eHealth 2015 Special Issue: Impact of Electronic Health Records on the Completeness of Clinical Documentation Generated during Diabetic Retinopathy Consultations

Identifying primary care clinicians' preferences for, barriers to, and facilitators of information-seeking in clinical practice in Singapore: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The growth of medical knowledge and patient care complexity calls for improved clinician access to evidence-based resources. This study aimed to explore the primary care clinicians' preferences for, barriers to, and facilitators of information-seeking in clinical practice in Singapore.

METHODS

A convenience sample of ten doctors and ten nurses was recruited. We conducted semi-structured face-to-face in-depth interviews. The interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using thematic content analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 20 participants, eight doctors and ten nurses worked at government-funded polyclinics and two doctors worked in private practice. Most clinicians sought clinical information daily at the point-of-care. The most searched-for information by clinicians in practice was less common conditions. Clinicians preferred evidence-based resources such as clinical practice guidelines and UpToDate®. Clinical practice guidelines were mostly used when they were updated or based on memory. Clinicians also commonly sought answers from their peers. Furthermore, clinicians frequently use smartphones to access the Google search engine and UpToDate® app. The barriers to accessing clinical information included the lack of time, internet surfing separation of work computers, limited search functions in the organisation's server, and limited access to medical literature databases. The facilitators of accessing clinical information included convenience, easy access, and trustworthiness of information sources.

CONCLUSION

Most primary care clinicians in our study sought clinical information at the point-of-care daily and reported increasing use of smartphones for information-seeking. Future research focusing on interventions to improve access to credible clinical information for primary care clinicians at the point-of-care is recommended.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study has been reviewed by NHG Domain Specific Review Board (NHG DSRB) (the central ethics committee) for ethics approval. NHG DSRB Reference Number: 2018/01355 (31/07/2019).

Comparing the Use of DynaMed and UpToDate by Physician Trainees in Clinical Decision-Making: A Randomized Crossover Trial

BACKGROUND

Costs vary substantially among electronic medical knowledge resources used for clinical decision support, warranting periodic assessment of institution-wide adoption.

OBJECTIVES

To compare two medical knowledge resources, UpToDate and DynaMed Plus, regarding accuracy and time required to answer standardized clinical questions and user experience.

METHODS

A crossover trial design was used, wherein physicians were randomized to first use one of the two medical knowledge resources to answer six standardized questions. Following use of each resource, they were surveyed regarding their user experience. The percentage of accurate answers and time required to answer each question were recorded. The surveys assessed ease of use, enjoyment using the resource, quality of information, and ability to assess level of evidence. Tests of carry-over effects were performed. Themes were identified within open-ended survey comments regarding overall user experience.

RESULTS

Among 26 participating physicians, accuracy of answers differed by 4 percentage points or less. For all but one question, there were no significant differences in the time required for completion. Most participants felt both resources were easy to use, contained high quality of information, and enabled assessment of the level of evidence. A greater proportion of participants endorsed enjoyment of use with UpToDate (23/26, 88%) compared with DynaMed Plus (16/26, 62%). Themes from open-ended comments included interface/information presentation, coverage of clinical topics, search functions, and utility for clinical decision-making. The majority (59%) of open-ended comments expressed an overall preference for UpToDate, compared with 19% preferring DynaMed Plus.

CONCLUSION

DynaMed Plus is noninferior to UpToDate with respect to ability to achieve accurate answers, time required for answering clinical questions, ease of use, quality of information, and ability to assess level of evidence. However, user experience was more positive with UpToDate. Future studies of electronic medical knowledge resources should continue to emphasize evaluation of usability and user experience.

Addressing Disparities in Physician Access to Information in Support of Evidence-based Practice

The purpose of this study is to determine if Minnesota physicians have access to information resources needed to support evidence-based practice (EBP), which supports a culture of safety and patient-centered care. A survey was used to determine Minnesota physicians' need for, and access to, evidence-based clinical information. A total of 877 responses (6.4% response rate) were included in the data analysis. Participants spent 24 min daily seeking answers to clinical questions and averaged 4.41 questions per day that could not be immediately answered. Physicians reported high levels of information needs met (85.8%), though they reported limited access to drug resources, citation databases, systematic reviews, and full-text books and articles. Results also showed use of unreliable sources to support decision-making. A key finding was the extent to which workplace affiliation broadens disparities in information access. National and regional approaches can work to support EBP by reducing the information gap caused by workplace affiliation and other barriers. Further research should be done to identify partnerships, funding, infrastructure, and support to address these gaps.

How searching under time pressure impacts clinical decision making

Objective:

Clinicians encounter many questions during patient encounters that they cannot answer. While search systems (e.g., PubMed) can help clinicians find answers, clinicians are typically busy and report that they often do not have sufficient time to use such systems. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of time pressure on clinical decisions made with the use of a medical literature search system.

