Linas Simonaitis

The state of the art in clinical knowledge management: An inventory of tools and techniques

PURPOSE To explore the need for, and use of, high-quality, collaborative, clinical knowledge management (CKM) tools and techniques to manage clinical decision support (CDS) content. METHODS In order to better understand the current state of the art in CKM, we developed a survey of potential CKM tools and techniques. We conducted an exploratory study by querying a convenience sample of respondents about their use of specific practices in CKM. RESULTS The following tools and techniques should be priorities in organizations interested in developing successful computer-based provider order entry (CPOE) and CDS implementations: (1) a multidisciplinary team responsible for creating and maintaining the clinical content; (2) an external organizational repository of clinical content with web-based viewer that allows anyone in the organization to review it; (3) an online, collaborative, interactive, Internet-based tool to facilitate content development; (4) an enterprise-wide tool to maintain the controlled clinical terminology concepts. Even organizations that have been successfully using computer-based provider order entry with advanced clinical decision support features for well over 15 years are not using all of the CKM tools or practices that we identified. CONCLUSIONS If we are to further stimulate progress in the area of clinical decision support, we must continue to develop and refine our understanding and use of advanced CKM capabilities.

Development and evaluation of a comprehensive clinical decision support taxonomy: comparison of front-end tools in commercial and internally developed electronic health record systems

BACKGROUND Clinical decision support (CDS) is a valuable tool for improving healthcare quality and lowering costs. However, there is no comprehensive taxonomy of types of CDS and there has been limited research on the availability of various CDS tools across current electronic health record (EHR) systems. OBJECTIVE To develop and validate a taxonomy of front-end CDS tools and to assess support for these tools in major commercial and internally developed EHRs. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS We used a modified Delphi approach with a panel of 11 decision support experts to develop a taxonomy of 53 front-end CDS tools. Based on this taxonomy, a survey on CDS tools was sent to a purposive sample of commercial EHR vendors (n=9) and leading healthcare institutions with internally developed state-of-the-art EHRs (n=4). RESULTS Responses were received from all healthcare institutions and 7 of 9 EHR vendors (response rate: 85%). All 53 types of CDS tools identified in the taxonomy were found in at least one surveyed EHR system, but only 8 functions were present in all EHRs. Medication dosing support and order facilitators were the most commonly available classes of decision support, while expert systems (eg, diagnostic decision support, ventilator management suggestions) were the least common. CONCLUSION We developed and validated a comprehensive taxonomy of front-end CDS tools. A subsequent survey of commercial EHR vendors and leading healthcare institutions revealed a small core set of common CDS tools, but identified significant variability in the remainder of clinical decision support content.

A pilot study of distributed knowledge management and clinical decision support in the cloud

OBJECTIVE Implement and perform pilot testing of web-based clinical decision support services using a novel framework for creating and managing clinical knowledge in a distributed fashion using the cloud. The pilot sought to (1) develop and test connectivity to an external clinical decision support (CDS) service, (2) assess the exchange of data to and knowledge from the external CDS service, and (3) capture lessons to guide expansion to more practice sites and users. MATERIALS AND METHODS The Clinical Decision Support Consortium created a repository of shared CDS knowledge for managing hypertension, diabetes, and coronary artery disease in a community cloud hosted by Partners HealthCare. A limited data set for primary care patients at a separate health system was securely transmitted to a CDS rules engine hosted in the cloud. Preventive care reminders triggered by the limited data set were returned for display to clinician end users for review and display. During a pilot study, we (1) monitored connectivity and system performance, (2) studied the exchange of data and decision support reminders between the two health systems, and (3) captured lessons. RESULTS During the six month pilot study, there were 1339 patient encounters in which information was successfully exchanged. Preventive care reminders were displayed during 57% of patient visits, most often reminding physicians to monitor blood pressure for hypertensive patients (29%) and order eye exams for patients with diabetes (28%). Lessons learned were grouped into five themes: performance, governance, semantic interoperability, ongoing adjustments, and usability. DISCUSSION Remote, asynchronous cloud-based decision support performed reasonably well, although issues concerning governance, semantic interoperability, and usability remain key challenges for successful adoption and use of cloud-based CDS that will require collaboration between biomedical informatics and computer science disciplines. CONCLUSION Decision support in the cloud is feasible and may be a reasonable path toward achieving better support of clinical decision-making across the widest range of health care providers.

