Development of High-Risk Geriatric Polypharmacy Electronic Clinical Quality Measures and a Pilot Test of EHR Nudges Based on These Measures

Sharpening clinical decision support alert and reminder designs with MINDSPACE: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Clinical decision support (CDS) alerts and reminders aim to influence clinical decisions, yet they are often designed without considering human decision-making behaviour. While this behaviour is comprehensively described by behavioural economics (BE), the sheer volume of BE literature poses a challenge to designers when identifying behavioural effects with utility to alert and reminder designs. This study tackles this challenge by focusing on the MINDSPACE framework for behaviour change, which collates nine behavioural effects that profoundly influence human decision-making behaviour: Messenger, Incentives, Norms, Defaults, Salience, Priming, Affect, Commitment, and Ego.

METHOD

A systematic review searching MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL Plus to explore (i) the usage of MINDSPACE effects in alert and reminder designs and (ii) the efficacy of those alerts and reminders in influencing clinical decisions. The search queries comprised ten Boolean searches, with nine focusing on the MINDSPACE effects and one focusing on the term mindspace.

RESULTS

50 studies were selected from 1791 peer-reviewed journal articles in English from 1970 to 2022. Except for ego, eight of nine MINDSPACE effects were utilised to design alerts and reminders, with defaults and norms utilised the most in alerts and reminders, respectively. Overall, alerts and reminders informed by MINDSPACE effects showed an average 71% success rate in influencing clinical decisions (alerts 73%, reminders 69%). Most studies utilised a single effect in their design, with higher efficacy for alerts (64%) than reminders (41%). Others utilised multiple effects, showing higher efficacy for reminders (28%) than alerts (9%).

CONCLUSION

This review presents sufficient evidence demonstrating the MINDSPACE framework's merits for designing CDS alerts and reminders with human decision-making considerations. The framework can adequately address challenges in identifying behavioural effects pertinent to the effective design of CDS alerts and reminders. The review also identified opportunities for future research into other relevant effects (e.g., framing).

Stakeholder Perspectives on Factors Related to Deprescribing Potentially Inappropriate Medications in Older Adults Receiving Dialysis

BACKGROUND

Potentially inappropriate medications, or medications that generally carry more risk of harm than benefit in older adults, are commonly prescribed to older adults receiving dialysis. Deprescribing, a systematic approach to reducing or stopping a medication, is a potential solution to limit potentially inappropriate medications use. Our objective was to identify clinicians and patient perspectives on factors related to deprescribing to inform design of a deprescribing program for dialysis clinics.

METHODS

We conducted rapid qualitative analysis of semistructured interviews and focus groups with clinicians (dialysis clinicians, primary care providers, and pharmacists) and patients (adults receiving hemodialysis aged 65 years or older and those aged 55-64 years who were prefrail or frail) from March 2019 to December 2020.

RESULTS

We interviewed 76 participants (53 clinicians [eight focus groups and 11 interviews] and 23 patients). Among clinicians, 24 worked in dialysis clinics, 18 worked in primary care, and 11 were pharmacists. Among patients, 13 (56%) were aged 65 years or older, 14 (61%) were Black race, and 16 (70%) reported taking at least one potentially inappropriate medication. We identified four themes (and corresponding subthemes) of contextual factors related to deprescribing potentially inappropriate medications: ( 1 ) system-level barriers to deprescribing (limited electronic medical record interoperability, time constraints and competing priorities), ( 2 ) undefined comanagement among clinicians (unclear role delineation, clinician caution about prescriber boundaries), ( 3 ) limited knowledge about potentially inappropriate medications (knowledge limitations among clinicians and patients), and ( 4 ) patients prioritize symptom control over potential harm (clinicians expect resistance to deprescribing, patient weigh risks and benefits).

CONCLUSIONS

Challenges to integration of deprescribing into dialysis clinics included siloed health systems, time constraints, comanagement behaviors, and clinician and patient knowledge and attitudes toward deprescribing.

A Qualitative Description of Clinician Free-Text Rationales Entered within Accountable Justification Interventions

BACKGROUND

Requiring accountable justifications-visible, clinician-recorded explanations for not following a clinical decision support (CDS) alert-has been used to steer clinicians away from potentially guideline-discordant decisions. Understanding themes from justifications across clinical content areas may reveal how clinicians rationalize decisions and could help inform CDS alerts.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative evaluation of the free-text justifications entered by primary care physicians from three pilot interventions designed to reduce opioid prescribing and, in older adults, high-risk polypharmacy and overtesting. Clinicians encountered alerts when triggering conditions were met within the chart. Clinicians were asked to change their course of action or enter a justification for the action that would be displayed in the chart. We extracted all justifications and grouped justifications with common themes. Two authors independently coded each justification and resolved differences via discussion. Three physicians used a modified Delphi technique to rate the clinical appropriateness of the justifications.

RESULTS

There were 560 justifications from 50 unique clinicians. We grouped these into three main themes used to justify an action: (1) report of a particular diagnosis or symptom (e.g., for "anxiety" or "acute pain"); (2) provision of further contextual details about the clinical case (e.g., tried and failed alternatives, short-term supply, or chronic medication); and (3) noting communication between clinician and patient (e.g., "risks and benefits discussed"). Most accountable justifications (65%) were of uncertain clinical appropriateness.

CONCLUSION

Most justifications clinicians entered across three separate clinical content areas fit within a small number of themes, and these common rationales may aid in the design of effective accountable justification interventions. Justifications varied in terms of level of clinical detail. On their own, most justifications did not clearly represent appropriate clinical decision making.