Design:

In stage 1, 109 final-year medical students and practicing clinicians were presented with 16 clinical questions that they had to answer using their own knowledge. In stage 2, the participants were provided with a search system, similar to PubMed, to help them to answer the same 16 questions, and time pressure was simulated by limiting the participant's search time to 3, 6, or 9 minutes per question.

Results:

Under low time pressure, the correct answer rate significantly improved by 32% when the participants used the search system, whereas under high time pressure, this improvement was only 6%. Also, under high time pressure, participants reported significantly lower confidence in the answers, higher perception of task difficulty, and higher stress levels.

Conclusions:

For clinicians and health care organizations operating in increasingly time-pressured environments, literature search systems become less effective at supporting accurate clinical decisions. For medical search system developers, this study indicates that system designs that provide faster information retrieval and analysis, rather than traditional document search, may provide more effective alternatives.

Obstetrician-Gynecologist Views of Pregnancy-Related Medication Safety

Background: Medication use among pregnant women is widespread, despite limited evidence about the teratogenicity of most medications. Improved physician-patient communication about pregnancy-related medication safety has been identified as a strategy to address this critical issue; however, little is known about physicians' knowledge, attitudes, and practices that could inform tools for information access and sharing to support such communication. The primary objective of this study is to address gaps in what is known about obstetrician-gynecologist views, practices, and needs related to accessing and sharing pregnancy-related medication safety information with patients. Materials and Methods: The basis for this study is a nationally representative, randomized survey of 506 practicing obstetrician-gynecologists. The survey was completed by mail or online between October 26, 2015 and May 8, 2016 with a 52% response rate. Data were weighted to population parameters to reduce the risk of potential nonresponse biases. Analyses included univariate distributions and comparisons between physicians in different residency cohorts using all-pairs dependent t-tests. Results: Findings point to critical features of obstetrician-gynecologist access and sharing of medication safety information. Obstetrician-gynecologists often retrieve medication safety information during a clinical visit. There is widespread provision of potentially problematic "safe lists" to patients, particularly by younger cohorts, and limited counseling for reproductive-aged patients not actively planning a pregnancy. Conclusions: To improve clinical care, physician-patient communication may be enhanced with technical and policy solutions, including improved digital information tools for retrieving and discussing information in the clinical setting; evidence-based, written information for physicians to share with patients; and encouragement for counseling all women of reproductive age receiving teratogenic medications.

Promoting Quality Face-to-Face Communication during Ophthalmology Encounters in the Electronic Health Record Era

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate informatics-enabled quality improvement (QI) strategies for promoting time spent on face-to-face communication between ophthalmologists and patients.

METHODS

This prospective study involved deploying QI strategies during implementation of an enterprise-wide vendor electronic health record (EHR) in an outpatient academic ophthalmology department. Strategies included developing single sign-on capabilities, activating mobile- and tablet-based applications, EHR personalization training, creating novel workflows for team-based orders, and promoting problem-based charting to reduce documentation burden. Timing data were collected during 648 outpatient encounters. Outcomes included total time spent by the attending ophthalmologist on the patient, time spent on documentation, time spent on examination, and time spent talking with the patient. Metrics related to documentation efficiency, use of personalization features, use of team-based orders, and note length were also measured from the EHR efficiency portal and compared with averages for ophthalmologists nationwide using the same EHR.

RESULTS

Time spent on exclusive face-to-face communication with patients initially decreased with EHR implementation (2.9 to 2.3 minutes, p = 0.005) but returned to the paper baseline by 6 months (2.8 minutes, p = 0.99). Observed participants outperformed national averages of ophthalmologists using the same vendor system on documentation time per appointment, number of customized note templates, number of customized order lists, utilization of team-based orders, note length, and time spent after-hours on EHR use.

CONCLUSION

Informatics-enabled QI interventions can promote patient-centeredness and face-to-face communication in high-volume outpatient ophthalmology encounters. By employing an array of interventions, time spent exclusively talking with the patient returned to levels equivalent to paper charts by 6 months after EHR implementation. This was achieved without requiring EHR redesign, use of scribes, or excessive after-hours work. Documentation efficiency can be achieved using interventions promoting personalization and team-based workflows. Given their efficacy in preserving face-to-face physician-patient interactions, these strategies may help alleviate risk of physician burnout.

