Implementation barriers and considerations for recommending and administering the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in oncology settings.

BACKGROUND: Survivors of childhood and adolescent cancer experience low human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination rates-a crucial form of cancer prevention. Oncology provider recommendations may increase young survivors HPV vaccine intent, but HPV vaccination is not typically provided in the oncology setting. Thus, we explored the implementation barriers of providing the HPV vaccine in oncology. METHODS: We interviewed oncology providers in a variety of specialty areas about their perceptions of the HPV vaccine and to explore barriers to recommending and administering the vaccine in their clinics. Interviews were audio recorded, quality checked, and thematically analyzed. Emergent themes were then mapped onto the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, and Behavior (COM-B) Model and the Theoretical Domains Framework. RESULTS: A total of N=24 oncology providers were interviewed. Most provided direct clinical care (87.5%) and most commonly specialized in pediatric oncology (20.8%), medical oncology (16.7%), bone marrow transplant (16.7%), and nurse coordination (16.7%). Two themes emerged within each COM-B domain. Capability: 1) educational barriers to HPV vaccination and 2) complicated post treatment HPV vaccination guidelines. MOTIVATION: 1) perceived importance of HPV vaccine and 2) concern about blurred scope of practice. OPPORTUNITY:  1) hospital administration and time concern barriers and 2) clinical workflow integration concerns. CONCLUSION: Implementing HPV vaccination in the oncology setting has the potential to increase HPV vaccination rates among young survivors. Multi-level barriers to providing the HPV vaccine in the oncology setting were identified by participants. Leveraging existing implementation strategies may be an effective way to mitigate provider identified barriers and increase vaccination rates.

Evaluation in Life Cycle of Information Technology (ELICIT) framework: Supporting the innovation life cycle from business case assessment to summative evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to develop an evaluation framework for electronic health record (EHR)-integrated innovations to support evaluation activities at each of four information technology (IT) life cycle phases: planning, development, implementation, and operation. METHODS: The evaluation framework was developed based on a review of existing evaluation frameworks from health informatics and other domains (human factors engineering, software engineering, and social sciences); expert consensus; and real-world testing in multiple EHR-integrated innovation studies. RESULTS: The resulting Evaluation in Life Cycle of IT (ELICIT) framework covers four IT life cycle phases and three measure levels (society, user, and IT). The ELICIT framework recommends 12 evaluation steps: (1) business case assessment; (2) stakeholder requirements gathering; (3) technical requirements gathering; (4) technical acceptability assessment; (5) user acceptability assessment; (6) social acceptability assessment; (7) social implementation assessment; (8) initial user satisfaction assessment; (9) technical implementation assessment; (10) technical portability assessment; (11) long-term user satisfaction assessment; and (12) social outcomes assessment. DISCUSSION: Effective evaluation requires a shared understanding and collaboration across disciplines throughout the entire IT life cycle. In contrast with previous evaluation frameworks, the ELICIT framework focuses on all phases of the IT life cycle across the society, user, and IT levels. Institutions seeking to establish evaluation programs for EHR-integrated innovations could use our framework to create such shared understanding and justify the need to invest in evaluation. CONCLUSION: As health care undergoes a digital transformation, it will be critical for EHR-integrated innovations to be systematically evaluated. The ELICIT framework can facilitate these evaluations.

Establishing a multidisciplinary initiative for interoperable electronic health record innovations at an academic medical center.

OBJECTIVE: To establish an enterprise initiative for improving health and health care through interoperable electronic health record (EHR) innovations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a unifying mission and vision, established multidisciplinary governance, and formulated a strategic plan. Key elements of our strategy include establishing a world-class team; creating shared infrastructure to support individual innovations; developing and implementing innovations with high anticipated impact and a clear path to adoption; incorporating best practices such as the use of Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) and related interoperability standards; and maximizing synergies across research and operations and with partner organizations. RESULTS: University of Utah Health launched the ReImagine EHR initiative in 2016. Supportive infrastructure developed by the initiative include various FHIR-related tooling and a systematic evaluation framework. More than 10 EHR-integrated digital innovations have been implemented to support preventive care, shared decision-making, chronic disease management, and acute clinical care. Initial evaluations of these innovations have demonstrated positive impact on user satisfaction, provider efficiency, and compliance with evidence-based guidelines. Return on investment has included improvements in care; over $35 million in external grant funding; commercial opportunities; and increased ability to adapt to a changing healthcare landscape. DISCUSSION: Key lessons learned include the value of investing in digital innovation initiatives leveraging FHIR; the importance of supportive infrastructure for accelerating innovation; and the critical role of user-centered design, implementation science, and evaluation. CONCLUSION: EHR-integrated digital innovation initiatives can be key assets for enhancing the EHR user experience, improving patient care, and reducing provider burnout.

