Development and Implementation of Computerized Clinical Guidelines: Barriers and Solutions

Summary

Next, the article discusses the need to incorporate the use of surveys, questionnaires, or rating instruments for the collection of end-user feedback during and after the implementation process. A description of the types of rating instruments that will facilitate the assessment of user satisfaction is provided. Initial results from physician feedback during the implementation of our prototype are discussed. Research indicates that computerized decision support systems (CDSSs) can improve clinical performance and patient outcomes, and yet CDSSs are not in widespread use. Physician guidelines, in general, face barriers in implementation. Guidelines in a computerized format can overcome some of the barriers to conventional text-form guidelines; however, computerized programs have novel aspects that have to be considered, aspects such as technical problems/support and user interface issues that can act as barriers. Though the literature points out that human, organizational, and technical issues can act as barriers in the implementation of CDSSs, studies clearly indicate that there are methods that can overcome these barriers and improve CDSS acceptance and use. These methods come from lessons learned from a variety of CDSS implementation ventures. Notably, most of the methods that improve acceptance and use of a CDSS require feedback and involvement of end-users. Measuring and addressing physician or user attitudes toward the computerized support system has been shown to be important in the successful implementation of a CDSS. This article discusses: 1) the barriers of implementation of guidelines in general and of CDSSs; 2) the importance of the physician’s role in development, implementation, and adherence; 3) methods that can improve CDSS acceptance and use; and 4) the types of tools needed to obtain end-user feedback.

Keywords

Medical informatics - decision making - computer assisted - practice guidelines - communication barriers

