Arwen Bunce

Physician experiences transitioning between an older versus newer electronic health record for electronic prescribing

PURPOSE Federal incentives to adopt interoperable, certified electronic health records (EHRs) with electronic prescribing (e-prescribing) are motivating providers using older EHRs to transition to newer EHRs. The objective of this study was to describe, from the perspective of experienced EHR users, the transition from an older, locally developed EHR with minimal clinical decision support (CDS) for e-prescribing to a newer, commercial EHR with more robust CDS for e-prescribing. METHODS This qualitative, case study consisted of observations and semi-structured interviews of adult internal medicine faculty members (n=19) at an academic-affiliated ambulatory care clinic from January through November 2009. All providers transitioned from the older, locally developed EHR to the newer, commercial EHR in April 2008. We analyzed field notes of observations and transcripts of semi-structured interviews using qualitative methods guided by a grounded theory approach. RESULTS We identified key themes describing physician experiences. Despite intensive effort by the information systems team to ease the transition, even these experienced e-prescribers found transitioning extremely difficult. The commercial EHR was not perceived as improving medication safety, despite having more robust CDS. Additionally, physicians felt the commercial EHR was too complex, reducing their efficiency. CONCLUSIONS This is among the first studies examining physician experiences transitioning between an older, locally developed EHR to a newer, commercial EHR with more robust CDS for e-prescribing. Understanding physician experiences with this type of transition and their general preferences for prescribing applications may lead to less disruptive system implementations and better designed EHRs that are more readily accepted by providers. In this way, productivity and safety benefits may be maximized while mitigating potential threats associated with transitions. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT00603070.

Recommended practices for computerized clinical decision support and knowledge management in community settings: a qualitative study

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to identify recommended practices for computerized clinical decision support (CDS) development and implementation and for knowledge management (KM) processes in ambulatory clinics and community hospitals using commercial or locally developed systems in the U.S.MethodsGuided by the Multiple Perspectives Framework, the authors conducted ethnographic field studies at two community hospitals and five ambulatory clinic organizations across the U.S. Using a Rapid Assessment Process, a multidisciplinary research team: gathered preliminary assessment data; conducted on-site interviews, observations, and field surveys; analyzed data using both template and grounded methods; and developed universal themes. A panel of experts produced recommended practices.ResultsThe team identified ten themes related to CDS and KM. These include: 1) workflow; 2) knowledge management; 3) data as a foundation for CDS; 4) user computer interaction; 5) measurement and metrics; 6) governance; 7) translation for collaboration; 8) the meaning of CDS; 9) roles of special, essential people; and 10) communication, training, and support. Experts developed recommendations about each theme. The original Multiple Perspectives framework was modified to make explicit a new theoretical construct, that of Translational Interaction.ConclusionsThese ten themes represent areas that need attention if a clinic or community hospital plans to implement and successfully utilize CDS. In addition, they have implications for workforce education, research, and national-level policy development. The Translational Interaction construct could guide future applied informatics research endeavors.

Rapid Assessment of Clinical Information Systems in the Healthcare Setting

OBJECTIVE Recent legislation in the United States provides strong incentives for implementation of electronic health records (EHRs). The ensuing transformation in U.S. health care will increase demand for new methods to evaluate clinical informatics interventions. Timeline constraints and a rapidly changing environment will make traditional evaluation techniques burdensome. This paper describes an anthropological approach that provides a fast and flexible way to evaluate clinical information systems. METHODS Adapting mixed-method evaluation approaches from anthropology, we describe a rapid assessment process (RAP) for assessing clinical informatics interventions in health care that we developed and used during seven site visits to diverse community hospitals and primary care settings in the U.S. SETTING Our multidisciplinary team used RAP to evaluate factors that either encouraged people to use clinical decision support (CDS) systems or interfered with use of these systems in settings ranging from large urban hospitals to single-practitioner, private family practices in small towns. RESULTS Critical elements of the method include: 1) developing a fieldwork guide; 2) carefully selecting observation sites and participants; 3) thoroughly preparing for site visits; 4) partnering with local collaborators; 5) collecting robust data by using multiple researchers and methods; and 6) analyzing and reporting data in a structured manner helpful to the organizations being evaluated. CONCLUSIONS RAP, iteratively developed over the course of visits to seven clinical sites across the U.S., has succeeded in allowing a multidisciplinary team of informatics researchers to plan, gather and analyze data, and report results in a maximally efficient manner.

