Effects of a Guideline-Informed Clinical Decision Support System Intervention to Improve Colony-Stimulating Factor Prescribing: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

Advancing acceptance: assessing acceptance of the ESR iGuide clinical decision support system for improved computed tomography test justification

Background

A clinical decision support system (CDSS), the European Society of Radiologists (ESR) iGuide, was developed to address gaps in the availability and use of effective imaging referral guidelines.

Aim

This study aimed to assess the appropriateness of computed tomography (CT) exams with and without ESR iGuide use, as well as the usability and acceptance of the physician systems.

Methods

A retrospective single-center study was conducted in which data from 278 consecutive CT tests referred by physicians were collected in the first phase (T1), and physicians used the ESR iGuide system for imaging referrals in the second phase (T2; n = 85). The appropriateness of imaging referrals in each phase was assessed by two experts, and physicians completed the System Usability Scale.

Results

The mean appropriateness level on a scale of 0-9 was 6.62 ± 2.69 at T1 and 7.88 ± 1.4 at T2. When using a binary variable (0-6 = non-appropriate; 7-9 = appropriate), 70.14% of cases were found appropriate at T1 and 96.47% at T2. Surgery physician specialty and post-intervention phase showed a higher likelihood of ordering an appropriate test (p = 0.0045 and p = 0.0003, respectively). However, the questionnaire results indicated low system trust and minimal clinical value, with all physicians indicating they would not recommend collegial use (100%).

Conclusion

The study suggests that ESR iGuide can effectively guide the selection of appropriate imaging tests. However, physicians showed low system trust and use, indicating a need for further understanding of CDSS acceptance properties. Maximizing CDSS potential could result in crucial decision-support compliance and promotion of appropriate imaging.

Intervention Nonadherence in the TrACER (S1415CD) Study: A Pragmatic Randomized Trial of a Standardized Order Entry for CSF Prescribing

PURPOSE

We conducted a pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial to test whether a guideline-based standing order entry (SOE) improves use of primary prophylactic CSF (PP-CSF) prescribing for patients receiving myelosuppressive chemotherapy. We investigated variability in adherence to the intervention.

METHODS

We conducted a cluster-randomized trial among 32 oncology clinics from the NCI Community Oncology Research Program. Clinics were randomized 3:1 to a guideline-based PP-CSF SOE or usual care. Among SOE sites, automated orders for PP-CSF were included for regimens at high risk for febrile neutropenia (FN) and an alert not to use PP-CSF for low FN risk. A secondary 1:1 randomization was done among intervention sites to either SOE to prescribe or an alert to not prescribe PP-CSF for patients receiving intermediate risk-regimens. Providers were allowed to override the SOE.

RESULTS

Overall, PP-CSF use among patients receiving high FN risk treatment was high and not different between arms; however, rates of PP-CSF use varied widely by site, ranging from 48.6% to 100%. Among those receiving low FN risk regimens, PP-CSF use was low and not different between arms; however, PP-CSF use ranged from 0% to 19.4% across sites. In the intermediate-risk substudy, PP-CSF was five-fold higher among sites randomized to SOE; however, there was considerable variability in adherence to intervention assignment: PP-CSF use ranged from 0% to 75% among sites randomized to SOE. Despite an alert to not prescribe, PP-CSF prescribing ranged from 0% to 33%.

CONCLUSION

In this randomized pragmatic trial aimed at improving PP-CSF prescribing, there was substantial variability in site adherence to the intervention assignment. Although the ability to opt out of the intervention is a feature of pragmatic trials, planning to estimate nonadherence is critical to ensure adequate power.