspicion of lung embolism, rheumatoid arthritis, sexually transmitted infections (STI), acute diarrhea, chronic diarrhea, and follow-up of medication. Interventions The CDSS was integrated into a computerized physician order entry (CPOE) in the form of evidence-based order sets that suggested appropriate tests based on the indication provided by the general physician. Measurements The primary outcome of the ELMO study was the proportion of appropriate tests over the total number of ordered tests and inappropriately not-requested tests. Secondary outcomes of the ELMO study included diagnostic error, test volume, and cascade activities. Results CDSS increased the proportion of appropriate tests by 0.21 (95% CI 0.16–0.26, p < 0.0001) for all tests included in the study. GPs in the CDSS arm ordered 7 (7.15 (95% CI 3.37–10.93, p = 0.0002)) tests fewer per panel. CDSS did not increase diagnostic error. The absolute difference in proportions was a decrease of 0.66% (95% CI 1.4% decrease–0.05% increase) in possible diagnostic error. Conclusions A CDSS in the form of order sets, integrated within the CPOE improved appropriateness and decreased volume of laboratory test ordering without increasing diagnostic error. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02950142, registered on October 25, 2016

scholarly journals Clinical decision support improves the appropriateness of laboratory test ordering in primary care without increasing diagnostic error: the ELMO cluster randomized trial

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Delvaux ◽  
Veerle Piessens ◽  
Tine De Burghgraeve ◽  
Pavlos Mamouris ◽  
Bert Vaes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Laboratory Test ◽  
Clinical Decision Support ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Diagnostic Error ◽  
Order Sets ◽  
Cluster Randomized ◽  
Physician Order Entry ◽  
Test Ordering

Abstract Background Inappropriate laboratory test ordering poses an important burden for healthcare. Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) have been cited as promising tools to improve laboratory test ordering behavior. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the effects of an intervention that integrated a clinical decision support service into a computerized physician order entry (CPOE) on the appropriateness and volume of laboratory test ordering, and on diagnostic error in primary care.Methods This study was a pragmatic, cluster randomized, open label, controlled clinical trial. Setting 280 general practitioners (GPs) from 72 primary care practices in Belgium. Patients Patients aged ≥18 years with a laboratory test order for at least one of 17 indications; cardiovascular disease management, hypertension, check-up, chronic kidney disease (CKD), thyroid disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, fatigue, anemia, liver disease, gout, suspicion of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), suspicion of lung embolism, rheumatoid arthritis, sexually transmitted infections (STI), acute diarrhea, chronic diarrhea, and follow-up of medication. Interventions The CDSS was integrated into a computerized physician order entry (CPOE) in the form of evidence-based order sets that suggested appropriate tests based on the indication provided by the general physician. Measurements The primary outcome of the ELMO study was the proportion of appropriate tests over the total number of ordered tests and inappropriately not-requested tests. Secondary outcomes of the ELMO study included diagnostic error, test volume and cascade activities.Results CDSS increased the proportion of appropriate tests by 0.21 (95% CI 0.16 - 0.26, p<.0001) for all tests included in the study. GPs in the CDSS arm ordered 7 (7.15 (95% CI 3.37 - 10.93, p=.0002)) tests fewer per panel. CDSS did not increase diagnostic error. The absolute difference in proportions was a decrease of 0.66% (95% CI 1.4% decrease - 0.05% increase) in possible diagnostic error.Conclusions A CDSS in the form of order sets, integrated within the CPOE improved appropriateness and decreased volume of laboratory test ordering without increasing diagnostic error. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02950142, registered on October 25, 2016Funding source This study was funded through the Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE) Trials Programme agreement KCE16011.

scholarly journals Clinical decision support improves the appropriateness of laboratory test ordering in primary care without increasing diagnostic error: the ELMO cluster randomized trial

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Delvaux ◽  
Veerle Piessens ◽  
Tine De Burghgraeve ◽  
Pavlos Mamouris ◽  
Bert Vaes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Support ◽  
Laboratory Test ◽  
Clinical Decision Support ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Diagnostic Error ◽  
Order Entry ◽  
Order Sets ◽  
Cluster Randomized ◽  
Physician Order Entry ◽  
Test Ordering