A qualitative study of the activities performed by people involved in clinical decision support: recommended practices for success

Objective To describe the activities performed by people involved in clinical decision support (CDS) at leading sites. Materials and methods We conducted ethnographic observations at seven diverse sites with a history of excellence in CDS using the Rapid Assessment Process and analyzed the data using a series of card sorts, informed by Linstones Multiple Perspectives Model. Results We identified 18 activities and grouped them into four areas. Area 1: Fostering relationships across the organization, with activities (a) training and support, (b) visibility/presence on the floor, (c) liaising between people, (d) administration and leadership, (e) project management, (f) cheerleading/buy-in/sponsorship, (g) preparing for CDS implementation. Area 2: Assembling the system with activities (a) providing technical support, (b) CDS content development, (c) purchasing products from vendors (d) knowledge management, (e) system integration. Area 3: Using CDS to achieve the organizations goals with activities (a) reporting, (b) requirements-gathering/specifications, (c) monitoring CDS, (d) linking CDS to goals, (e) managing data. Area 4: Participation in external policy and standards activities (this area consists of only a single activity). We also identified a set of recommendations associated with these 18 activities. Discussion All 18 activities we identified were performed at all sites, although the way they were organized into roles differed substantially. We consider these activities critical to the success of a CDS program. Conclusions A series of activities are performed by sites strong in CDS, and sites adopting CDS should ensure they incorporate these activities into their efforts.

Ethnographic process evaluation in primary care: explaining the complexity of implementation

BackgroundThe recent growth of implementation research in care delivery systems has led to a renewed interest in methodological approaches that deliver not only intervention outcome data but also deep understanding of the complex dynamics underlying the implementation process. We suggest that an ethnographic approach to process evaluation, when informed by and integrated with quantitative data, can provide this nuanced insight into intervention outcomes. The specific methods used in such ethnographic process evaluations are rarely presented in detail; our objective is to stimulate a conversation around the successes and challenges of specific data collection methods in health care settings. We use the example of a translational clinical trial among 11 community clinics in Portland, OR that are implementing an evidence-based, health-information technology (HIT)-based intervention focused on patients with diabetes.DiscussionOur ethnographic process evaluation employed weekly diaries by clinic-based study employees, observation, informal and formal interviews, document review, surveys, and group discussions to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation success, provide insight into the quantitative study outcomes, and uncover lessons potentially transferable to other implementation projects. These methods captured the depth and breadth of factors contributing to intervention uptake, while minimizing disruption to clinic work and supporting mid-stream shifts in implementation strategies. A major challenge is the amount of dedicated researcher time required.SummaryThe deep understanding of the ‘how’ and ‘why’ behind intervention outcomes that can be gained through an ethnographic approach improves the credibility and transferability of study findings. We encourage others to share their own experiences with ethnography in implementation evaluation and health services research, and to consider adapting the methods and tools described here for their own research.

Clinical decision support in small community practice settings: a case study

Using an eight-dimensional model for studying socio-technical systems, a multidisciplinary team of investigators identified barriers and facilitators to clinical decision support (CDS) implementation in a community setting, the Mid-Valley Independent Physicians Association in the Salem, Oregon area. The team used the Rapid Assessment Process, which included nine formal interviews with CDS stakeholders, and observation of 27 clinicians. The research team, which has studied 21 healthcare sites of various sizes over the past 12 years, believes this site is an excellent example of an organization which is using a commercially available electronic-health-record system with CDS well. The eight-dimensional model proved useful as an organizing structure for the evaluation.

Multiple perspectives on clinical decision support: a qualitative study of fifteen clinical and vendor organizations

BackgroundComputerized clinical decision support (CDS) can help hospitals to improve healthcare. However, CDS can be problematic. The purpose of this study was to discover how the views of clinical stakeholders, CDS content vendors, and EHR vendors are alike or different with respect to challenges in the development, management, and use of CDS.MethodsWe conducted ethnographic fieldwork using a Rapid Assessment Process within ten clinical and five health information technology (HIT) vendor organizations. Using an inductive analytical approach, we generated themes from the clinical, content vendor, and electronic health record vendor perspectives and compared them.ResultsThe groups share views on the importance of appropriate manpower, careful knowledge management, CDS that fits user workflow, the need for communication among the groups, and for mutual strategizing about the future of CDS. However, views of usability, training, metrics, interoperability, product use, and legal issues differed. Recommendations for improvement include increased collaboration to address legal, manpower, and CDS sharing issues.ConclusionsThe three groups share thinking about many aspects of CDS, but views differ in a number of important respects as well. Until these three groups can reach a mutual understanding of the views of the other stakeholders, and work together, CDS will not reach its potential.

