GLORIA

GEOMAR Library Ocean Research Information Access

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    In: JAMIA Open, Oxford University Press (OUP), Vol. 6, No. 2 ( 2023-04-06)
    Abstract: To describe a user-centered approach to develop, pilot test, and refine requirements for 3 electronic health record (EHR)-integrated interventions that target key diagnostic process failures in hospitalized patients. Materials and Methods Three interventions were prioritized for development: a Diagnostic Safety Column (DSC) within an EHR-integrated dashboard to identify at-risk patients; a Diagnostic Time-Out (DTO) for clinicians to reassess the working diagnosis; and a Patient Diagnosis Questionnaire (PDQ) to gather patient concerns about the diagnostic process. Initial requirements were refined from analysis of test cases with elevated risk predicted by DSC logic compared to risk perceived by a clinician working group; DTO testing sessions with clinicians; PDQ responses from patients; and focus groups with clinicians and patient advisors using storyboarding to model the integrated interventions. Mixed methods analysis of participant responses was used to identify final requirements and potential implementation barriers. Results Final requirements from analysis of 10 test cases predicted by the DSC, 18 clinician DTO participants, and 39 PDQ responses included the following: DSC configurable parameters (variables, weights) to adjust baseline risk estimates in real-time based on new clinical data collected during hospitalization; more concise DTO wording and flexibility for clinicians to conduct the DTO with or without the patient present; and integration of PDQ responses into the DSC to ensure closed-looped communication with clinicians. Analysis of focus groups confirmed that tight integration of the interventions with the EHR would be necessary to prompt clinicians to reconsider the working diagnosis in cases with elevated diagnostic error (DE) risk or uncertainty. Potential implementation barriers included alert fatigue and distrust of the risk algorithm (DSC); time constraints, redundancies, and concerns about disclosing uncertainty to patients (DTO); and patient disagreement with the care team’s diagnosis (PDQ). Discussion A user-centered approach led to evolution of requirements for 3 interventions targeting key diagnostic process failures in hospitalized patients at risk for DE. Conclusions We identify challenges and offer lessons from our user-centered design process.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2574-2531
    Language: English
    Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
    Publication Date: 2023
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2940623-7
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    In: Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, Oxford University Press (OUP), Vol. 28, No. 4 ( 2021-03-18), p. 704-712
    Abstract: To evaluate the effect of electronic health record (EHR)-integrated digital health tools comprised of a checklist and video on transitions-of-care outcomes for patients preparing for discharge. Materials and Methods English-speaking, general medicine patients ( & gt;18 years) hospitalized at least 24 hours at an academic medical center in Boston, MA were enrolled before and after implementation. A structured checklist and video were administered on a mobile device via a patient portal or web-based survey at least 24 hours prior to anticipated discharge. Checklist responses were available for clinicians to review in real time via an EHR-integrated safety dashboard. The primary outcome was patient activation at discharge assessed by patient activation (PAM)-13. Secondary outcomes included postdischarge patient activation, hospital operational metrics, healthcare resource utilization assessed by 30-day follow-up calls and administrative data and change in patient activation from discharge to 30 days postdischarge. Results Of 673 patients approached, 484 (71.9%) enrolled. The proportion of activated patients (PAM level 3 or 4) at discharge was nonsignificantly higher for the 234 postimplementation compared with the 245 preimplementation participants (59.8% vs 56.7%, adjusted OR 1.23 [0.38, 3.96], P = .73). Postimplementation participants reported 3.75 (3.02) concerns via the checklist. Mean length of stay was significantly higher for postimplementation compared with preimplementation participants (10.13 vs 6.21, P  & lt; .01). While there was no effect on postdischarge outcomes, there was a nonsignificant decrease in change in patient activation within participants from pre- to postimplementation (adjusted difference-in-difference of −16.1% (9.6), P = .09). Conclusions EHR-integrated digital health tools to prepare patients for discharge did not significantly increase patient activation and was associated with a longer length of stay. While issues uncovered by the checklist may have encouraged patients to inquire about their discharge preparedness, other factors associated with patient activation and length of stay may explain our observations. We offer insights for using PAM-13 in context of real-world health-IT implementations. Trial Registration NIH US National Library of Medicine, NCT03116074, clinicaltrials.gov
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1527-974X
    Language: English
    Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
    Publication Date: 2021
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2018371-9
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    In: Journal of Medical Internet Research, JMIR Publications Inc., Vol. 22, No. 4 ( 2020-4-28), p. e15573-
    Abstract: Poor discharge preparation during hospitalization may lead to adverse events after discharge. Checklists and videos that systematically engage patients in preparing for discharge have the potential to improve safety, especially when integrated into clinician workflow via the electronic health record (EHR). Objective This study aims to evaluate the implementation of a suite of digital health tools integrated with the EHR to engage hospitalized patients, caregivers, and their care team in preparing for discharge. Methods We used the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to identify pertinent research questions related to implementation. We iteratively refined patient and clinician-facing intervention components using a participatory process involving end users and institutional stakeholders. The intervention was implemented at a large academic medical center from December 2017 to July 2018. Patients who agreed to participate were coached to watch a discharge video, complete a checklist assessing discharge readiness, and request postdischarge text messaging with a physician 24 