Annals of internal medicine
-
Electronic health records (EHRs) are ubiquitous yet still evolving, resulting in a moving target for determining the effects of context (features of the work environment, such as organization, payment systems, user training, and roles) on EHR implementation projects. Electronic health records have become instrumental in effecting quality improvement innovations and providing data to evaluate them. However, reports of studies typically fail to provide adequate descriptions of contextual details to permit readers to apply the findings. ⋯ Extensive guidelines exist for reporting of virtually all types of applied health research, but they are not tailored to capture some contextual factors that may affect the outcomes of EHR implementations, such as attitudes toward implementation, format and amount of training, post go-live support, amount of local customization, and time diverted from direct interaction with patients to computers. Nevertheless, evaluators of EHR-based innovations can choose reporting guidelines that match the general purpose of their evaluation and the stage of their investigation (planning, protocol, execution, and analysis) and should report relevant contextual details (including, if pertinent, any pressures to help justify the huge investments and many years required for some implementations). Reporting guidelines are based on the scientific principles and practices that underlie sound research and should be consulted from the earliest stages of planning evaluations and onward, serving as guides for how evaluations should be conducted as well as reported.
-
By enabling more efficient and effective medical decision making, computer-based clinical decision support (CDS) could unlock widespread benefits from the significant investment in electronic health record (EHR) systems in the United States. Evidence from high-quality CDS studies is needed to enable and support this vision of CDS-facilitated care optimization, but limited guidance is available in the literature for designing and reporting CDS studies. To address this research gap, this article provides recommendations for designing, conducting, and reporting CDS studies to: 1) ensure that EHR data to inform the CDS are available; 2) choose decision rules that are consistent with local care processes; 3) target the right users and workflows; 4) make the CDS easy to access and use; 5) minimize the burden placed on users; 6) incorporate CDS success factors identified in the literature, in particular the automatic provision of CDS as a part of clinician workflow; 7) ensure that the CDS rules are adequately tested; 8) select meaningful evaluation measures; 9) use as rigorous a study design as is feasible; 10) think about how to deploy the CDS beyond the original host organization; 11) report the study in context; 12) help the audience understand why the intervention succeeded or failed; and 13) consider the financial implications. If adopted, these recommendations should help advance the vision of more efficient, effective care facilitated by useful and widely available CDS.