Evaluation of the effect of decision support on the efficiency of primary care providers in the outpatient practice.

BACKGROUND: Clinical decision support (CDS) for primary care has been shown to improve delivery of preventive services. However, there is little evidence for efficiency of physicians due to CDS assistance. In this article, we report a pilot study for measuring the impact of CDS on the time spent by physicians for deciding on preventive services and chronic disease management. METHODS: We randomly selected 30 patients from a primary care practice, and assigned them to 10 physicians. The physicians were requested to perform chart review to decide on preventive services and chronic disease management for the assigned patients. The patients assignment was done in a randomized crossover design, such that each patient received 2 sets of recommendations-one from a physician with CDS assistance and the other from a different physician without CDS assistance. We compared the physician recommendations made using CDS assistance, with the recommendations made without CDS assistance. RESULTS: The physicians required an average of 1 minute 44 seconds, when they were they had access to the decision support system and 5 minutes when they were unassisted. Hence the CDS assistance resulted in an estimated saving of 3 minutes 16 seconds (65%) of the physicians' time, which was statistically significant (P < .0001). There was no statistically significant difference in the number of recommendations. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that CDS assistance significantly reduced the time spent by physicians for deciding on preventive services and chronic disease management. The result needs to be confirmed by performing similar studies at other institutions.

Use of a Web-based clinical decision support system to improve abdominal aortic aneurysm screening in a primary care practice.

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The United States Preventive Services Task Force recommends a one-time screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) with ultrasonography for men aged 65 to 75 years who have ever smoked. However, despite a mortality rate of up to 80% for ruptured AAAs, providers order the screening for a minority of patients. We sought to determine the effect of a Web-based point-of-care clinical decision support system on AAA screening rates in a primary care practice. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of medical records of male patients aged 65 to 75 years who were seen at any of our practice sites in 2007 and 2008, before and after implementation of the clinical decision support system. RESULTS: Overall screening rates were 31.36% in 2007 and 44.09% in 2008 (P-value: <0.001). Of patients who had not had AAA screening prior to the visit, 3.22% completed the screening after the visit in 2007, compared with 18.24% in 2008 when the clinical support system was implemented, 5.36 times improvement (P-value: <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A Web-based clinical decision support for primary care physicians significantly improved delivery of AAA screening of eligible patients. Carefully developed clinical decision support systems can optimize care delivery, ensuring that important preventive services are delivered to eligible patients.

Measuring faculty reflection on adverse patient events: development and initial validation of a case-based learning system.

BACKGROUND: Critical reflection by faculty physicians on adverse patient events is important for changing physician's behaviors. However, there is little research regarding physician reflection on quality improvement (QI). OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a computerized case-based learning system (CBLS) to measure faculty physicians' reflections on adverse patient events. DESIGN: Prospective validation study. PARTICIPANTS: Staff physicians in the Department of Medicine at Mayo Clinic Rochester. MAIN MEASURES: The CBLS was developed by Mayo Clinic information technology, medical education, and QI specialists. The reflection questionnaire, adapted from a previously validated instrument, contained eight items structured on five-point scales. Three cases, representing actual adverse events, were developed based on the most common error types: systems, medication, and diagnostic. In 2009, all Mayo Clinic hospital medicine, non-interventional cardiology, and pulmonary faculty were invited to participate. Faculty reviewed each case, determined the next management step, rated case generalizability and relevance, and completed the reflection questionnaire. Factor analysis and internal consistency reliability were calculated. Associations between reflection scores and characteristics of faculty and patient cases were determined. KEY RESULTS: Forty-four faculty completed 107 case reflections. The CBLS was rated as average to excellent in 95 of 104 (91.3%) completed satisfaction surveys. Factor analysis revealed two levels of reflection: Minimal and High. Internal consistency reliability was very good (overall Cronbach's α=0.77). Item mean scores ranged from 2.89 to 3.73 on a five-point scale. The overall reflection score was 3.41 (standard deviation 0.64). Reflection scores were positively associated with case generalizability (p=0.001), and case relevance (p=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The CBLS is a valid method for stratifying faculty physicians' levels of reflection on adverse patient events. Reflection scores are associated with case generalizability and relevance, indicating that reflection improves with pertinent patient encounters. We anticipate that this instrument will be useful in future research on QI among low versus high-reflecting physicians.