Identifying and understanding the types and in some instances the causes of unintended adverse consequences associated with CPOE will enable system developers and implementers to better manage implementation and maintenance of future CPOE projects.

Conceptual models have been developed to address challenges inherent in studying health information technology (HIT). This manuscript introduces an 8-dimensional model specifically designed to address the socio-technical challenges involved in design, development, implementation, use, and evaluation of HIT within complex adaptive healthcare systems. The 8 dimensions are not independent, sequential, or hierarchical, but rather are interdependent and interrelated concepts similar to compositions of other complex adaptive systems. Hardware and software computing infrastructure refers to equipment and software used to power, support, and operate clinical applications and devices. Clinical content refers to textual or numeric data and images that constitute the “language” of clinical applications. The human computer interface includes all aspects of the computer that users can see, touch, or hear as they interact with it. People refers to everyone who interacts in some way with the system, from developer to end-user, including potential patient-users. Workflow and communication are the processes or steps involved in assuring that patient care tasks are carried out effectively. Two additional dimensions of the model are internal organizational features (e.g., policies, procedures, and culture) and external rules and regulations, both of which may facilitate or constrain many aspects of the preceding dimensions. The final dimension is measurement and monitoring, which refers to the process of measuring and evaluating both intended and unintended consequences of HIT implementation and use. We illustrate how our model has been successfully applied in real-world complex adaptive settings to understand and improve HIT applications at various stages of development and implementation.

No abstract

There is a pressing need for high-quality, effective means of designing, developing, presenting, implementing, evaluating, and maintaining all types of clinical decision support capabilities for clinicians, patients and consumers. Using an iterative, consensus-building process we identified a rank-ordered list of the top 10 grand challenges in clinical decision support. This list was created to educate and inspire researchers, developers, funders, and policy-makers. The list of challenges in order of importance that they be solved if patients and organizations are to begin realizing the fullest benefits possible of these systems consists of: improve the human-computer interface; disseminate best practices in CDS design, development, and implementation; summarize patient-level information; prioritize and filter recommendations to the user; create an architecture for sharing executable CDS modules and services; combine recommendations for patients with co-morbidities; prioritize CDS content development and implementation; create internet-accessible clinical decision support repositories; use freetext information to drive clinical decision support; mine large clinical databases to create new CDS. Identification of solutions to these challenges is critical if clinical decision support is to achieve its potential and improve the quality, safety and efficiency of healthcare.

A b s t r a c t Background:Computerized provider order entry (CPOE) systems can help hospitals improve health care quality, but they can also introduce new problems. The extent to which hospitals experience unintended consequences of CPOE, which include more than errors, has not been quantified in prior research.Objective: To discover the extent and importance of unintended adverse consequences related to CPOE implementation in U.S. hospitals.Design, Setting, and Participants: Building on a prior qualitative study involving fieldwork at five hospitals, we developed and then administered a telephone survey concerning the extent and importance of CPOE-related unintended adverse consequences to representatives from 176 hospitals in the U.S. that have CPOE. Measurements:Self report by key informants of the extent and level of importance to the overall function of the hospital of eight types of unintended adverse consequences experienced by sites with inpatient CPOE. Results:We found that hospitals experienced all eight types of unintended adverse consequences, although respondents identified several they considered more important than others. Those related to new work/more work, workflow, system demands, communication, emotions, and dependence on the technology were ranked as most severe, with at least 72% of respondents ranking them as moderately to very important. Hospital representatives are less sure about shifts in the power structure and CPOE as a new source of errors. There is no relation between kinds of unintended consequences and number of years CPOE has been used. Despite the relatively short length of time most hospitals have had CPOE (median five years), it is highly infused, or embedded, within work practice at most of these sites. Conclusions:The unintended consequences of CPOE are widespread and important to those knowledgeable about CPOE in hospitals. They can be positive, negative, or both, depending on one's perspective, and they continue to exist over the duration of use. Aggressive detection and management of adverse unintended consequences is vital for CPOE success.