• REFERENCES

• 1 Johnston ME, Langston KB, Haynes RB, Mathieu A. Effects of computer-based decision support systems on clinician performance and patient outcome. Ann Intern Med 1994; 120: 135-42.
• 2 Lobach DF, Hammond WE. Computerized decision support based on a clinical practice guidelines improves compliance with care standards. Excerpta Medica 1997; 102: 89-98.
• 3 Fitzmaurice DA, Hobbs FD, Delaney BC, Wilson S, McManus R. Review of computerized decision support systems for anticoagulation management. B J Haematol 1998; 102: 907-9.
• 4 Chantellier G, Columbet I, Degoulet P. Computer-adjusted dosage of anticoagulant therapy improves the quality of anticoagulation. Med Inf 1998; 9: 819-23.
• 5 Poller L, Shiach CR, MacCallum PK. et al. Multicentre randomized study of computerized anticoagulant dosage: European Concerted Action on Anticoagulation. Lancet 1998; 352: 1505-9.
• 6 Pestotnik SL, Classen DC, Evans RS, Burke JP. Implementing antibiotic practice guidelines through computer-assisted decision support: clinical and financial outcomes. Ann Intern Med 1996; 124: 884-90.
• 7 Evans RS, Pestotnik SL, Classen DC. et al. A computer-assisted management program for antibiotics and other antiinfective agents. N Engl J Med 1998; 338: 232-8.
• 8 Hunt DL, Haynes BH, Hanna SE, Smith K. Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems of physician performance and patient outcomes. JAMA 1998; 280: 1339-46.
• 9 Walton R, Dovey S, Harvey E, Freemantle N. Computer support for determining drug dose: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br Med J 1999; 318: 984-90.
• 10 Bates DW, Leape LL, Cullen DJ. et al. Effect of computerized physician order entry on prevention of serious medication errors. JAMA 1998; 280: 1311-6.
• 11 Bates DW, Teich JM, Lee J. et al. The impact of computerized physician order entry on medication error prevention. J Am Med Inf Assoc 1999; 6: 313-21.
• 12 Chambers CV, Valban DJ, Lepidus Cralson B, Ungemack JA, Grasberger DM. Microcomputer-generated reminders: Improving the compliance of primary care physicians with mammography screening guidelines. J Fam Prac 1989; 29: 273-80.
• 13 Litzelman DK, Dittas RS, Miller ME, Tierney WM. Requiring physicians to respond to computerized reminders improves their compliance with preventative care protocols. J Intern Med 1993; 8: 311-7.
• 14 Sullivan F, Mitchell E. Has practitioner computing made a difference to patient care? A systematic review of published reports. Br Med J 1995; 311: 848-52.
• 15 Cannon SR, Gardner RM. Experience with a computerized interactive protocol system using HELP. Comput Biomed Res 1980; 13: 399-409.
• 16 McDonald CJ. Use of a computer to detect and respond to clinical events: its effect on clinician behavior. Ann Intern Med 1976; 84: 162-7.
• 17 Wendt T, Knaup-Gregori P, Winter A. Decision support in medicine: a survey of problems of user acceptance. Stud Health Technol Inform 2000; 77: 852-6.
• 18 Kaplan B. Culture counts: how institutional values affect computer use. MD Comput; January/February 2000: 23-6.
• 19 Margolis CZ, Warshawsky SS, Goldman L. et al. Computerized algorithms and pediatricians’ management of common problems in a community clinic. Acad Med 1992; 67 (Suppl. 04) 282-4.
• 20 Rotman BI, Sullivan AN, McDonald TW. et al. A randomized controlled trial of a computer-based physician workstation in an outpatient setting: implementation barriers to overcome evaluation. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1996; 3 (Suppl. 05) 340-8.
• 21 Travers DA, Downs SM. Comparing user acceptance of a computer system in pediatric offices: a qualitative study. Proc AMIA Symp; 2000: 853-7.
• 22 Ash JS, Gorman PN, Hersh WR, Lavelle M, Poulsen SB. Perceptions of house officers who use physician order entry. Proc AMIA Symp; 1999: 471-5.
• 23 Payne TH. The transition to automated practitioner order entry in a teaching hospital: the VA Puget Sound experience. Proc AMIA Symp; 1999: 589-93.
• 24 Anderson JD. Increasing the acceptance of clinical information. MD Comput; January/ February 1999: 62-5.
• 25 Davis DA, Taylor-Vaisey A. Translating guidelines into practice; a systematic review of theoretic concepts, practical experience and research in the adoption of clinical practice guidelines. Can Med Assoc 1997; 157: 408-16.
• 26 Lomas JL, Anderson JM, Dominick-Pierre K. et al. Do practice guidelines guide practice? The effect of a consensus statement on the practice of physicians. N Engl J Med 1989; 321: 1307-11.
• 27 Greco PJ, Eisenberg JM. Changing physicians’ practices. N Engl J Med 1993; 320: 1271-4.