Abstract BackgroundInappropriate laboratory test ordering poses an important burden for healthcare. Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) have been cited as promising tools to improve laboratory test ordering behavior. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the effects of an intervention that integrated a clinical decision support service into a computerized physician order entry (CPOE) on the appropriateness and volume of laboratory test ordering, and on diagnostic error in primary care.MethodsThis study was a pragmatic, cluster randomized, open label, controlled clinical trial.Setting280 general practitioners (GPs) from 72 primary care practices in Belgium.PatientsPatients aged 18 years with a laboratory test order for at least one of 17 indications; cardiovascular disease management, hypertension, check-up, chronic kidney disease (CKD), thyroid disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, fatigue, anemia, liver disease, gout, suspicion of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), suspicion of lung embolism, rheumatoid arthritis, sexually transmitted infections (STI), acute diarrhea, chronic diarrhea, and follow-up of medication.InterventionsThe CDSS was integrated into a computerized physician order entry (CPOE) in the form of evidence-based order sets that suggested appropriate tests based on the indication provided by the general physician.MeasurementsThe primary outcome of the ELMO study was the proportion of appropriate tests over the total number of ordered tests and inappropriately not-requested tests. Secondary outcomes of the ELMO study included diagnostic error, test volume and cascade activities.ResultsCDSS increased the proportion of appropriate tests by 0.21 (95% CI 0.16 - 0.26, p<.0001) for all tests included in the study. GPs in the CDSS arm ordered 7 (7.15 (95% CI 3.37 - 10.93, p=.0002)) tests fewer per panel. CDSS did not increase diagnostic error. The absolute difference in proportions was a decrease of 0.66% (95% CI 1.4% decrease - 0.05% increase) in possible diagnostic error.ConclusionsA CDSS in the form of order sets, integrated within the CPOE improved appropriateness and decreased volume of laboratory test ordering without increasing diagnostic error. Trial RegistrationClinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02950142

scholarly journals Computerized clinical decision support system for diabetes in primary care does not improve quality of care: a cluster-randomized controlled trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Annemie Heselmans ◽  
Nicolas Delvaux ◽  
Annouschka Laenen ◽  
Stijn Van de Velde ◽  
Dirk Ramaekers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Clinical Decision Support ◽  
Diabetes Care ◽  
Ldl Cholesterol ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Secondary Outcomes ◽  
Cluster Randomized ◽  
To Receive

Abstract Background The EBMeDS system is the computerized clinical decision support (CCDS) system of EBPNet, a national computerized point-of-care information service in Belgium. There is no clear evidence of more complex CCDS systems to manage chronic diseases in primary care practices (PCPs). The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of EBMeDS use in improving diabetes care. Methods A cluster-randomized trial with before-and-after measurements was performed in Belgian PCPs over 1 year, from May 2017 to May 2018. We randomly assigned 51 practices to either the intervention group (IG), to receive the EBMeDS system, or to the control group (CG), to receive usual care. Primary and secondary outcomes were the 1-year pre- to post-implementation change in HbA1c, LDL cholesterol, and systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Composite patient and process scores were calculated. A process evaluation was added to the analysis. Results were analyzed at 6 and 12 months. Linear mixed models and logistic regression models based on generalized estimating equations were used where appropriate. Results Of the 51 PCPs that were enrolled and randomly assigned (26 PCPs in the CG and 25 in the IG), 29 practices (3815 patients) were analyzed in the study: 2464 patients in the CG and 1351 patients in the IG. No change differences existed between groups in primary or secondary outcomes. Change difference between CG and IG after 1-year follow-up was − 0.09 (95% CI − 0.18; 0.01, p-value = 0.06) for HbA1c; 1.76 (95% CI − 0.46; 3.98, p-value = 0.12) for LDL cholesterol; and 0.13 (95% CI − 0.91; 1.16, p-value = 0.81) and 0.12 (95% CI − 1.25;1.49, p-value = 0.86) for systolic and diastolic blood pressure respectively. The odds ratio of the IG versus the CG for the probability of no worsening and improvement was 1.09 (95% CI 0.73; 1.63, p-value = 0.67) for the process composite score and 0.74 (95% CI 0.49; 1.12, p-value = 0.16) for the composite patient score. All but one physician was satisfied with the EBMeDS system. Conclusions The CCDS system EBMeDS did not improve diabetes care in Belgian primary care. The lack of improvement was mainly caused by imperfections in the organizational context of Belgian primary care for chronic disease management and shortcomings in the system requirements for the correct use of the EBMeDS system (e.g., complete structured records). These shortcomings probably caused low-use rates of the system. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01830569, Registered 12 April 2013.

scholarly journals The Effects of Computerized Clinical Decision Support Systems on Laboratory Test Ordering: A Systematic Review

2017 ◽  
Vol 141 (4) ◽  
pp. 585-595 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Delvaux ◽  
Katrien Van Thienen ◽  
Annemie Heselmans ◽  
Stijn Van de Velde ◽  
Dirk Ramaekers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Support ◽  
Laboratory Test ◽  
Decision Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision Support ◽  
Support System ◽  
Clinical Decision Support System ◽  
Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Test Ordering