Impact of a Search Engine on Clinical Decisions Under Time and System Effectiveness Constraints: Research Protocol

BACKGROUND

Many clinical questions arise during patient encounters that clinicians are unable to answer. An evidence-based medicine approach expects that clinicians will seek and apply the best available evidence to answer clinical questions. One commonly used source of such evidence is scientific literature, such as that available through MEDLINE and PubMed. Clinicians report that 2 key reasons why they do not use search systems to answer questions is that it takes too much time and that they do not expect to find a definitive answer. So, the question remains about how effectively scientific literature search systems support time-pressured clinicians in making better clinical decisions. The results of this study are important because they can help clinicians and health care organizations to better assess their needs with respect to clinical decision support (CDS) systems and evidence sources. The results and data captured will contribute a significant data collection to inform the design of future CDS systems to better meet the needs of time-pressured, practicing clinicians.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to understand the impact of using a scientific medical literature search system on clinical decision making. Furthermore, to understand the impact of realistic time pressures on clinicians, we vary the search time available to find clinical answers. Finally, we assess the impact of improvements in search system effectiveness on the same clinical decisions.

METHODS

In this study, 96 practicing clinicians and final year medical students are presented with 16 clinical questions which they must answer without access to any external resource. The same questions are then represented to the clinicians; however, in this part of the study, the clinicians can use a scientific literature search engine to find evidence to support their answers. The time pressures of practicing clinicians are simulated by limiting answer time to one of 3, 6, or 9 min per question. The correct answer rate is reported both before and after search to assess the impact of the search system and the time constraint. In addition, 2 search systems that use the same user interface, but which vary widely in their search effectiveness, are employed so that the impact of changes in search system effectiveness on clinical decision making can also be assessed.

RESULTS

Recruiting began for the study in June 2018. As of the April 4, 2019, there were 69 participants enrolled. The study is expected to close by May 30, 2019, with results to be published in July.

CONCLUSIONS

All data collected in this study will be made available at the University of Queensland's UQ eSpace public data repository.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/12803.

Development of electronic medical records for clinical and research purposes: the breast cancer module using an implementation framework in a middle income country- Malaysia

BACKGROUND

Advances in medical domain has led to an increase of clinical data production which offers enhancement opportunities for clinical research sector. In this paper, we propose to expand the scope of Electronic Medical Records in the University Malaya Medical Center (UMMC) using different techniques in establishing interoperability functions between multiple clinical departments involving diagnosis, screening and treatment of breast cancer and building automatic systems for clinical audits as well as for potential data mining to enhance clinical breast cancer research in the future.

RESULTS

Quality Implementation Framework (QIF) was adopted to develop the breast cancer module as part of the in-house EMR system used at UMMC, called i-Pesakit©. The completion of the i-Pesakit© Breast Cancer Module requires management of clinical data electronically, integration of clinical data from multiple internal clinical departments towards setting up of a research focused patient data governance model. The 14 QIF steps were performed in four main phases involved in this study which are (i) initial considerations regarding host setting, (ii) creating structure for implementation, (iii) ongoing structure once implementation begins, and (iv) improving future applications. The architectural framework of the module incorporates both clinical and research needs that comply to the Personal Data Protection Act.

CONCLUSION

The completion of the UMMC i-Pesakit© Breast Cancer Module required populating EMR including management of clinical data access, establishing information technology and research focused governance model and integrating clinical data from multiple internal clinical departments. This multidisciplinary collaboration has enhanced the quality of data capture in clinical service, benefited hospital data monitoring, quality assurance, audit reporting and research data management, as well as a framework for implementing a responsive EMR for a clinical and research organization in a typical middle-income country setting. Future applications include establishing integration with external organization such as the National Registration Department for mortality data, reporting of institutional data for national cancer registry as well as data mining for clinical research. We believe that integration of multiple clinical visit data sources provides a more comprehensive, accurate and real-time update of clinical data to be used for epidemiological studies and audits.

Clinicians' perceptions of usefulness of the PubMed4Hh mobile device application for clinical decision making at the point of care: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Although evidence-based practice in healthcare has been facilitated by Internet access through wireless mobile devices, research on the effectiveness of clinical decision support for clinicians at the point of care is lacking. This study examined how evidence as abstracts and the bottom-line summaries, accessed with PubMed4Hh mobile devices, affected clinicians' decision making at the point of care.

METHODS

Three iterative steps were taken to evaluate the usefulness of PubMed4Hh tools at the NIH Clinical Center. First, feasibility testing was conducted using data collected from a librarian. Next, usability testing was carried out by a postdoctoral research fellow shadowing clinicians during rounds for one month in the inpatient setting. Then, a pilot study was conducted from February, 2016 to January, 2017, with clinicians using a mobile version of PubMed4Hh. Invitations were sent via e-mail lists to clinicians (physicians, physician assistants and nurse practitioners) along with periodic reminders. Participants rated the usefulness of retrieved bottom-line summaries and abstracts and indicated their usefulness on a 7-point Likert scale. They also indicated location of use (office, rounds, etc.).

