Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Clinical decision support (CDS) is a promising tool for reducing antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infections (ARIs). OBJECTIVE:To assess the impact of previously effective CDS on antibiotic-prescribing rates for ARIs when adapted and implemented in diverse primary care settings. DESIGN/METHODS:Cluster randomized clinical trial (RCT) implementing a CDS tool designed to guide evidence-based evaluation and treatment of streptococcal pharyngitis and pneumonia. SETTING/METHODS:Two large academic health system primary care networks with a mix of providers. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:All primary care practices within each health system were invited. All providers within participating clinic were considered a participant. Practices were randomized selection to a control or intervention group. INTERVENTIONS/METHODS:Intervention practice providers had access to an integrated clinical prediction rule (iCPR) system designed to determine the risk of bacterial infection from reason for visit of sore throat, cough, or upper respiratory infection and guide evidence-based evaluation and treatment. MAIN OUTCOME(S)/UNASSIGNED:Change in overall antibiotic prescription rates. MEASURE(S)/UNASSIGNED:Frequency, rates, and type of antibiotics prescribed in intervention and controls groups. RESULTS:33 primary care practices participated with 541 providers and 100,573 patient visits. Intervention providers completed the tool in 6.9% of eligible visits. Antibiotics were prescribed in 35% and 36% of intervention and control visits, respectively, showing no statistically significant difference. There were also no differences in rates of orders for rapid streptococcal tests (RR, 0.94; P = 0.11) or chest X-rays (RR, 1.01; P = 0.999) between groups. CONCLUSIONS:The iCPR tool was not effective in reducing antibiotic prescription rates for upper respiratory infections in diverse primary care settings. This has implications for the generalizability of CDS tools as they are adapted to heterogeneous clinical contexts. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02534987). Registered August 26, 2015 at https://clinicaltrials.gov.

There is minimal information on COVID-19 in immunocompromised individuals. We have studied 10 patients treated at 12 adult care hospitals. Ten kidney transplant recipients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by PCR, and 9 were admitted. The median age was 57 (IQR 47-67), 60% were male, 40% Caucasian, and 30% Black/African American. Median time from transplant to COVID-19 testing was 2822 days (IQR 1272-4592). The most common symptom was fever, followed by cough, myalgia, chills, and fatigue. The most common CXR and CT abnormality was multifocal patchy opacities. 3 patients had no abnormal findings. Leukopenia was seen in 20% of patients, and allograft function was stable in 50% of patients. 9 patients were on tacrolimus and a mycophenolic antimetabolite, and 70% were on prednisone. Hospitalized patients had their antimetabolite agent stopped. All hospitalized patients received hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and azithromycin. 3 patients died (30%), five (50%) developed acute kidney injury. Kidney transplant recipients infected with COVID-19 should be monitored closely in the setting of lowered immunosuppression. Most individuals required hospitalization and presenting symptoms were similar to those of non-transplant individuals.

Importance/UNASSIGNED:There is limited information describing the presenting characteristics and outcomes of US patients requiring hospitalization for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Objective/UNASSIGNED:To describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 hospitalized in a US health care system. Design, Setting, and Participants/UNASSIGNED:Case series of patients with COVID-19 admitted to 12 hospitals in New York City, Long Island, and Westchester County, New York, within the Northwell Health system. The study included all sequentially hospitalized patients between March 1, 2020, and April 4, 2020, inclusive of these dates. Exposures/UNASSIGNED:Confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection by positive result on polymerase chain reaction testing of a nasopharyngeal sample among patients requiring admission. Main Outcomes and Measures/UNASSIGNED:Clinical outcomes during hospitalization, such as invasive mechanical ventilation, kidney replacement therapy, and death. Demographics, baseline comorbidities, presenting vital signs, and test results were also collected. Results/UNASSIGNED:A total of 5700 patients were included (median age, 63 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 52-75; range, 0-107 years]; 39.7% female). The most common comorbidities were hypertension (3026; 56.6%), obesity (1737; 41.7%), and diabetes (1808; 33.8%). At triage, 30.7% of patients were febrile, 17.3% had a respiratory rate greater than 24 breaths/minute, and 27.8% received supplemental oxygen. The rate of respiratory virus co-infection was 2.1%. Outcomes were assessed for 2634 patients who were discharged or had died at the study end point. During hospitalization, 373 patients (14.2%) (median age, 68 years [IQR, 56-78]; 33.5% female) were treated in the intensive care unit care, 320 (12.2%) received invasive mechanical ventilation, 81 (3.2%) were treated with kidney replacement therapy, and 553 (21%) died. Mortality for those requiring mechanical ventilation was 88.1%. The median postdischarge follow-up time was 4.4 days (IQR, 2.2-9.3). A total of 45 patients (2.2%) were readmitted during the study period. The median time to readmission was 3 days (IQR, 1.0-4.5) for readmitted patients. Among the 3066 patients who remained hospitalized at the final study follow-up date (median age, 65 years [IQR, 54-75]), the median follow-up at time of censoring was 4.5 days (IQR, 2.4-8.1). Conclusions and Relevance/UNASSIGNED:This case series provides characteristics and early outcomes of sequentially hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 in the New York City area.

