Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:The improvements in care resulting from clinical decision support (CDS) have been significantly limited by consistently low health care provider adoption. Health care provider attitudes toward CDS, specifically psychological and behavioral barriers, are not typically addressed during any stage of CDS development, although they represent an important barrier to adoption. Emerging evidence has shown the surprising power of using insights from the field of behavioral economics to address psychological and behavioral barriers. Nudges are formal applications of behavioral economics, defined as positive reinforcement and indirect suggestions that have a nonforced effect on decision-making. OBJECTIVE:Our goal is to employ a user-centered design process to develop a CDS tool-the pulmonary embolism (PE) risk calculator-for PE risk stratification in the emergency department that incorporates a behavior theory-informed nudge to address identified behavioral barriers to use. METHODS:All study activities took place at a large academic health system in the New York City metropolitan area. Our study used a user-centered and behavior theory-based approach to achieve the following two aims: (1) use mixed methods to identify health care provider barriers to the use of an active CDS tool for PE risk stratification and (2) develop a new CDS tool-the PE risk calculator-that addresses behavioral barriers to health care providers' adoption of CDS by incorporating nudges into the user interface. These aims were guided by the revised Observational Research Behavioral Information Technology model. A total of 50 clinicians who used the original version of the tool were surveyed with a quantitative instrument that we developed based on a behavior theory framework-the Capability-Opportunity-Motivation-Behavior framework. A semistructured interview guide was developed based on the survey responses. Inductive methods were used to analyze interview session notes and audio recordings from 12 interviews. Revised versions of the tool were developed that incorporated nudges. RESULTS:Functional prototypes were developed by using Axure PRO (Axure Software Solutions) software and usability tested with end users in an iterative agile process (n=10). The tool was redesigned to address 4 identified major barriers to tool use; we included 2 nudges and a default. The 6-month pilot trial for the tool was launched on October 1, 2021. CONCLUSIONS:Clinicians highlighted several important psychological and behavioral barriers to CDS use. Addressing these barriers, along with conducting traditional usability testing, facilitated the development of a tool with greater potential to transform clinical care. The tool will be tested in a prospective pilot trial. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)/UNASSIGNED:DERR1-10.2196/42653.

Behavioral interventions have been shown to have powerful effects on human behavior both outside of and within the context of health care. As organizations increasingly adopt behavioral architecture, care must be taken to consider its potential negative consequences. An evidenced-based approach is best, whereby interventions that might have a significant deleterious effect on patients' health outcomes are first tested and rigorously evaluated before being systematically rolled out. In the case of clinical decision support, brief and thorough instructions should be provided for use. Physician performance when using these systems is best measured relatively, in the context of peers with similar training. Responsibility for errors must be shared with clinical team members and system designers.

We present a comprehensive Framework for Digital Health Equity, detailing key digital determinants of health (DDoH), to support the work of digital health tool creators in industry, health systems operations, and academia. The rapid digitization of healthcare may widen health disparities if solutions are not developed with these determinants in mind. Our framework builds on the leading health disparities framework, incorporating a digital environment domain. We examine DDoHs at the individual, interpersonal, community, and societal levels, discuss the importance of a root cause, multi-level approach, and offer a pragmatic case study that applies our framework.

OBJECTIVE:Increased utilization of CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA) for the evaluation of pulmonary embolism has been associated with decreasing diagnostic yields and rising concerns about the harms of unnecessary testing. The objective of this study was to determine whether clinical decision support (CDS) use would be associated with increased imaging yields after controlling for selection bias. METHODS:We performed a retrospective cohort study in the emergency departments of two tertiary care hospitals of all CTPAs performed between August 2015 and September 2018. Providers ordering a CTPA are routed to an optional CDS tool, which allows them to use Wells' Criteria for pulmonary embolism. After propensity score matching, CTPA yield was calculated for the CDS-use and CDS-dismissal groups and stratified by provider type. RESULTS:A total of 7,367 CTPAs were ordered during the study period. Of those, providers used the CDS tool in 2,568 (35%) cases and did not use the tool in 4,799 (65%) of cases. After propensity score matching, CTPA yield was 11.99% in the CDS-use group and 8.70% in the CDS-dismissal group (P < .001). Attending physicians, residents, and physician assistant CDS users demonstrated a 56.5% (P = .006), 38.7% (P = .01), and 16.7% (P = .03) increased yield compared with those who dismissed the tool, respectively. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Diagnostic yield was 38% higher for CTPAs when the provider used the CDS tool, after controlling for selection bias. Yields were higher for every provider type. Further research is needed to discover successful strategies to increase provider use of these important tools.

