Participation in DSME classes in this low-income, Spanish-speaking, Latino population was influenced by many factors. Understanding these factors is an important step toward creating classes that are successful in increasing attendance rates for this and similar populations. Creative, targeted approaches to designing DSME classes for low-income, Spanish-speaking, Latino patients and similar populations are needed. These may include classes that remove the barriers of shame and lack of interest for male participants; focus on family involvement, celebration of culturally appropriate foods, group support, and self-efficacy; are accessible to resource-limited participants; and use alternative methods to recruit hard-to-reach participants.

Electronic health record-caused safety risks are an unintended consequence of the implementation of clinical systems. To identify activities essential to assuring that the electronic health record is managed and used safely, we used the Rapid Assessment Process, a collection of qualitative methods. A multidisciplinary team conducted visits to five healthcare sites to learn about best practices. Although titles and roles were very different across sites, certain tasks considered necessary by our subjects were remarkably similar. We identified 10 groups of activities/tasks in three major areas. Area A, decision-making activities, included overseeing, planning, and reviewing to assure electronic health record safety. Area B, organizational learning activities, involved monitoring, testing, analyzing, and reporting. Finally, Area C, user-related activities, included training, communication, and building clinical decision support. To minimize electronic health record-related patient safety risks, leaders in healthcare organizations should ensure that these essential activities are performed.

The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology released the Safety Assurance Factors for EHR Resilience (SAFER) guides in 2014. Our group developed these guides covering key facets of both electronic health record (EHR) infrastructure (eg, system configuration, contingency planning for downtime, and system-to-system interfaces) and clinical processes (eg, computer-based provider order entry with clinical decision support, test result reporting, patient identification, and clinician-to-clinician communication). The SAFER guides encourage healthy relationships between EHR vendors and users. We conducted a qualitative study over 12 months. We visited 9 health care organizations ranging in size from 1-doctor outpatient clinics to large, multisite, multihospital integrated delivery networks. We interviewed and observed clinicians, IT professionals, and administrators. From the interview transcripts and observation field notes, we identified overarching themes: technical functionality, usability, standards, testing, workflow processes, personnel to support implementation and use, infrastructure, and clinical content. In addition, we identified health care organization-EHR vendor working relationships: marine drill sergeant, mentor, development partner, seller, and parasite. We encourage health care organizations and EHR vendors to develop healthy working relationships to help address the tasks required to design, develop, implement, and maintain EHRs required to achieve safer and higher quality health care.

Background Although patients who work and have related health issues are usually first seen in primary care, providers in these settings do not routinely ask questions about work. Guidelines to help manage such patients are rarely used in primary care. Electronic health record (EHR) systems with worker health clinical decision support (CDS) tools have potential for assisting these practices. Objective This study aimed to identify the need for, and barriers and facilitators related to, implementation of CDS tools for the clinical management of working patients in a variety of primary care settings. Methods We used a qualitative design that included analysis of interview transcripts and observational field notes from 10 clinics in five organizations. Results We interviewed 83 providers, staff members, managers, informatics and information technology experts, and leaders and spent 35 hours observing. We identified eight themes in four categories related to CDS for worker health (operational issues, usefulness of proposed CDS, effort and time-related issues, and topic-specific issues). These categories were classified as facilitators or barriers to the use of the CDS tools. Facilitators related to operational issues include current technical feasibility and new work patterns associated with the coordinated care model. Facilitators concerning usefulness include users' need for awareness and evidence-based tools, appropriateness of the proposed CDS for their patients, and the benefits of population health data. Barriers that are effort-related include additional time this proposed CDS might take, and other pressing organizational priorities. Barriers that are topic-specific include sensitive issues related to health and work and the complexities of information about work. Conclusion We discovered several themes not previously described that can guide future CDS development: technical feasibility of the proposed CDS within commercial EHRs, the sensitive nature of some CDS content, and the need to assist the entire health care team in managing worker health.

Objective: To determine the perceived value and feasibility of increased access to information about workers’ health for primary care providers (PCPs) by evaluating the need for clinical decision support (CDS) related to worker health in primary care settings. Methods: Qualitative methods, including semi-structured interviews and observations, were used to evaluate the value and feasibility of three examples of CDS relating work and health in five primary care settings. Results: PCPs and team members wanted help addressing patients’ health in relation to their jobs; the proposed CDS examples were perceived as valuable because they provided useful information, promoted standardization of care, and were considered technically feasible. Barriers included time constraints and a perceived inability to act on the findings. Conclusion: PCPs recognize the importance and impact of work on their patients’ health but often lack accessible knowledge at the right time. Occupational health providers can play an important role through contributions to the development of CDS that assists PCPs in recognizing and addressing patients’ health, as well as through the provision of referral guidelines.