Lessons learned from implementing service-oriented clinical decision support at four sites: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE To identify challenges, lessons learned and best practices for service-oriented clinical decision support, based on the results of the Clinical Decision Support Consortium, a multi-site study which developed, implemented and evaluated clinical decision support services in a diverse range of electronic health records. METHODS Ethnographic investigation using the rapid assessment process, a procedure for agile qualitative data collection and analysis, including clinical observation, system demonstrations and analysis and 91 interviews. RESULTS We identified challenges and lessons learned in eight dimensions: (1) hardware and software computing infrastructure, (2) clinical content, (3) human-computer interface, (4) people, (5) workflow and communication, (6) internal organizational policies, procedures, environment and culture, (7) external rules, regulations, and pressures and (8) system measurement and monitoring. Key challenges included performance issues (particularly related to data retrieval), differences in terminologies used across sites, workflow variability and the need for a legal framework. DISCUSSION Based on the challenges and lessons learned, we identified eight best practices for developers and implementers of service-oriented clinical decision support: (1) optimize performance, or make asynchronous calls, (2) be liberal in what you accept (particularly for terminology), (3) foster clinical transparency, (4) develop a legal framework, (5) support a flexible front-end, (6) dedicate human resources, (7) support peer-to-peer communication, (8) improve standards. CONCLUSION The Clinical Decision Support Consortium successfully developed a clinical decision support service and implemented it in four different electronic health records and four diverse clinical sites; however, the process was arduous. The lessons identified by the Consortium may be useful for other developers and implementers of clinical decision support services.

Comparison of computer-based clinical decision support systems and content for diabetes mellitus

BACKGROUND Computer-based clinical decision support (CDS) systems have been shown to improve quality of care and workflow efficiency, and health care reform legislation relies on electronic health records and CDS systems to improve the cost and quality of health care in the United States; however, the heterogeneity of CDS content and infrastructure of CDS systems across sites is not well known. OBJECTIVE We aimed to determine the scope of CDS content in diabetes care at six sites, assess the capabilities of CDS in use at these sites, characterize the scope of CDS infrastructure at these sites, and determine how the sites use CDS beyond individual patient care in order to identify characteristics of CDS systems and content that have been successfully implemented in diabetes care. METHODS We compared CDS systems in six collaborating sites of the Clinical Decision Support Consortium. We gathered CDS content on care for patients with diabetes mellitus and surveyed institutions on characteristics of their site, the infrastructure of CDS at these sites, and the capabilities of CDS at these sites. RESULTS The approach to CDS and the characteristics of CDS content varied among sites. Some commonalities included providing customizability by role or user, applying sophisticated exclusion criteria, and using CDS automatically at the time of decision-making. Many messages were actionable recommendations. Most sites had monitoring rules (e.g. assessing hemoglobin A1c), but few had rules to diagnose diabetes or suggest specific treatments. All sites had numerous prevention rules including reminders for providing eye examinations, influenza vaccines, lipid screenings, nephropathy screenings, and pneumococcal vaccines. CONCLUSION Computer-based CDS systems vary widely across sites in content and scope, but both institution-created and purchased systems had many similar features and functionality, such as integration of alerts and reminders into the decision-making workflow of the provider and providing messages that are actionable recommendations.

Querying the National Drug File Reference Terminology (NDFRT) to assign drugs to decision support categories.

INTRODUCTION The accurate categorization of drugs is a prerequisite for decision support rules. The manual process of creating drug classes can be laborious and error-prone. METHODS All 142 drug classes currently used at Regenstrief Institute for drug interaction alerts were extracted. These drug classes were replicated as fully-defined concepts in our local instance of the NDFRT knowledge base. The performance of these two strategies (manual classification vs. NDFRT-based queries) was compared, and the sensitivity and specificity of each was calculated. RESULTS Compared to existing manual classifications, NDFRT-based queries made a greater number of correct class-drug assignments: 1528 vs. 1266. NDFRT queries have greater sensitivity (74.9% vs. 62.1%) to classify drugs. However, they have less specificity (85.6% vs. 99.8%). CONCLUSION The NDFRT knowledge base shows promise for use in an automated strategy to improve the creation and update of drug classes. The chief disadvantage of our NDFRT-based approach was a greater number of false positive assignments due to the inclusion of non-systemic doseforms.