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:Nonadherence to antihypertensive medications is common. Mobile health (mHealth)-based behavioral economic interventions may improve adherence, but remain largely untested, especially in vulnerable populations. OBJECTIVE:The study sought to test whether an mHealth incentive lottery would lower systolic blood pressure (SBP) and improve adherence. METHODS:BETTER-BP (Behavioral Economics Trial To Enhance Regulation of Blood Pressure) was a randomized trial conducted in 3 safety-net clinics in New York City. Eligible participants were adults with hypertension prescribed at least 1 antihypertensive medication, with SBP >140 mm Hg, and poor self-reported adherence. In the intervention arm, an incentive lottery was administered via SMS messaging. All participants received passive adherence monitoring. The intervention lasted 6 months, with continued monitoring until 12 months. The primary clinical endpoint was change in SBP at 6 months. The primary process endpoint was adequate antihypertensive medication adherence (≥80% days adherent) from baseline to 6 months. RESULTS:Four-hundred participants (265 intervention:135 control) were enrolled with median age 57 years, 60.5% women, 61.5% Hispanic, and 20.3% non-Hispanic Black. Over 70% had Medicaid or no insurance. At 6 months, intervention arm participants were twice as likely to achieve adequate adherence (71% vs 34%; adjusted risk ratio: 2.04; 95% CI: 1.58-2.63), but there was no significant change in mean SBP (-6.7 mm Hg intervention vs -5.8 mm Hg control; P = 0.62). From 6 to 12 months, adherence was similar (31% intervention vs 26% control; adjusted risk ratio: 1.17; 95% CI: 0.83-1.65). CONCLUSIONS:In a diverse safety-net population, the BETTER-BP intervention doubled the rate of adequate antihypertensive medication adherence but did not reduce SBP at 6 months.

BACKGROUND:Health equity is receiving increased attention in medical education. However, guidance is often lacking on how to integrate health equity into routine medical education. Journal club presents an opportunity to deepen medical educators' and learners' understanding of health equity principles and use it as a lens through which to critically appraise the literature. AIM/OBJECTIVE:We present a health equity framework, iteratively co-created by faculty and learners, that can be applied in a journal club setting. SETTING/METHODS:Academic medical center in New York City, USA. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS:Faculty, residency program directors, medical students, and residents. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION/METHODS:Authors developed the health equity journal club framework during a medical student selective course. Learner and faculty applied the framework to journal club articles; their feedback informed revisions. Framework domains included authorship, ethics, methodology, language, peer review, and references. PROGRAM EVALUATION/RESULTS:Learner evaluations were overall positive, and 86% (n = 13) of responding residency program directors (n = 15) across 15 departments who were surveyed plan to use the framework moving forward. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:A health equity journal club framework applied to critical appraisal of the literature may facilitate health equity as a routine part of medical education. Co-creating the framework proved vital to inclusion of learner voices.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Usability testing is valuable for assessing a new tool or system's usefulness and ease-of-use. Several established methods of usability testing exist, including think-aloud testing. Although usability testing has been shown to be crucial for successful clinical decision support (CDS) tool development, it is often difficult to conduct across multisite development projects due to its time- and labor-intensiveness, cost, and the skills required to conduct the testing. OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:Our objective was to develop a new method of usability testing that would enable efficient acquisition and dissemination of results among multiple sites. We sought to address the existing barriers to successfully completing usability testing during CDS tool development. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We combined individual think-aloud testing and focus groups into one session and performed sessions serially across 4 sites (snowball group usability testing) to assess the usability of two CDS tools designed for use by nurses in primary and urgent care settings. We recorded each session and took notes in a standardized format. Each site shared feedback from their individual sessions with the other sites in the study so that they could incorporate that feedback into their tools prior to their own testing sessions. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:The group testing and snowballing components of our new usability testing method proved to be highly beneficial. We identified 3 main benefits of snowball group usability testing. First, by interviewing several participants in a single session rather than individuals over the course of weeks, each site was able to quickly obtain their usability feedback. Second, combining the individualized think-aloud component with a focus group component in the same session helped study teams to more easily notice similarities in feedback among participants and to discuss and act upon suggestions efficiently. Third, conducting usability testing in series across sites allowed study teams to incorporate feedback based on previous sites' sessions prior to conducting their own testing. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Snowball group usability testing provides an efficient method of obtaining multisite feedback on newly developed tools and systems, while addressing barriers typically associated with traditional usability testing methods. This method can be applied to test a wide variety of tools, including CDS tools, prior to launch so that they can be efficiently optimized.

OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:Our objective was to determine the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a behavioral nudge on adoption of a clinical decision support (CDS) tool. MATERIALS AND METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We conducted a pilot cluster nonrandomized controlled trial in 2 Emergency Departments (EDs) at a large academic healthcare system in the New York metropolitan area. We tested 2 versions of a CDS tool for pulmonary embolism (PE) risk assessment developed on a web-based electronic health record-agnostic platform. One version included behavioral nudges incorporated into the user interface. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED: < .001). DISCUSSION/UNASSIGNED:We demonstrated feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a PE risk prediction CDS tool developed using insights from behavioral science. The tool is well-positioned to be tested in a large randomized clinical trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION/UNASSIGNED:Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05203185).