PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Appl Clin Inform 2023; 14(03): 594-599
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1769913
Research Article

Uptake of a Cervical Cancer Clinical Decision Support Tool: A Mixed-Methods Study

Nathalie Huguet
1   Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States
,
David Ezekiel-Herrera
1   Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States
,
Rose Gunn
2   OCHIN Inc., Portland, Oregon, United States
,
Alison Pierce
2   OCHIN Inc., Portland, Oregon, United States
,
Jean O'Malley
2   OCHIN Inc., Portland, Oregon, United States
,
Matthew Jones
2   OCHIN Inc., Portland, Oregon, United States
,
Miguel Marino
1   Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon, United States
,
Rachel Gold
2   OCHIN Inc., Portland, Oregon, United States
3   Kaiser Permanente Northwest Center for Health Research, Portland, Oregon, United States
› Institutsangaben Funding/Support This work was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health (grant number P50CA244289). This P50 program was launched by NCI as part of the Cancer Moonshot. The funding source had no role in design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Objectives Clinical decision support (CDS) tools that provide point-of-care reminders of patients' care needs may improve rates of guideline-concordant cervical cancer screening. However, uptake of such electronic health record (EHR)-based tools in primary care practices is often low. This study describes the frequency of factors associated with, and barriers and facilitators to adoption of a cervical cancer screening CDS tool (CC-tool) implemented in a network of community health centers.

Methods This mixed-methods sequential explanatory study reports on CC-tool use among 480 community-based clinics, located across 18 states. Adoption of the CC-tool was measured as any instance of tool use (i.e., entry of cervical cancer screening results or follow-up plan) and as monthly tool use rates from November 1, 2018 (tool release date) to December 31, 2020. Adjusted odds and rates of tool use were evaluated using logistic and negative-binomial regression. Feedback from nine clinic staff representing six clinics during user-centered design sessions and semi-structured interviews with eight clinic staff from two additional clinics were conducted to assess barriers and facilitators to tool adoption.

Results The CC-tool was used ≥1 time in 41% of study clinics during the analysis period. Clinics that ever used the tool and those with greater monthly tool use had, on average, more encounters, more patients from households at >138% federal poverty level, fewer pediatric encounters, higher up-to-date cervical cancer screening rates, and higher rates of abnormal cervical cancer screening results. Qualitative data indicated barriers to tool adoption, including lack of knowledge of the tool's existence, understanding of its functionalities, and training on its use.

Conclusion Without effective systems for informing users about new EHR functions, new or updated EHR tools are unlikely to be widely adopted, reducing their potential to improve health care quality and outcomes.

Keywords

clinical decision support - community health centers - cervical cancer screening - mixed methods

Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

The Institutional Review Board reviewed and approved this study.