• 28 Pathman DE, Konrad TR, Freed GL, Freeman VA, Koch GG. The awareness-to-adherence model of the steps to clinical guideline compliance; the case of pediatric vaccine recommendations. Med Care 1996; 34: 873-89.
• 29 Flocke SA, Stange KC, Fedirko TL. Dissemination of information about the US Preventive Service Task Force guidelines. Arch Fam Med 1994; 3: 10068.
• 30 Gupta L, Ward JE, Hayward R. Clinical practice guidelines in clinical practice: a national survey of recall, attitudes and impact. Med J Aust 1997; 166: 69-72.
• 31 Cabana MD, Rand CS, Powe NR. et al. Why don’t physicians follow practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. JAMA 1999; 282 (Suppl. 15) 1458-65.
• 32 Elson RB, Connelly DP. Computerized patient records in primary care; their role in mediating guideline-driven physician behavior change. Arch Fam Med 1995; 4: 698-705.
• 33 Trivedi MH, Kern JK, Baker SM, Altshuler KZ. Computerized medication algorithms and decision support systems for major psychiatric disorders. J Psychiatr Prac 2000; 6: 237-46.
• 34 Trivedi MH, Kern JK, Voegle T, Baker SM, Altshuler KZ. Computerized medical algorithms in behavioral health care. In: Dewan NA, Lorenzi N, Riley R, Bhattacharya SR. (Eds.) Behavioral Health Care Informatics.. New York: Springer-Verlag, Inc.; in cooperation with Springer-Verlag GmbH & Co., KG Berlin Heidelberg 2001
• 35 Schriger DL, Baraff LJ, Rogers WH, Cretin S. Implementation of clinical guidelines using a computer charting system: effect on the initial care of health care workers exposed to body fluids. JAMA 1997; 278: 1585-90.
• 36 Arnetz BB. Technological stress: psychophysio-logical aspects of working with modern information technology. Scan J Environ Health 1997; 23 suppl 3 97-103.
• 37 Sittig DF, Kuperman GJ, Fiskio J. Evaluating physician satisfaction regarding user interactions with an electronic medical record system. Proceedings/AMIA Annual Symposium; 1999: 400-4.
• 38 Anderson JG, Jay SJ, Schweer HM, Anderson MM. Why doctors don’t use computers: some empirical findings. J R Soc Med 1986; 79: 142-4.
• 39 Martin-Baranera M, Planas I, Palau J. et al. Assessing physician’s expectations and attitudes toward hospital information systems: the IMASIS experience. MD Comput; January/ February 1999: 73-6.
• 40 Rind DM, Safran C. Real and imagined barriers to electronic medical record. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care; 1993: 74-8.
• 41 Nickell GS, Pinto JN. The Computer Attitude Scale. Comput Hum Behav 1986; 2: 301-6.
• 42 Aydin CE, Forsythe DE. Implementing computers in ambulatory care: implications of physician practice patterns for system design. Proc AMIA Annu Fall Symp; 1997: 677-81.
• 43 Massaro TA. Introducing physician order entry at a major academic medical center: I. impact on medical education. Acad Med 1993; 68 (Suppl. 01) 20-5.
• 44 Massaro TA. Introducing physician order entry at a major academic medical center: II. impact on medical education. Acad Med 1993; 68 (Suppl. 01) 25-30.
• 45 Jousimaa J, Kunnamo I, Makela M. An implementation study of the PDRD primary care computerized guidelines. Scan J Prim Health Care 1998; 16 (Suppl. 03) 149-53.
• 46 Hobbs FD, Delaney BC, Carson A, Kenkre JE. A prospective controlled trial of computerized decision support for lipid management in primary care. Fam Pract 1996; 13 (Suppl. 02) 133-7.
• 47 Turner RC, Peden Jr JG, O’Brien K. Patient-carried card prompts vs. computer-generated prompts to remind private practice physicians to perform health maintenance measures. Arch Intern Med 1994; 154 (Suppl. 17) 1957-60.
• 48 Graeber S. Application of clinical workstations: functionality and usability. Clin Perform Qual Health Care 1997; 5 (Suppl. 02) 71-5.
• 49 Elson RB. Clinical practice guidelines. Dis Manage Health Outcomes 1997; 1: 63-74.
• 50 Amoako-Gyampah K. Exploring user’s desire to be involved in computer systems development: an exploratory study. Comput Hum Behav 1997; 13 (Suppl. 01) 65-81.
• 51 Malhotra Y, Galletta DF. Extending the technology acceptance model to account for social influence: theoretical bases and empirical validation. Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences; 1999: 1-16.
• 52 Lorenzi NM, Riley RT. Managing change: an overview. JAMIA 2000; 7 (Suppl. 02) 116-24.
• 53 Gardner RM, Lundsgaarde HP. Evaluation of user acceptance of a clinical expert system. JAMIA 1994; 1 (Suppl. 06) 428-38.
• 54 Etezadi-Amoli J, Farhoomand AF. The measurement of end-user computing satisfaction: theoretical and methodological issues. MIS Quarterly; March, 1999: 5-10.
• 55 Dixon DR. The behavioral side of information technology. Int J Med Inf 1999; 56: 117-23.
• 56 Downing CE. System usage behavior as a proxy for user satisfaction: an empirical investigation. Inf & Manage 1999; 35: 203-16.