Reducing risk with clinical decision support: a study of closed malpractice claims.

OBJECTIVE: Identify clinical opportunities to intervene to prevent a malpractice event and determine the proportion of malpractice claims potentially preventable by clinical decision support (CDS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cross-sectional review of closed malpractice claims over seven years from one malpractice insurance company and seven hospitals in the Boston area. For each event, clinical opportunities to intervene to avert the malpractice event and the presence or absence of CDS that might have a role in preventing the event, were assigned by a panel of expert raters. Compensation paid out to resolve a claim (indemnity), was associated with each CDS type. RESULTS: Of the 477 closed malpractice cases, 359 (75.3%) were categorized as substantiated and 195 (54%) had at least one opportunity to intervene. Common opportunities to intervene related to performance of procedure, diagnosis, and fall prevention. We identified at least one CDS type for 63% of substantiated claims. The 41 CDS types identified included clinically significant test result alerting, diagnostic decision support and electronic tracking of instruments. Cases with at least one associated intervention accounted for $40.3 million (58.9%) of indemnity. DISCUSSION: CDS systems and other forms of health information technology (HIT) are expected to improve quality of care, but their potential to mitigate risk had not previously been quantified. Our results suggest that, in addition to their known benefits for quality and safety, CDS systems within HIT have a potential role in decreasing malpractice payments. CONCLUSION: More than half of malpractice events and over $40 million of indemnity were potentially preventable with CDS.

Effect of a laboratory result pager on provider behavior in a neonatal intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: A computerized laboratory result paging system (LRPS) that alerts providers about abnormal results ("push") may improve upon active laboratory result review ("pull"). However, implementing such a system in the intensive care setting may be hindered by low signal-to-noise ratio, which may lead to alert fatigue. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of an LRPS in a Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. METHODS: Utilizing paper chart review, we tallied provider orders following an abnormal laboratory result before and after implementation of an LRPS. Orders were compared with a predefined set of appropriate orders for such an abnormal result. The likelihood of a provider response in the post-implementation period as compared to the pre-implementation period was analyzed using logistic regression. The provider responses were analyzed using logistic regression to control for potential confounders. RESULTS: The likelihood of a provider response to an abnormal laboratory result did not change significantly after implementation of an LRPS. (Odds Ratio 0.90, 95% CI 0.63-1.30, p-value 0.58) However, when providers did respond to an alert, the type of response was different. The proportion of repeat laboratory tests increased. (26/378 vs. 7/278, p-value = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Although the laboratory result pager altered healthcare provider behavior in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, it did not increase the overall likelihood of provider response.