Use of a remote clinical decision support service for a multicenter trial to implement prediction rules for children with minor blunt head trauma.

2016

101-10

2016 Mar

1872-8243

<p><strong>OBJECTIVE: </strong>To evaluate the architecture, integration requirements, and execution characteristics of a remote clinical decision support (CDS) service used in a multicenter clinical trial. The trial tested the efficacy of implementing brain injury prediction rules for children with minor blunt head trauma.</p>

<p><strong>MATERIALS AND METHODS: </strong>We integrated the Epic(®) electronic health record (EHR) with the Enterprise Clinical Rules Service (ECRS), a web-based CDS service, at two emergency departments. Patterns of CDS review included either a delayed, near-real-time review, where the physician viewed CDS recommendations generated by the nursing assessment, or a real-time review, where the physician viewed recommendations generated by their own documentation. A backstopping, vendor-based CDS triggered with zero delay when no recommendation was available in the EHR from the web-service. We assessed the execution characteristics of the integrated system and the source of the generated recommendations viewed by physicians.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>The ECRS mean execution time was 0.74 ±0.72 s. Overall execution time was substantially different at the two sites, with mean total transaction times of 19.67 and 3.99 s. Of 1930 analyzed transactions from the two sites, 60% (310/521) of all physician documentation-initiated recommendations and 99% (1390/1409) of all nurse documentation-initiated recommendations originated from the remote web service.</p>

<p><strong>DISCUSSION: </strong>The remote CDS system was the source of recommendations in more than half of the real-time cases and virtually all the near-real-time cases. Comparisons are limited by allowable variation in user workflow and resolution of the EHR clock.</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSION: </strong>With maturation and adoption of standards for CDS services, remote CDS shows promise to decrease time-to-trial for multicenter evaluations of candidate decision support interventions.</p>

10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2015.12.002

Int J Med Inform

26806717

Clinical Decision Support for a Multicenter Trial of Pediatric Head Trauma: Development, Implementation, and Lessons Learned.

2016

534-42

2016

1869-0327

<p><strong>INTRODUCTION: </strong>For children who present to emergency departments (EDs) due to blunt head trauma, ED clinicians must decide who requires computed tomography (CT) scanning to evaluate for traumatic brain injury (TBI). The Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) derived and validated two age-based prediction rules to identify children at very low risk of clinically-important traumatic brain injuries (ciTBIs) who do not typically require CT scans. In this case report, we describe the strategy used to implement the PECARN TBI prediction rules via electronic health record (EHR) clinical decision support (CDS) as the intervention in a multicenter clinical trial.</p>

<p><strong>METHODS: </strong>Thirteen EDs participated in this trial. The 10 sites receiving the CDS intervention used the Epic(®) EHR. All sites implementing EHR-based CDS built the rules by using the vendor's CDS engine. Based on a sociotechnical analysis, we designed the CDS so that recommendations could be displayed immediately after any provider entered prediction rule data. One central site developed and tested the intervention package to be exported to other sites. The intervention package included a clinical trial alert, an electronic data collection form, the CDS rules and the format for recommendations.</p>

<p><strong>RESULTS: </strong>The original PECARN head trauma prediction rules were derived from physician documentation while this pragmatic trial led each site to customize their workflows and allow multiple different providers to complete the head trauma assessments. These differences in workflows led to varying completion rates across sites as well as differences in the types of providers completing the electronic data form. Site variation in internal change management processes made it challenging to maintain the same rigor across all sites. This led to downstream effects when data reports were developed.</p>

<p><strong>CONCLUSIONS: </strong>The process of a centralized build and export of a CDS system in one commercial EHR system successfully supported a multicenter clinical trial.</p>

10.4338/ACI-2015-10-CR-0144

Appl Clin Inform

27437059