Assessing Medication CDS Usability: Pilot Results from 10 Outpatient Clinics.

IF 2.2 2区 医学 Q4 MEDICAL INFORMATICS
Applied Clinical Informatics Pub Date : 2025-08-01 Epub Date: 2025-08-20 DOI:10.1055/a-2647-1069
Zoe Co, David W Bates, Jessica M Cole, Raj Ratwani, David C Classen
{"title":"Assessing Medication CDS Usability: Pilot Results from 10 Outpatient Clinics.","authors":"Zoe Co, David W Bates, Jessica M Cole, Raj Ratwani, David C Classen","doi":"10.1055/a-2647-1069","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study aimed to develop a human factors assessment for medication-related clinical decision support (CDS) based on a previously validated tool that assessed the integration of human factors principles in CDS, the instrument for evaluating human factors principles in medication-related decision support alerts (I-MeDeSA), and pilot it with 10 outpatient clinics across the United States.The human factors assessment was developed based on past validations of I-MeDeSA. Examples included changing the wording of questions and reformatting answer choices to check-box options, allowing for multiple answer choices. We also added a section about how clinicians resolved alerts. Clinics received a percentage score based on how well their CDS adhered to human factors principles. To take the assessment, testing teams at each clinic triggered a high-severity drug-drug interaction (DDI) alert, and then took the human factors assessment. This assessment was piloted in 10 outpatient clinics, each of which used a different commercial electronic health record (EHR) system.The final assessment included five sections and twelve questions related to aspects like the timing, visual aspect, severity, content, and actions within the DDI alert. The mean overall percentage score was 62%. The sections regarding the timing and visual aspects of the alert were ones where clinics' EHRs performed the best. However, in the \"actions\" section, 40% of the clinics could bypass high severity alerts without any safeguards in place.We found substantial variability in the integration of human factors principles in the design and delivery of DDI alerts among the outpatient clinics, and some lacked important medication safeguards. This assessment can be used by outpatient clinics for safety improvement initiatives.</p>","PeriodicalId":48956,"journal":{"name":"Applied Clinical Informatics","volume":"16 4","pages":"879-891"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12367376/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Clinical Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2647-1069","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/8/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aimed to develop a human factors assessment for medication-related clinical decision support (CDS) based on a previously validated tool that assessed the integration of human factors principles in CDS, the instrument for evaluating human factors principles in medication-related decision support alerts (I-MeDeSA), and pilot it with 10 outpatient clinics across the United States.The human factors assessment was developed based on past validations of I-MeDeSA. Examples included changing the wording of questions and reformatting answer choices to check-box options, allowing for multiple answer choices. We also added a section about how clinicians resolved alerts. Clinics received a percentage score based on how well their CDS adhered to human factors principles. To take the assessment, testing teams at each clinic triggered a high-severity drug-drug interaction (DDI) alert, and then took the human factors assessment. This assessment was piloted in 10 outpatient clinics, each of which used a different commercial electronic health record (EHR) system.The final assessment included five sections and twelve questions related to aspects like the timing, visual aspect, severity, content, and actions within the DDI alert. The mean overall percentage score was 62%. The sections regarding the timing and visual aspects of the alert were ones where clinics' EHRs performed the best. However, in the "actions" section, 40% of the clinics could bypass high severity alerts without any safeguards in place.We found substantial variability in the integration of human factors principles in the design and delivery of DDI alerts among the outpatient clinics, and some lacked important medication safeguards. This assessment can be used by outpatient clinics for safety improvement initiatives.

评估药物CDS可用性:来自10个门诊诊所的试点结果。
本研究旨在开发药物相关临床决策支持(CDS)的人为因素评估,该评估基于先前经过验证的工具,用于评估药物相关决策支持警报(I-MeDeSA)中人为因素原则的整合,并在美国10个门诊诊所进行试点。人为因素评价是在I-MeDeSA既往验证的基础上制定的。示例包括更改问题的措辞和将答案选项重新格式化为复选框选项,从而允许多个答案选项。我们还增加了关于临床医生如何解决警报的部分。诊所根据他们的CDS遵守人为因素原则的程度获得百分比分数。为了进行评估,每个诊所的测试团队触发了高严重性药物-药物相互作用(DDI)警报,然后进行了人为因素评估。这项评估在10家门诊诊所进行了试点,每家诊所都使用不同的商业电子健康记录(EHR)系统。最终评估包括五个部分和十二个问题,涉及时间、视觉方面、严重程度、内容和DDI警报中的行动等方面。平均总百分比得分为62%。关于警报的时间和视觉方面的部分是诊所的电子病历表现最好的部分。然而,在“行动”部分,40%的诊所可以在没有任何保障措施的情况下绕过高严重性警报。我们发现在门诊诊所设计和提供DDI警报时,人为因素原则的整合存在很大差异,有些诊所缺乏重要的药物保障。该评估可用于门诊诊所的安全改进举措。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Applied Clinical Informatics
Applied Clinical Informatics MEDICAL INFORMATICS-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
24.10%
发文量
132
期刊介绍: ACI is the third Schattauer journal dealing with biomedical and health informatics. It perfectly complements our other journals Öffnet internen Link im aktuellen FensterMethods of Information in Medicine and the Öffnet internen Link im aktuellen FensterYearbook of Medical Informatics. The Yearbook of Medical Informatics being the “Milestone” or state-of-the-art journal and Methods of Information in Medicine being the “Science and Research” journal of IMIA, ACI intends to be the “Practical” journal of IMIA.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信