BACKGROUND:Successful clinical decision support (CDS) tools can help use evidence-based medicine to effectively improve patient outcomes. However, the impact of these tools has been limited by low provider adoption due to overtriggering, leading to alert fatigue. We developed a tracking mechanism for monitoring trigger (percent of total visits for which the tool triggers) and adoption (percent of completed tools) rates of a complex CDS tool based on the Wells criteria for pulmonary embolism (PE). OBJECTIVE:We aimed to monitor and evaluate the adoption and trigger rates of the tool and assess whether ongoing tool modifications would improve adoption rates. METHODS:As part of a larger clinical trial, a CDS tool was developed using the Wells criteria to calculate pretest probability for PE at 2 tertiary centers' emergency departments (EDs). The tool had multiple triggers: any order for D-dimer, computed tomography (CT) of the chest with intravenous contrast, CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA), ventilation-perfusion scan, or lower extremity Doppler ultrasound. A tracking dashboard was developed using Tableau to monitor real-time trigger and adoption rates. Based on initial low provider adoption rates of the tool, we conducted small focus groups with key ED providers to elicit barriers to tool use. We identified overtriggering of the tool for non-PE-related evaluations and inability to order CT testing for intermediate-risk patients. Thus, the tool was modified to allow CT testing for the intermediate-risk group and not to trigger for CT chest with intravenous contrast orders. A dialogue box, "Are you considering PE for this patient?" was added before the tool triggered to account for CTPAs ordered for aortic dissection evaluation. RESULTS:In the ED of tertiary center 1, 95,295 patients visited during the academic year. The tool triggered for an average of 509 patients per month (average trigger rate 2036/30,234, 6.73%) before the modifications, reducing to 423 patients per month (average trigger rate 1629/31,361, 5.22%). In the ED of tertiary center 2, 88,956 patients visited during the academic year, with the tool triggering for about 473 patients per month (average trigger rate 1892/29,706, 6.37%) before the modifications and for about 400 per month (average trigger rate 1534/30,006, 5.12%) afterward. The modifications resulted in a significant 4.5- and 3-fold increase in provider adoption rates in tertiary centers 1 and 2, respectively. The modifications increased the average monthly adoption rate from 23.20/360 (6.5%) tools to 81.60/280.20 (29.3%) tools and 46.60/318.80 (14.7%) tools to 111.20/263.40 (42.6%) tools in centers 1 and 2, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:Close postimplementation monitoring of CDS tools may help improve provider adoption. Adaptive modifications based on user feedback may increase targeted CDS with lower trigger rates, reducing alert fatigue and increasing provider adoption. Iterative improvements and a postimplementation monitoring dashboard can significantly improve adoption rates.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0038915.].

The main focus of this study is bridging the "evidence gap" between frontline decision-making in health care and the actual evidence, with the hope of reducing unnecessary diagnostic testing and treatments. From our work in pulmonary embolism (PE) and over ordering of computed tomography pulmonary angiography, we integrated the highly validated Wells' criteria into the electronic health record at two of our major academic tertiary hospitals. The Wells' clinical decision support tool triggered for patients being evaluated for PE and therefore determined a patients' pretest probability for having a PE. There were 12,759 patient visits representing 11,836 patients, 51% had no D-dimer, 41% had a negative D-dimer, and 9% had a positive D-dimer. Our study gave us an opportunity to determine which patients were very low probabilities for PE, with no need for further testing.

