Clinical decisions support malfunctions in a commercial electronic health record

27Citations
Citations of this article
67Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objectives: Determine if clinical decision support (CDS) malfunctions occur in a commercial electronic health record (EHR) system, characterize their pathways and describe methods of detection. Methods: We retrospectively examined the firing rate for 226 alert type CDS rules for detection of anomalies using both expert visualization and statistical process control (SPC) methods over a five year period. Candidate anomalies were investigated and validated. Results: Twenty-one candidate CDS anomalies were identified from 8,300 alert-months. Of these candidate anomalies, four were confirmed as CDS malfunctions, eight as false-positives, and nine could not be classified. The four CDS malfunctions were a result of errors in knowledge management: 1) inadvertent addition and removal of a medication code to the electronic formulary list; 2) a seasonal alert which was not activated; 3) a change in the base data structures; and 4) direct editing of an alert related to its medications. 154 CDS rules (68%) were amenable to SPC methods and the test characteristics were calculated as a sensitivity of 95%, positive predictive value of 29% and F-measure 0.44. Discussion: CDS malfunctions were found to occur in our EHR. All of the pathways for these malfunctions can be described as knowledge management errors. Expert visualization is a robust method of detection, but is resource intensive. SPC-based methods, when applicable, perform reasonably well retrospectively. Conclusion: CDS anomalies were found to occur in a commercial EHR and visual detection along with SPC analysis represents promising methods of malfunction detection.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kassakian, S. Z., Yackel, T. R., Gorman, P. N., & Dorr, D. A. (2017). Clinical decisions support malfunctions in a commercial electronic health record. Applied Clinical Informatics, 8(3), 910–923. https://doi.org/10.4338/ACI-2017-01-RA-0006

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free