Role of Individual Clinician Authority in the Implementation of Informatics Tools for Population-Based Medication Management: Qualitative Semistructured Interview Study.

BACKGROUND: Direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) medications are frequently associated with inappropriate prescribing and adverse events. To improve the safe use of DOACs, health systems are implementing population health tools within their electronic health record (EHR). While EHR informatics tools can help increase awareness of inappropriate prescribing of medications, a lack of empowerment (or insufficient empowerment) of nonphysicians to implement change is a key barrier. OBJECTIVE: This study examined how the individual authority of clinical pharmacists and anticoagulation nurses is impacted by and changes the implementation success of an EHR DOAC Dashboard for safe DOAC medication prescribing. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with pharmacists and nurses following the implementation of the EHR DOAC Dashboard at 3 clinical sites. Interview transcripts were coded according to the key determinants of implementation success. The intersections between individual clinician authority and other determinants were examined to identify themes. RESULTS: A high level of individual clinician authority was associated with high levels of key facilitators for effective use of the DOAC Dashboard (communication, staffing and work schedule, job satisfaction, and EHR integration). Conversely, a lack of individual authority was often associated with key barriers to effective DOAC Dashboard use. Positive individual authority was sometimes present with a negative example of another determinant, but no evidence was found of individual authority co-occurring with a positive instance of another determinant. CONCLUSIONS: Increased individual clinician authority is a necessary antecedent to the effective implementation of an EHR DOAC Population Management Dashboard and positively affects other aspects of implementation. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1186/s13012-020-01044-5.

Dynamic interplay between available resources and implementation climate across phases of implementation: a qualitative study of a VA national population health tool.

BACKGROUND: Available resources within an organization can determine the implementation success of an intervention. However, few studies have investigated how the required resources change over the phases of implementation. Using stakeholder interviews, we examined the changes in and interactions between available resources and implementation climate in the implementation and sustainment phases of a national implementation effort for a population health tool. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of the interviews with 20 anticoagulation professionals at 17 clinical sites in the Veterans Health Administration health system about their experiences with a population health dashboard for anticoagulant management. Interview transcripts were coded using constructs from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and according to the phase of implementation (pre-implementation, implementation, and sustainment) as defined by the VA Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) Roadmap. We analyzed the factors that may determine successful implementation by examining the co-occurrence patterns between available resources and implementation climate across different implementation phases. To illustrate the variations in these determinants across phases, we aggregated and scored coded statements using a previously published CFIR scoring system (- 2 to + 2). Key relationships between available resources and implementation climate were identified and summarized using thematic analysis. RESULTS: The resources necessary to support the successful implementation of an intervention are not static; both the quantity and types of resources shift based on the phases of the intervention. Furthermore, increased resource availability does not guarantee the sustainment of intervention success. Users need different types of support beyond the technical aspects of an intervention, and this support varies over time. Specifically, available resources in the form of technological support and social/emotional support help users establish trust in a new technological-based intervention during the implementation phase. Resources that foster and maintain collaboration between users and other stakeholders help them stay motivated during sustainment. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the dynamic nature of available resources and their impacts on the implementation climate across different phases of implementation. A better understanding of the dynamics of available resources over time from the users' perspectives will allow the adaptation of resources to better meet the needs of the intervention stakeholders.

Dashboards in Health Care Settings: Protocol for a Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Health care organizations increasingly depend on business intelligence tools, including "dashboards," to capture, analyze, and present data on performance metrics. Ideally, dashboards allow users to quickly visualize actionable data to inform and optimize clinical and organizational performance. In reality, dashboards are typically embedded in complex health care organizations with massive data streams and end users with distinct needs. Thus, designing effective dashboards is a challenging task and theoretical underpinnings of health care dashboards are poorly characterized; even the concept of the dashboard remains ill-defined. Researchers, informaticists, clinical managers, and health care administrators will benefit from a clearer understanding of how dashboards have been developed, implemented, and evaluated, and how the design, end user, and context influence their uptake and effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review first aims to survey the vast published literature of "dashboards" to describe where, why, and for whom they are used in health care settings, as well as how they are developed, implemented, and evaluated. Further, we will examine how dashboard design and content is informed by intended purpose and end users. METHODS: In July 2020, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for peer-reviewed literature using a targeted strategy developed with a research librarian and retrieved 5188 results. Following deduplication, 3306 studies were screened in duplicate for title and abstract. Any abstracts mentioning a health care dashboard were retrieved in full text and are undergoing duplicate review for eligibility. Articles will be included for data extraction and analysis if they describe the development, implementation, or evaluation of a dashboard that was successfully used in routine workflow. Articles will be excluded if they were published before 2015, the full text is unavailable, they are in a non-English language, or they describe dashboards used for public health tracking, in settings where direct patient care is not provided, or in undergraduate medical education. Any discrepancies in eligibility determination will be adjudicated by a third reviewer. We chose to focus on articles published after 2015 and those that describe dashboards that were successfully used in routine practice to identify the most recent and relevant literature to support future dashboard development in the rapidly evolving field of health care informatics. RESULTS: All articles have undergone dual review for title and abstract, with a total of 2019 articles mentioning use of a health care dashboard retrieved in full text for further review. We are currently reviewing all full-text articles in duplicate. We aim to publish findings by mid-2022. Findings will be reported following guidance from the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review will provide stakeholders with an overview of existing dashboard tools, highlighting the ways in which dashboards have been developed, implemented, and evaluated in different settings and for different end user groups, and identify potential research gaps. Findings will guide efforts to design and use dashboards in the health care sector more effectively. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/34894.

Implementing an electronic health record dashboard for safe anticoagulant management: learning from qualitative interviews with existing and potential users to develop an implementation process.

BACKGROUND: Facilitating appropriate care delivery using electronic health record (digital health) tools is increasing. However, frequently used determinants frameworks seldom address key barriers for technology-associated implementation. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted in two contexts: the national Veterans Health Affairs (VA) following implementation of an electronic dashboard, a population health tool, and the Michigan Anticoagulation Quality Improvement Initiative (MAQI2) prior to implementation of a similar electronic dashboard. The dashboard is designed for pharmacist or nurse use to monitor safe outpatient anticoagulant prescribing by physicians and other clinicians We performed rapid qualitative inquiry analysis and selected implementation strategies. Through a stakeholder focus group session, we selected implementation strategies to address determinants and facilitate implementation in the MAQI2 sites. RESULTS: Among 45 interviewees (32 in VA, 13 in MAQI2), we identified five key determinants of implementation success: (1) clinician authority and autonomy, (2) clinician self-identity and job satisfaction, (3) documentation and administrative needs, (4) staffing and work schedule, and (5) integration with existing information systems. Key differences between the two contexts included concerns about information technology support and prioritization within MAQI2 (prior to implementation) but not VA (after implementation) and concerns about authority and autonomy that differed between the VA (higher baseline levels, more concerns) and MAQI2 (lower baseline levels, less concern). CONCLUSIONS: The successful implementation of electronic health record tools requires unique considerations that differ from other types of implementation, must account for the status of implementation, and should address the effects of the tool deployment on clinical staff authority and autonomy. Interviewing both post-implementation and pre-implementation users can provide a robust understanding of implementation determinants.