Multiple perspectives on clinical decision support

BackgroundComputerized clinical decision support (CDS) can help hospitals to improve healthcare. However, CDS can be problematic. The purpose of this study was to discover how the views of clinical stakeholders, CDS content vendors, and EHR vendors are alike or different with respect to challenges in the development, management, and use of CDS.MethodsWe conducted ethnographic fieldwork using a Rapid Assessment Process within ten clinical and five health information technology (HIT) vendor organizations. Using an inductive analytical approach, we generated themes from the clinical, content vendor, and electronic health record vendor perspectives and compared them.ResultsThe groups share views on the importance of appropriate manpower, careful knowledge management, CDS that fits user workflow, the need for communication among the groups, and for mutual strategizing about the future of CDS. However, views of usability, training, metrics, interoperability, product use, and legal issues differed. Recommendations for improvement include increased collaboration to address legal, manpower, and CDS sharing issues.ConclusionsThe three groups share thinking about many aspects of CDS, but views differ in a number of important respects as well. Until these three groups can reach a mutual understanding of the views of the other stakeholders, and work together, CDS will not reach its potential.

Uninsured Patient Opinions about a Reduced-Fee Retainer Program at Academic Health Center Clinics

Background:Access Assured, an experimental program to deliver primary care to uninsured patients using a monthly retainer payment system, has been shown to provide a financially viable method of delivering primary care services to people without health insurance. This qualitative study was designed to assess patient attitudes and concerns about this program and to identify ways to improve it. Methods:We conducted telephone interviews with 40 purposefully selected Access Assured members between May and June of 2009. This population was stratified to include a sample of 20 patients from those who had elected to renew enrollment in the program after their first 6-month enrollment period. The other 20 patients were selected from those enrollees who had not re-enrolled in the program after this initial period. The semistructured interviews were based on an original list of 19 standardized questions, which were asked of each participant. All interviews were audio taped. The interview tapes were transcribed verbatim and content analysis was conducted using immersion-crystallization methods. Results:Content analysis identified 9 themes related to patient attitudes and concerns about this program. (1) Patients could not understand why they needed to remain enrolled if they were healthy. (2) Patients had variable levels of personal agency or responsibility for their own care. (3) Patients reported they had no choice and needed to enroll in the program to have access to care. (4) Patients liked that the program allowed them to choose their provider and see that provider with continuity from visit to visit. (5) Patients felt they were respected and treated the same as other patients. (6) Patients expressed appreciation for the program. (7) Patients had a range of comments about the quality of care and service they received. (8) Patients reported confusion about the rules of the program and often did not understand its terms and benefits. (9) Patients were under personal and family economic stress. Twenty of the subjects in our study had re-enrolled in Access Assured and 11 of the 20 patients who had not re-enrolled expressed an intention to do so. Conclusions:Our study population expressed gratitude and other positive opinions about the retainer-based program for uninsured patients in 2 academic family medicine clinics. Conversely, some were concerned about the perceived lack of choice related to enrollment. Significant gaps in patient understanding about the program were identified. Based on these results, we have made improvements to the program and plan to continue to offer this care model to uninsured patients in our practices.

Study protocol for “Study of Practices Enabling Implementation and Adaptation in the Safety Net (SPREAD-NET)”: a pragmatic trial comparing implementation strategies

BackgroundLittle research has directly compared the effectiveness of implementation strategies in any setting, and we know of no prior trials directly comparing how effectively different combinations of strategies support implementation in community health centers. This paper outlines the protocol of the Study of Practices Enabling Implementation and Adaptation in the Safety Net (SPREAD-NET), a trial designed to compare the effectiveness of several common strategies for supporting implementation of an intervention and explore contextual factors that impact the strategies’ effectiveness in the community health center setting.Methods/designThis cluster-randomized trial compares how three increasingly hands-on implementation strategies support adoption of an evidence-based diabetes quality improvement intervention in 29 community health centers, managed by 12 healthcare organizations. The strategies are as follows: (arm 1) a toolkit, presented in paper and electronic form, which includes a training webinar; (arm 2) toolkit plus in-person training with a focus on practice change and change management strategies; and (arm 3) toolkit, in-person training, plus practice facilitation with on-site visits. We use a mixed methods approach to data collection and analysis: (i) baseline surveys on study clinic characteristics, to explore how these characteristics impact the clinics’ ability to implement the tools and the effectiveness of each implementation strategy; (ii) quantitative data on change in rates of guideline-concordant prescribing; and (iii) qualitative data on the “how” and “why” underlying the quantitative results. The outcomes of interest are clinic-level results, categorized using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework, within an interrupted time-series design with segmented regression models. This pragmatic trial will compare how well each implementation strategy works in “real-world” practices.DiscussionHaving a better understanding of how different strategies support implementation efforts could positively impact the field of implementation science, by comparing practical, generalizable methods for implementing clinical innovations in community health centers. Bridging this gap in the literature is a critical step towards the national long-term goal of effectively disseminating and implementing effective interventions into community health centers.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02325531