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate primary care and specialist physicians' satisfaction with interphysician communication and to identify the major problems in the current referral process. DESIGN:Surveys were mailed to providers to determine satisfaction with the referral process; then patient-specific surveys were e-mailed to this group to obtain real-time referral information. SETTING: Academic tertiary care medical center.PARTICIPANTS: Attending-level primary care physicians (PCPs) and specialists. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:The response rate for mail surveys for PCPs was 57% and for specialists was 51%. In the mail survey, 63% of PCPs and 35% of specialists were dissatisfied with the current referral process. Respondents felt that major problems with the current referral system were lack of timeliness of information and inadequate referral letter content. Information considered important by recipient groups was often not included in letters that were sent. The response rate for the referral specific e-mail surveys was 56% for PCPs and 53% for specialists. In this e-mail survey, 68% of specialists reported that they received no information from the PCP prior to specific referral visits, and 38% of these said that this information would have been helpful. In addition, four weeks after specific referral visits, 25% of PCPs had still not received any information from specialists. CONCLUSIONS:Substantial problems were present in the referral process. The major issues were physician dissatisfaction, lack of timeliness, and inadequate content of interphysician communication. Information obtained from the general survey and referral-specific survey was congruent. Efforts to improve the referral system could improve both physician satisfaction and quality of patient care. The referral process is a critical component of quality clinical care, and it has become increasingly scrutinized in the managed care era. Physician-to-physician communication is vital to the success of an outpatient referral. Optimal communication involves transfer of relevant clinical information in both directions (from the referring physician to the specialist and vice versa). Breakdowns in communication can lead to poor continuity of care, delayed diagnoses, polypharmacy, increased litigation risk, and unnecessary testing, 1 and can therefore decrease the quality of care.Difficulties with referrals are commonplace because of physician time constraints, lack of clarity about reasons for referrals, patient self-referrals, limitations imposed by managed care, and unclear follow-up plans. Several studies have shown that communication between primary care providers (PCPs) and specialists is suboptimal in many ways. In a 1983 study of inpatient consultation, 2 the requesting physician and the consultant completely disagreed on both the reason for consultation and the principal clinical issue in 14% of consultations. In one outpatient study done in 1980, PCPs only received followup information for 62% of consultations. 3 However, despite advances in medicine ...

No abstract

The impact of a new therapy that includes pressure-controlled inverse ratio ventilation followed by extracorporeal CO2 removal on the survival of patients with severe ARDS was evaluated in a randomized controlled clinical trial. Computerized protocols generated around-the-clock instructions for management of arterial oxygenation to assure equivalent intensity of care for patients randomized to the new therapy limb and those randomized to the control, mechanical ventilation limb. We randomized 40 patients with severe ARDS who met the ECMO entry criteria. The main outcome measure was survival at 30 days after randomization. Survival was not significantly different in the 19 mechanical ventilation (42%) and 21 new therapy (extracorporeal) (33%) patients (p = 0.8). All deaths occurred within 30 days of randomization. Overall patient survival was 38% (15 of 40) and was about four times that expected from historical data (p = 0.0002). Extracorporeal treatment group survival was not significantly different from other published survival rates after extracorporeal CO2 removal. Mechanical ventilation patient group survival was significantly higher than the 12% derived from published data (p = 0.0001). Protocols controlled care 86% of the time. Average PaO2 was 59 mm Hg in both treatment groups. Intensity of care required to maintain arterial oxygenation was similar in both groups (2.6 and 2.6 PEEP changes/day; 4.3 and 5.0 FIO2 changes/day). We conclude that there was no significant difference in survival between the mechanical ventilation and the extracorporeal CO2 removal groups. We do not recommend extracorporeal support as a therapy for ARDS. Extracorporeal support for ARDS should be restricted to controlled clinical trials.