BACKGROUND:Potential of the electronic health records (EHR) and clinical decision support (CDS) systems to improve the practice of medicine has been tempered by poor design and the resulting burden they place on providers. CDS is rarely tested in the real clinical environment. As a result, many tools are hard to use, placing strain on providers and resulting in low adoption rates. The existing CDS usability literature relies primarily on expert opinion and provider feedback via survey. This is the first study to evaluate CDS usability and the provider-computer-patient interaction with complex CDS in the real clinical environment. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to further understand the barriers and facilitators of meaningful CDS usage within a real clinical context. METHODS:This qualitative observational study was conducted with 3 primary care providers during 6 patient care sessions. In patients with the chief complaint of sore throat, a CDS tool built with the Centor Score was used to stratify the risk of group A Streptococcus pharyngitis. In patients with a chief complaint of cough or upper respiratory tract infection, a CDS tool built with the Heckerling Rule was used to stratify the risk of pneumonia. During usability testing, all human-computer interactions, including audio and continuous screen capture, were recorded using the Camtasia software. Participants' comments and interactions with the tool during clinical sessions and participant comments during a postsession brief interview were placed into coding categories and analyzed for generalizable themes. RESULTS:In the 6 encounters observed, primary care providers toggled between addressing either the computer or the patient during the visit. Minimal time was spent listening to the patient without engaging the EHR. Participants mostly used the CDS tool with the patient, asking questions to populate the calculator and discussing the results of the risk assessment; they reported the ability to do this as the major benefit of the tool. All providers were interrupted during their use of the CDS tool by the need to refer to other sections of the chart. In half of the visits, patients' clinical symptoms challenged the applicability of the tool to calculate the risk of bacterial infection. Primary care providers rarely used the incorporated incentives for CDS usage, including progress notes and patient instructions. CONCLUSIONS:Live usability testing of these CDS tools generated insights about their role in the patient-provider interaction. CDS may contribute to the interaction by being simultaneously viewed by the provider and patient. CDS can improve usability and lessen the strain it places on providers by being short, flexible, and customizable to unique provider workflow. A useful component of CDS is being as widely applicable as possible and ensuring that its functions represent the fastest way to perform a particular task.

OBJECTIVE:We conducted pre-deployment usability testing and semi-structured group interviews at 6 months post-deployment with 75 providers at 14 intervention clinics across the two sites to collect user feedback. Qualitative data analysis is bifurcated into immediate and delayed stages; we reported on immediate-stage findings from real-time field notes used to generate a set of rapid, pragmatic recommendations for iterative refinement. Monthly utilization rates were calculated and examined over 12 months. RESULTS:We hypothesized a well-validated, user-centered clinical decision support tool would lead to relatively high adoption rates. Then 6 months post-deployment, integrated clinical prediction rule study tool utilization rates were substantially lower than anticipated based on the original integrated clinical prediction rule study trial (68%) at 17% (Health System A) and 5% (Health System B). User feedback at 6 months resulted in recommendations for tool refinement, which were incorporated when possible into tool design; however, utilization rates at 12 months post-deployment remained low at 14% and 4% respectively. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Although valuable, findings demonstrate the limitations of a user-centered approach given the complexity of clinical decision support. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Strategies for addressing persistent external factors impacting clinical decision support adoption should be considered in addition to the user-centered design and implementation of clinical decision support.

BACKGROUND:Use of computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA) in the assessment of pulmonary embolism (PE) has markedly increased over the past two decades. While this technology has improved the accuracy of radiological testing for PE, CTPA also carries the risk of substantial iatrogenic harm. Each CTPA carries a 14% risk of contrast-induced nephropathy and a lifetime malignancy risk that can be as high as 2.76%. The appropriate use of CTPA can be estimated by monitoring the CTPA yield, the percentage of tests positive for PE. This is the first study to propose and validate a computerized method for measuring the CTPA yield in the emergency department (ED). OBJECTIVE:The objective of our study was to assess the validity of a novel computerized method of calculating the CTPA yield in the ED. METHODS:The electronic health record databases at two tertiary care academic hospitals were queried for CTPA orders completed in the ED over 1-month periods. These visits were linked with an inpatient admission with a discharge diagnosis of PE based on the International Classification of Diseases codes. The computerized the CTPA yield was calculated as the number of CTPA orders with an associated inpatient discharge diagnosis of PE divided by the total number of orders for completed CTPA. This computerized method was then validated by 2 independent reviewers performing a manual chart review, which included reading the free-text radiology reports for each CTPA. RESULTS:A total of 349 CTPA orders were completed during the 1-month periods at the two institutions. Of them, acute PE was diagnosed on CTPA in 28 studies, with a CTPA yield of 7.7%. The computerized method correctly identified 27 of 28 scans positive for PE. The one discordant scan was tied to a patient who was discharged directly from the ED and, as a result, never received an inpatient discharge diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS:This is the first successful validation study of a computerized method for calculating the CTPA yield in the ED. This method for data extraction allows for an accurate determination of the CTPA yield and is more efficient than manual chart review. With this ability, health care systems can monitor the appropriate use of CTPA and the effect of interventions to reduce overuse and decrease preventable iatrogenic harm.