Evaluation of an Electronic Health Record Tool to Identify Echocardiograms That Do Not Change Clinical Care.
Evaluation of an Electronic Health Record Tool to Identify Echocardiograms That Do Not Change Clinical Care.
复制标题
评估电子健康记录工具,以识别不改变临床护理的超声心动图。
DOI:
10.1016/j.echo.2023.08.019
复制
发表时间:
2023
期刊:
影响因子:
--
通讯作者:
Woo,HawkinE
中科院分区:
文献类型:
--
作者:
Leuchter,RichardK;Gulhar,Radhika;Maynick,JeffD;Dardick,LawrenceD;Vorobiof,Gabriel;Tabibiazar,Ramin;Yang,RobertM;Sarkisian,CatherineA;Woo,HawkinE
The accessibility and affordability of transthoracic echocardiograms (TTEs) make them 1 indispensable in the management of numerous illnesses, though these virtues also contribute to 2 substantial TTE overuse. 1–3 Despite numerous well-designed interventions consisting of 3 education, audit/feedback, and decision support tools to curb TTE overuse, there still exists a 4 need for novel, cost-effective strategies that can sustainably reduce overuse across healthcare 5 systems. 1, 4, 5 In this single health system study across two hospitals, we sought to design an 6 electronic health record (EHR) tool that could accurately identify TTEs that did not actively 7 change clinical care, and thus could be used in future interventions to reduce TTE overuse at the 8 time of order entry. 9Starting June 2021, we modified the inpatient TTE order composer to replace the 10 unstructured free-text indication field with cascading structured indication checkboxes based on 11 the indications in the ACC/AHA 2011 appropriate use criteria (AUC) for echocardiography 12 (Figure 1). We designed an EHR tool that queried the selected checkboxes to silently flag TTEs 13 that 1) were repeated within 14 days from a prior TTE, and 2) met one of ten scenarios with low 14 appropriateness scores according to echocardiography AUC (Figure 2). Two hospital-based 15 internists (blinded to selected indications and flagged status) chart reviewed all flagged cases and 16 an equal number of randomly selected unflagged controls, to determine TTE clinical impact in 17 accordance with prior methods (Figure 2). 3 TTEs completed on any critical care service and for 18 multiple indications were excluded from analysis. We used chi-square tests to compare clinical 19 impact (primary outcome) and the number of TTEs that were completely unchanged from the 20 prior TTE (secondary outcome) between flagged versus unflagged groups. The study protocol 21 was approved by the UCLA Health IRB. 22