Checking the lists: A systematic review of electronic checklist use in health care.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a literature search to examine the effects and experiences surrounding the transition from paper to electronic checklists in healthcare settings. We explore the types of electronic checklists being used in health care, how and where they were evaluated and seek to identify the successes and failures of using electronic checklists in healthcare, including use of checklists to ensure completeness of documentation in the electronic medical record. BACKGROUND: Formalized checklist use as a memory and decision aid in aviation has resulted in significant increases in safety in that domain. Checklists have also been successfully introduced to reduce errors in some areas of healthcare; however, in some contexts checklists failed to provide some of the expected benefits. Adapting and integrating checklists electronically into the healthcare workflow provides opportunities and challenges that need to be better understood to make checklist adoption a success in health care. METHOD: We conducted a literature search of the English language literature in MEDLINE using PubMed for peer-reviewed literature of implementation and use of electronic or computerized checklists related to clinical or healthcare use. We reviewed the studies and included in this review those papers that discussed in depth the development process and that conducted controlled studies to assess the effectiveness of checklists and the evaluation of their acceptance in the clinical context. RESULTS: The literature search using the keywords electronic checklist OR computerized checklist returned a total of 23 peer-reviewed papers. Out of these 15 were included in the review, with 8 excluded because they did not evaluate checklist use for patient care. APPLICATION: More rigorous application of known principles and methods from Human Computer Interaction research and the behavioral sciences can provide a clearer, more comprehensive understanding of the conditions that affect the development and use of checklists.

Evaluation of an Electronic Module for Reconciling Medications in Home Health Plans of Care.

OBJECTIVES: Transitions in patient care pose an increased risk to patient safety. One way to reduce this risk is to ensure accurate medication reconciliation during the transition. Here we present an evaluation of an electronic medication reconciliation module we developed to reduce the transition risk in patients referred for home healthcare. METHODS: Nineteen physicians with experience in managing home health referrals were recruited to participate in this within-subjects experiment. Participants completed medication reconciliation for three clinical cases in each of two conditions. The first condition (paper-based) simulated current practice - reconciling medication discrepancies between a paper plan of care (CMS 485) and a simulated Electronic Health Record (EHR). For the second condition (electronic) participants used our medication reconciliation module, which we integrated into the simulated EHR. To evaluate the effectiveness of our medication reconciliation module, we employed repeated measures ANOVA to test the hypotheses that the module will: 1) Improve accuracy by reducing the number of unaddressed medication discrepancies, 2) Improve efficiency by reducing the reconciliation time, 3) have good perceived usability. RESULTS: The improved accuracy hypothesis is supported. Participants left more discrepancies unaddressed in the paper-based condition than the electronic condition, F (1,1) = 22.3, p < 0.0001 (Paper Mean = 1.55, SD = 1.20; Electronic Mean = 0.45, SD = 0.65). However, contrary to our efficiency hypothesis, participants took the same amount of time to complete cases in the two conditions, F (1, 1) =0.007, p = 0.93 (Paper Mean = 258.7 seconds, SD = 124.4; Electronic Mean = 260.4 seconds, SD = 158.9). The usability hypothesis is supported by a composite mean ability and confidence score of 6.41 on a 7-point scale, 17 of 19 participants preferring the electronic system and an SUS rating of 86.5. CONCLUSION: We present the evaluation of an electronic medication reconciliation module that increases detection and resolution of medication discrepancies compared to a paper-based process. Further work to integrate medication reconciliation within an electronic medical record is warranted.

The influence of different graphical displays on nonexpert decision making under uncertainty.

Understanding how people interpret and use visually presented uncertainty data is an important yet seldom studied aspect of data visualization applications. Current approaches in visualization often display uncertainty as an additional data attribute without a well-defined context. Our goal was to test whether different graphical displays (glyphs) would influence a decision about which of 2 weather forecasts was a more accurate predictor of an uncertain temperature forecast value. We used a statistical inference task based on fictional univariate normal distributions, each characterized by a mean and standard deviation. Participants viewed 1 of 5 different glyph types representing 2 weather forecast distributions. Three of these used variations in spatial encoding to communicate the distributions and the other 2 used nonspatial encoding (brightness or color). Four distribution pairs were created with different relative standard deviations (uncertainty of the forecasts). We found that there was a difference in how decisions were made with spatial versus nonspatial glyphs, but no difference among the spatial glyphs themselves. Furthermore, the effect of different glyph types changed as a function of the variability of the distributions. The results are discussed in the context of how visualizations might improve decision making under uncertainty.