Development, Evaluation and Implementation of Chief Complaint Groupings to Activate Data Collection: A Multi-Center Study of Clinical Decision Support for Children with Head Trauma.

BACKGROUND: Overuse of cranial computed tomography scans in children with blunt head trauma unnecessarily exposes them to radiation. The Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) blunt head trauma prediction rules identify children who do not require a computed tomography scan. Electronic health record (EHR) based clinical decision support (CDS) may effectively implement these rules but must only be provided for appropriate patients in order to minimize excessive alerts. OBJECTIVES: To develop, implement and evaluate site-specific groupings of chief complaints (CC) that accurately identify children with head trauma, in order to activate data collection in an EHR. METHODS: As part of a 13 site clinical trial comparing cranial computed tomography use before and after implementation of CDS, four PECARN sites centrally developed and locally implemented CC groupings to trigger a clinical trial alert (CTA) to facilitate the completion of an emergency department head trauma data collection template. We tested and chose CC groupings to attain high sensitivity while maintaining at least moderate specificity. RESULTS: Due to variability in CCs available, identical groupings across sites were not possible. We noted substantial variability in the sensitivity and specificity of seemingly similar CC groupings between sites. The implemented CC groupings had sensitivities greater than 90% with specificities between 75-89%. During the trial, formal testing and provider feedback led to tailoring of the CC groupings at some sites. CONCLUSIONS: CC groupings can be successfully developed and implemented across multiple sites to accurately identify patients who should have a CTA triggered to facilitate EHR data collection. However, CC groupings will necessarily vary in order to attain high sensitivity and moderate-to-high specificity. In future trials, the balance between sensitivity and specificity should be considered based on the nature of the clinical condition, including prevalence and morbidity, in addition to the goals of the intervention being considered.

Clinical Decision Support and Palivizumab: A Means to Protect from Respiratory Syncytial Virus.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Palivizumab can reduce hospitalizations due to respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), but many eligible infants fail to receive the full 5-dose series. The efficacy of clinical decision support (CDS) in fostering palivizumab receipt has not been studied. We sought a comprehensive solution for identifying eligible patients and addressing barriers to palivizumab administration. METHODS: We developed workflow and CDS tools targeting patient identification and palivizumab administration. We randomized 10 practices to receive palivizumab-focused CDS and 10 to receive comprehensive CDS for premature infants in a 3-year longitudinal cluster-randomized trial with 2 baseline and 1 intervention RSV seasons. RESULTS: There were 356 children eligible to receive palivizumab, with 194 in the palivizumab-focused group and 162 in the comprehensive CDS group. The proportion of doses administered to children in the palivizumab-focused intervention group increased from 68.4% and 65.5% in the two baseline seasons to 84.7% in the intervention season. In the comprehensive intervention group, proportions of doses administered declined during the baseline seasons (from 71.9% to 62.4%) with partial recovery to 67.9% during the intervention season. The palivizumab-focused group improved by 19.2 percentage points in the intervention season compared to the prior baseline season (p < 0.001), while the comprehensive intervention group only improved 5.5 percentage points (p = 0.288). The difference in change between study groups was significant (p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Workflow and CDS tools integrated in an EHR may increase the administration of palivizumab. The support focused on palivizumab, rather than comprehensive intervention, was more effective at improving palivizumab administration.