Context.— Inappropriate laboratory test ordering has been shown to be as high as 30%. This can have an important impact on quality of care and costs because of downstream consequences such as additional diagnostics, repeat testing, imaging, prescriptions, surgeries, or hospital stays. Objective.— To evaluate the effect of computerized clinical decision support systems on appropriateness of laboratory test ordering. Data Sources.— We used MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Clinicaltrials.gov, Cochrane Library, and Inspec through December 2015. Investigators independently screened articles to identify randomized trials that assessed a computerized clinical decision support system aimed at improving laboratory test ordering by providing patient-specific information, delivered in the form of an on-screen management option, reminder, or suggestion through a computerized physician order entry using a rule-based or algorithm-based system relying on an evidence-based knowledge resource. Investigators extracted data from 30 papers about study design, various study characteristics, study setting, various intervention characteristics, involvement of the software developers in the evaluation of the computerized clinical decision support system, outcome types, and various outcome characteristics. Conclusions.— Because of heterogeneity of systems and settings, pooled estimates of effect could not be made. Data showed that computerized clinical decision support systems had little or no effect on clinical outcomes but some effect on compliance. Computerized clinical decision support systems targeted at laboratory test ordering for multiple conditions appear to be more effective than those targeted at a single condition.

scholarly journals Use of machine learning to predict clinical decision support compliance, reduce alert burden, and evaluate duplicate laboratory test ordering alerts

JAMIA Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jason M Baron ◽  
Richard Huang ◽  
Dustin McEvoy ◽  
Anand S Dighe
Keyword(s):  
Machine Learning ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Laboratory Test ◽  
Clinical Decision Support ◽  
Characteristic Curve ◽  
Improve Patient Care ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Phone Call ◽  
Care Utilization ◽  
Test Ordering

Abstract Objectives While well-designed clinical decision support (CDS) alerts can improve patient care, utilization management, and population health, excessive alerting may be counterproductive, leading to clinician burden and alert fatigue. We sought to develop machine learning models to predict whether a clinician will accept the advice provided by a CDS alert. Such models could reduce alert burden by targeting CDS alerts to specific cases where they are most likely to be effective. Materials and Methods We focused on a set of laboratory test ordering alerts, deployed at 8 hospitals within the Partners Healthcare System. The alerts notified clinicians of duplicate laboratory test orders and advised discontinuation. We captured key attributes surrounding 60 399 alert firings, including clinician and patient variables, and whether the clinician complied with the alert. Using these data, we developed logistic regression models to predict alert compliance. Results We identified key factors that predicted alert compliance; for example, clinicians were less likely to comply with duplicate test alerts triggered in patients with a prior abnormal result for the test or in the context of a nonvisit-based encounter (eg, phone call). Likewise, differences in practice patterns between clinicians appeared to impact alert compliance. Our best-performing predictive model achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.82. Incorporating this model into the alerting logic could have averted more than 1900 alerts at a cost of fewer than 200 additional duplicate tests. Conclusions Deploying predictive models to target CDS alerts may substantially reduce clinician alert burden while maintaining most or all the CDS benefit.

scholarly journals Clinical Decision Support for Worker Health: A Five-Site Qualitative Needs Assessment in Primary Care Settings

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (04) ◽  
pp. 635-643
Author(s):  
Joan S. Ash ◽  
Dian Chase ◽  
Sherry Baron ◽  
Margaret S. Filios ◽  
Richard N. Shiffman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Clinical Decision Support ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Technical Feasibility ◽  
Primary Care Settings ◽  
Worker Health ◽  
Operational Issues

Abstract Background Although patients who work and have related health issues are usually first seen in primary care, providers in these settings do not routinely ask questions about work. Guidelines to help manage such patients are rarely used in primary care. Electronic health record (EHR) systems with worker health clinical decision support (CDS) tools have potential for assisting these practices. Objective This study aimed to identify the need for, and barriers and facilitators related to, implementation of CDS tools for the clinical management of working patients in a variety of primary care settings. Methods We used a qualitative design that included analysis of interview transcripts and observational field notes from 10 clinics in five organizations. Results We interviewed 83 providers, staff members, managers, informatics and information technology experts, and leaders and spent 35 hours observing. We identified eight themes in four categories related to CDS for worker health (operational issues, usefulness of proposed CDS, effort and time-related issues, and topic-specific issues). These categories were classified as facilitators or barriers to the use of the CDS tools. Facilitators related to operational issues include current technical feasibility and new work patterns associated with the coordinated care model. Facilitators concerning usefulness include users' need for awareness and evidence-based tools, appropriateness of the proposed CDS for their patients, and the benefits of population health data. Barriers that are effort-related include additional time this proposed CDS might take, and other pressing organizational priorities. Barriers that are topic-specific include sensitive issues related to health and work and the complexities of information about work. Conclusion We discovered several themes not previously described that can guide future CDS development: technical feasibility of the proposed CDS within commercial EHRs, the sensitive nature of some CDS content, and the need to assist the entire health care team in managing worker health.

scholarly journals Duplicate Laboratory Test Reduction Using a Clinical Decision Support Tool

2014 ◽  
Vol 141 (5) ◽  
pp. 718-723 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary W. Procop ◽  
Lisa M. Yerian ◽  
Robert Wyllie ◽  
A. Marc Harrison ◽  
Kandice Kottke-Marchant
Keyword(s):  
Decision Support ◽  
Laboratory Test ◽  
Clinical Decision Support ◽  
Decision Support Tool ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Support Tool ◽  
Clinical Decision Support Tool
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document