to 48 hours before their expected discharge date, which was displayed via a patient portal and bedside display. Clinicians could view concerns reported by patients based on their checklist responses in real time via a safety dashboard integrated with the EHR and choose to open a secure messaging thread with the patient for up to 7 days after discharge. We used mixed methods to evaluate our implementation experience. Results Of 752 patient admissions, 510 (67.8%) patients or caregivers participated: 416 (55.3%) watched the video and completed the checklist, and 94 (12.5%) completed the checklist alone. On average, 4.24 concerns were reported per each of the 510 checklist submissions, most commonly about medications (664/2164, 30.7%) and follow-up (656/2164, 30.3%). Of the 510 completed checklists, a member of the care team accessed the safety dashboard to view 210 (41.2%) patient-reported concerns. For 422 patient admissions where postdischarge messaging was available, 141 (33.4%) patients requested this service; of these, a physician initiated secure messaging for 3 (2.1%) discharges. Most patient survey participants perceived that the intervention promoted self-management and communication with their care team. Patient interview participants endorsed gaps in communication with their care team and thought that the video and checklist would be useful closer toward discharge. Clinicians participating in focus groups perceived the value for patients but suggested that low awareness and variable workflow regarding the intervention, lack of technical optimization, and inconsistent clinician leadership limited the use of clinician-facing components. Conclusions A suite of EHR-integrated digital health tools to engage patients, caregivers, and clinicians in discharge preparation during hospitalization was feasible, acceptable, and valuable; however, important challenges were identified during implementation. We offer strategies to address implementation barriers and promote adoption of these tools. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03116074; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03116074.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1438-8871
    Language: English
    Publisher: JMIR Publications Inc.
    Publication Date: 2020
    detail.hit.zdb_id: 2028830-X
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 4
    In: Diagnosis, Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Vol. 9, No. 1 ( 2022-02-01), p. 77-88
    Abstract: We describe an approach for analyzing failures in diagnostic processes in a small, enriched cohort of general medicine patients who expired during hospitalization and experienced medical error. Our objective was to delineate a systematic strategy for identifying frequent and significant failures in the diagnostic process to inform strategies for preventing adverse events due to diagnostic error. Methods Two clinicians independently reviewed detailed records of purposively sampled cases identified from established institutional case review forums and assessed the likelihood of diagnostic error using the Safer Dx instrument. Each reviewer used the modified Diagnostic Error Evaluation and Research (DEER) taxonomy, revised for acute care (41 possible failure points across six process dimensions), to characterize the frequency of failure points (FPs) and significant FPs in the diagnostic process. Results Of 166 cases with medical error, 16 were sampled: 13 (81.3%) had one or more diagnostic error(s), and a total of 113 FPs and 30 significant FPs were identified. A majority of significant FPs (63.3%) occurred in “Diagnostic Information and Patient Follow-up” and “Patient and Provider Encounter and Initial Assessment” process dimensions. Fourteen (87.5%) cases had a significant FP in at least one of these dimensions. Conclusions Failures in the diagnostic process occurred across multiple dimensions in our purposively sampled cohort. A systematic analytic approach incorporating the modified DEER taxonomy, revised for acute care, offered critical insights into key failures in the diagnostic process that could serve as potential targets for preventative interventions.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2194-8011 , 2194-802X
    Language: English
    Publisher: Walter de Gruyter GmbH
    Publication Date: 2022
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 5
    In: Diagnosis, Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Vol. 9, No. 4 ( 2022-11-14), p. 446-457
    Abstract: To test a structured electronic health record (EHR) case review process to identify diagnostic errors (DE) and diagnostic process failures (DPFs) in acute care. Methods We adapted validated tools (Safer Dx, Diagnostic Error Evaluation Research [DEER] Taxonomy) to assess the diagnostic process during the hospital encounter and categorized 13 postulated e-triggers. We created two test cohorts of all preventable cases (n=28) and an equal number of randomly sampled non-preventable cases (n=28) from 365 adult general medicine patients who expired and underwent our institution’s mortality case review process. After excluding patients with a length of stay of more than one month, each case was reviewed by two blinded clinicians trained in our process and by an expert panel. Inter-rater reliability was assessed. We compared the frequency of DE contributing to death in both cohorts, as well as mean DPFs and e-triggers for DE positive and negative cases within each cohort. Results Twenty-seven (96.4%) preventable and 24 (85.7%) non-preventable cases underwent our review process. Inter-rater reliability was moderate between individual reviewers (Cohen’s kappa 0.41) and substantial with the expert panel (Cohen’s kappa 0.74). The frequency of DE contributing to death was significantly higher for the preventable compared to the non-preventable cohort (56% vs. 17%, OR 6.25 [1.68, 23.27], p 〈 0.01). Mean DPFs and e-triggers were significantly and non-significantly higher for DE positive compared to DE negative cases in each cohort, respectively. Conclusions We observed substantial agreement among final consensus and expert panel reviews using our structured EHR case review process. DEs contributing to death associated with DPFs were identified in institutionally designated preventable and non-preventable cases. While e-triggers may be useful for discriminating DE positive from DE negative cases, larger studies are required for validation. Our approach has potential to augment institutional mortality case review processes with respect to DE surveillance.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 2194-802X
    Language: English
    Publisher: Walter de Gruyter GmbH
    Publication Date: 2022
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...