Supplementary Material



Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 22. Januar 2023

Angenommen: 26. April 2023

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
02. August 2023

© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Benard VB, Thomas CC, King J, Massetti GM, Doria-Rose VP, Saraiya M. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Vital signs: cervical cancer incidence, mortality, and screening - United States, 2007-2012. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2014; 63 (44) 1004-1009
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Moyer VA, Force USPST. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for cervical cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2012; 156 (12) 880-891 , W312
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 MacLaughlin KL, Jacobson RM, Radecki Breitkopf C. et al. Trends over time in pap and Pap-HPV cotesting for cervical cancer screening. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2019; 28 (02) 244-249
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Chido-Amajuoyi OG, Shete S. Prevalence of abnormal cervical cancer screening outcomes among screening-compliant women in the United States. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2019; 221 (01) 75-77
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Tsui J, Llanos AA, Doose M, Rotter D, Stroup A. Determinants of abnormal cervical cancer screening follow-up and invasive cervical cancer among uninsured and underinsured women in New Jersey. J Health Care Poor Underserved 2019; 30 (02) 680-701
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Bright TJ, Wong A, Dhurjati R. et al. Effect of clinical decision-support systems: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2012; 157 (01) 29-43
    Google Scholar
  • 7 Lobach DF. The road to effective clinical decision support: are we there yet?. BMJ 2013; 346: f1616
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Magrath M, Yang E, Ahn C. et al. Impact of a clinical decision support system on guideline adherence of surveillance recommendations for colonoscopy after polypectomy. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2018; 16 (11) 1321-1328
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Mahmoud AS, Alkhenizan A, Shafiq M, Alsoghayer S. The impact of the implementation of a clinical decision support system on the quality of healthcare services in a primary care setting. J Family Med Prim Care 2020; 9 (12) 6078-6084
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Ravikumar KE, MacLaughlin KL, Scheitel MR. et al. Improving the accuracy of a clinical decision support system for cervical cancer screening and surveillance. Appl Clin Inform 2018; 9 (01) 62-71
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Sequist TD, Zaslavsky AM, Marshall R, Fletcher RH, Ayanian JZ. Patient and physician reminders to promote colorectal cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med 2009; 169 (04) 364-371
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ. et al. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci 2015; 10: 21
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Dupuis EA, White HF, Newman D, Sobieraj JE, Gokhale M, Freund KM. Tracking abnormal cervical cancer screening: evaluation of an EMR-based intervention. J Gen Intern Med 2010; 25 (06) 575-580
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Osheroff JA, Teich JA, Levick D. et al. Improving Outcomes with Clinical Decision Support: An Implementer's Guide. 2nd ed. Chicago IL: HIMSS; 2012
  • 15 Militello LG, Diiulio JB, Borders MR. et al. Evaluating a modular decision support application for colorectal cancer screening. Appl Clin Inform 2017; 8 (01) 162-179
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Becker M, Böckmann B, Jöckel KH. et al. Mapping patient data to colorectal cancer clinical algorithms for personalized guideline-based treatment. Appl Clin Inform 2020; 11 (02) 200-209
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Tamposis I, Tsougos I, Karatzas A, Vassiou K, Vlychou M, Tzortzis V. PCaGuard: a software platform to support optimal management of prostate cancer. Appl Clin Inform 2022; 13 (01) 91-99
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 MacLaughlin KL, Kessler ME, Komandur Elayavilli R. et al. Impact of patient reminders on papanicolaou test completion for high-risk patients identified by a clinical decision support system. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2018; 27 (05) 569-574
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Kouri A, Yamada J, Lam Shin Cheung J, Van de Velde S, Gupta S. Do providers use computerized clinical decision support systems? A systematic review and meta-regression of clinical decision support uptake. Implement Sci 2022; 17 (01) 21
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Gold R, Bunce A, Davis JV. et al. “I didn't know you could do that”: a pilot assessment of EHR optimization training. ACI Open 2021; 5 (01) e27-e35
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Owens C, Chen J, Xu R. et al. Implementation of Health Information Technology for Secondary Cancer Prevention in Primary Care: A Scoping Review. 2022
    PubMed
  • 22 Huguet N, Hodes T, Holderness H, Bailey SR, DeVoe JE, Marino M. Community health centers' performance in cancer screening and prevention. Am J Prev Med 2022; 62 (02) e97-e106
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Norman D. . The Design of Everyday Things. New York, NY: Basic Books; 1988
  • 24 Rex Hartson H. Human–computer interaction: interdisciplinary roots and trends. J Syst Softw 1998; 43 (02) 103-118
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Malterud K, Siersma VD, Guassora AD. Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by information power. Qual Health Res 2016; 26 (13) 1753-1760
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci 2009; 4: 50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Braun V, Clarke V, Hayfield N, Thematic Analysis GT. . Thematic analysis. In: Liamputtong P, ed. Handbook of Research Methods in Health Social Sciences. Singapore: Springer; 2019:843–860
  • 28 Cohen D, Crabtree BF, Damschroder L. et al. Qualitative methods in implementation science. 2015. Accessed May 24, 2023 at: https://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/sites/default/files/2020-09/nci-dccps-implementationscience-whitepaper.pdf
    PubMed
  • 29 Liu VX, Haq N, Chan IC, Hoberman B. Inpatient electronic health record maintenance from 2010 to 2015. Am J Manag Care 2019; 25 (01) 18-21
    PubMedGoogle Scholar