Performance Measure Development, Use, and Measurement of Effectiveness Using the Guideline on Mechanical Ventilation in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. An Official American Thoracic Society Workshop Report.

Guideline implementation tools are designed to improve uptake of guideline recommendations in clinical settings but do not uniformly accompany the clinical practice guideline documents. Performance measures are a type of guideline implementation tool with the potential to catalyze behavior change and greater adherence to clinical practice guidelines. However, many performance measures suffer from serious flaws in their design and application, prompting the American Thoracic Society (ATS) to define its own performance measure development standards in a previous workshop in 2012. This report summarizes the proceedings of a follow-up workshop convened to advance the ATS's work in performance measure development and guideline implementation. To illustrate the application of the ATS's performance measure development framework, we used the example of a low-tidal volume ventilation performance measure created de novo from the 2017 ATS/European Society of Intensive Care Medicine/Society of Critical Care Medicine mechanical ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndrome clinical practice guideline. We include a detailed explanation of the rationale for the specifications chosen, identification of areas in need of further validity testing, and a preliminary strategy for pilot testing of the performance measure. Pending additional resources and broader performance measure expertise, issuing "preliminary performance measures" and their specifications alongside an ATS clinical practice guideline offers a first step to further the ATS's guideline implementation agenda. We recommend selectively proceeding with full performance measure development for those measures with positive early user feedback and the greatest potential impact in accordance with ATS leadership guidance.

Frequency of Passive EHR Alerts in the ICU: Another Form of Alert Fatigue?

OBJECTIVES: The intensive care unit (ICU) is a complex environment in terms of data density and alerts, with alert fatigue, a recognized barrier to patient safety. The Electronic Health Record (EHR) is a major source of these alerts. Although studies have looked at the incidence and impact of active EHR alerts, little research has studied the impact of passive data alerts on patient safety. METHOD: We reviewed the EHR database of 100 consecutive ICU patient records; within, we assessed the number of values flagged as either as abnormal or "panic" across all data domains. We used data from our previous studies to determine the 10 most commonly visited screens while preparing for rounds to determine the total number of times, an abnormal value would be expected to be viewed. RESULTS: There were 64.1 passive alerts/patient per day, of which only 4.5% were panic values. When accounting for the commonly used EHR screens by providers, this was increased to 165.3 patient/d. Laboratory values comprised 71% of alerts, with the remaining occurring in vitals (25%) and medications (6%). Despite the high prevalence of alerts, certain domains including ventilator settings (0.04 flags/d) were rarely flagged. CONCLUSIONS: The average ICU patient generates a large number of passive alerts daily, many of which may be clinically irrelevant. Issues with EHR design and use likely further magnify this problem. Our results establish the need for additional studies to understand how a high burden of passive alerts impact clinical decision making and how to design passive alerts to optimize their clinical utility.

Data Omission by Physician Trainees on ICU Rounds.

OBJECTIVES: Incomplete patient data, either due to difficulty gathering and synthesizing or inappropriate data filtering, can lead clinicians to misdiagnosis and medical error. How completely ICU interprofessional rounding teams appraise the patient data set that informs clinical decision-making is unknown. This study measures how frequently physician trainees omit data from prerounding notes ("artifacts") and verbal presentations during daily rounds. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Tertiary academic medical ICU with an established electronic health record and where physician trainees are the primary presenters during daily rounds. SUBJECTS: Presenters (medical student or resident physician), interprofessional rounding team. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We quantified the amount and types of patient data omitted from photocopies of physician trainees' artifacts and audio recordings of oral ICU rounds presentations when compared with source electronic health record data. An audit of 157 patient presentations including 6,055 data elements across nine domains revealed 100% of presentations contained omissions. Overall, 22.9% of data were missing from artifacts and 42.4% from presentations. The interprofessional team supplemented only 4.1% of additional available data. Frequency of trainee data omission varied by data type and sociotechnical factors. The strongest predictor of trainee verbal omissions was a preceding failure to include the data on the artifact. Passive data gathering via electronic health record macros resulted in extremely complete artifacts but paradoxically predicted greater likelihood of verbal omission when compared with manual notation. Interns verbally omitted the most data, whereas medical students omitted the least. CONCLUSIONS: In an academic rounding model reliant on trainees to preview and select data for presentation during ICU rounds, verbal appraisal of patient data was highly incomplete. Additional trainee oversight and education, improved electronic health record tools, and novel academic rounding paradigms are needed to address this potential source of medical error.

Accuracy of Laboratory Data Communication on ICU Daily Rounds Using an Electronic Health Record.

OBJECTIVES: Accurately communicating patient data during daily ICU rounds is critically important since data provide the basis for clinical decision making. Despite its importance, high fidelity data communication during interprofessional ICU rounds is assumed, yet unproven. We created a robust but simple methodology to measure the prevalence of inaccurately communicated (misrepresented) data and to characterize data communication failures by type. We also assessed how commonly the rounding team detected data misrepresentation and whether data communication was impacted by environmental, human, and workflow factors. DESIGN: Direct observation of verbalized laboratory data during daily ICU rounds compared with data within the electronic health record and on presenters' paper prerounding notes. SETTING: Twenty-six-bed academic medical ICU with a well-established electronic health record. SUBJECTS: ICU rounds presenter (medical student or resident physician), interprofessional rounding team. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: During 301 observed patient presentations including 4,945 audited laboratory results, presenters used a paper prerounding tool for 94.3% of presentations but tools contained only 78% of available electronic health record laboratory data. Ninty-six percent of patient presentations included at least one laboratory misrepresentation (mean, 6.3 per patient) and 38.9% of all audited laboratory data were inaccurately communicated. Most misrepresentation events were omissions. Only 7.8% of all laboratory misrepresentations were detected. CONCLUSION: Despite a structured interprofessional rounding script and a well-established electronic health record, clinician laboratory data retrieval and communication during ICU rounds at our institution was poor, prone to omissions and inaccuracies, yet largely unrecognized by the rounding team. This highlights an important patient safety issue that is likely widely prevalent, yet underrecognized.