RESULTS

Of the 166 responses collected in the feasibility phase, more than half of questions (57%, n = 94) were answerable by both the librarian using various resources and by the postdoctoral research fellow using PubMed4Hh. Sixty-six questions were collected during usability testing. More than half of questions (60.6%) were related to information about medication or treatment, while 21% were questions regarding diagnosis, and 12% were specific to disease entities. During the pilot study, participants reviewed 34 abstracts and 40 bottom-line summaries. The abstracts' usefulness mean scores were higher (95% CI [6.12, 6.64) than the scores of the bottom-line summaries (95% CI [5.25, 6.10]). The most frequent reason given was that it confirmed current or tentative diagnostic or treatment plan. The bottom-line summaries were used more in the office (79.3%), and abstracts were used more at point of care (51.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians reported that retrieving relevant health information from biomedical literature using the PubMed4Hh was useful at the point of care and in the office.

Is There a Consensus when Physicians Evaluate the Relevance of Retrieved Systematic Reviews?

BACKGROUND

A significant challenge associated with practicing evidence-based medicine is to provide physicians with relevant clinical information when it is needed. At the same time it appears that the notion of relevance is subjective and its perception is affected by a number of contextual factors.

OBJECTIVES

To assess to what extent physicians agree on the relevance of evidence in the form of systematic reviews for a common set of patient cases, and to identify possible contextual factors that influence their perception of relevance.

METHODS

A web-based survey was used where pediatric emergency physicians from multiple academic centers across Canada were asked to evaluate the relevance of systematic reviews retrieved automatically for 14 written case vignettes (paper patients). The vignettes were derived from prospective data describing pediatric patients with asthma exacerbations presenting at the emergency department. To limit the cognitive burden on respondents, the number of reviews associated with each vignette was limited to three.

RESULTS

Twenty-two academic emergency physicians with varying years of clinical practice completed the survey. There was no consensus in their evaluation of relevance of the retrieved reviews and physicians' assessments ranged from very relevant to irrelevant evidence, with the majority of evaluations being somewhere in the middle. This indicates that the study participants did not share a notion of relevance uniformly. Further analysis of commentaries provided by the physicians allowed identifying three possible contextual factors: expected specificity of evidence (acute vs chronic condition), the terminology used in the systematic reviews, and the micro environment of clinical setting.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no consensus among physicians with regards to what constitutes relevant clinical evidence for a given patient case. Subsequently, this finding suggests that evidence retrieval systems should allow for deep customization with regards to physician's preferences and contextual factors, including differences in the micro environment of each clinical setting.

Impacts of mobile tablet computing on provider productivity, communications, and the process of care

OBJECTIVE

Health information technology investments continue to increase while the value derived from their implementation and use is mixed. Mobile device adoption into practice is a recent trend that has increased dramatically and formal studies are needed to investigate consequent benefits and challenges. The objective of this study is to evaluate practitioner perceptions of improvements in productivity, provider-patient communications, care provision, technology usability and other outcomes following the adoption and use of a tablet computer connected to electronic health information resources.

METHODS

A pilot program was initiated in June 2013 to evaluate the effect of mobile tablet computers at one health provider organization in the southeast United States. Providers were asked to volunteer for the evaluation and were each given a mobile tablet computer. A total of 42 inpatient and outpatient providers were interviewed in 2015 using a survey style questionnaire that utilized yes/no, Likert-style, and open ended questions. Each had previously used an electronic health record (EHR) system a minimum of one year outside of residency, and were regular users of personal mobile devices. Each used a mobile tablet computer in the context of their practice connected to the health system EHR.

RESULTS

The survey results indicate that more than half of providers perceive the use of the tablet device as having a positive effect on patient communications, patient education, patient's perception of the provider, time spent interacting with patients, provider productivity, process of care, satisfaction with EHR when used together with the device, and care provision. Providers also reported feeling comfortable using the device (82.9%), would recommend the device to colleagues (69.2%), did not experience increased information security and privacy concerns (95%), and noted significant reductions in EHR login times (64.1%). Less than 25% of participants reported negative impacts on any of these areas as well as on time spent on order submission, note completion time, overall workload, patient satisfaction with care experience and patient outcomes. Gender, number of years in practice, practice type (general practitioner vs. specialist), and service type (inpatient/outpatient) were found to have a significant effect on perceptions of patient satisfaction, care process, and provider productivity.

CONCLUSIONS

Providers found positive gains from utilizing mobile devices in overall productivity, improved communications with their patients, the process of care, and technology efficiencies when used in combination with EHR and other health information resources. Demographic and health care work environment play a role in how mobile technologies are integrated into practice by providers.