Background: Clinical decision support (CDS) tools embedded in electronic health records in the form of integrated clinical prediction rules provide a potentially effective intervention to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infections. However, their effectiveness has been limited by workflow barriers and low adoption by health care providers. Nurses are well positioned to implement evidence-based protocols using CDS tools. In a multicenter randomized controlled trial, a nurse-led implementation strategy for acute respiratory infection integrated clinical prediction rules was evaluated for use in primary care and urgent care settings. Objective: This study aimed to examine nurse and nurse leader perspectives on the sustainability of an electronic health record-integrated CDS tool for antibiotic stewardship and explored factors influencing its potential long-term integration into ambulatory nursing practice beyond the clinical trial. Methods: We interviewed 22 nurses and nurse leaders from 37 clinics across 3 academic medical centers that participated in the clinical trial. Two semistructured interview guides, one for nurses and one for nursing leadership, were developed to understand the barriers and facilitators to implementing a decision aid tool for nurses and to elicit challenges specific to nursing interactions with the CDS tool. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Using thematic content analysis and iterative coding, our team collaboratively identified emerging themes related to sustainability and refined the results with consensus. Results: Five themes emerged: (1) importance of staffing stability and capacity, (2) impact of dedicated clinic resource availability, (3) variable nurse readiness with CDS-guided clinical care, (4) influence of openness to change and a nurse-supportive clinic culture, and (5) ongoing need for training and support. Specific recommendations for future actions were also noted. Conclusions: Our findings revealed specific barriers and facilitators to the sustainability of a CDS tool from the nursing perspective that can inform further implementation of nurse-led delegation protocols in the ambulatory setting. Future solutions should consider mapping physical workflows, scheduling specific to nurse visits, continuing education, and treating cough and sore throat as 2 distinct processes.

Background:Usability testing is valuable for assessing a new tool or system's usefulness and ease-of-use. Several established methods of usability testing exist, including think-aloud testing. Although usability testing has been shown to be crucial for successful clinical decision support (CDS) tool development, it is often difficult to conduct across multisite development projects due to its time- and labor-intensiveness, cost, and the skills required to conduct the testing. Objective:Our objective was to develop a new method of usability testing that would enable efficient acquisition and dissemination of results among multiple sites. We sought to address the existing barriers to successfully completing usability testing during CDS tool development. Methods:We combined individual think-aloud testing and focus groups into one session and performed sessions serially across 4 sites (snowball group usability testing) to assess the usability of two CDS tools designed for use by nurses in primary and urgent care settings. We recorded each session and took notes in a standardized format. Each site shared feedback from their individual sessions with the other sites in the study so that they could incorporate that feedback into their tools prior to their own testing sessions. Results:The group testing and snowballing components of our new usability testing method proved to be highly beneficial. We identified 3 main benefits of snowball group usability testing. First, by interviewing several participants in a single session rather than individuals over the course of weeks, each site was able to quickly obtain their usability feedback. Second, combining the individualized think-aloud component with a focus group component in the same session helped study teams to more easily notice similarities in feedback among participants and to discuss and act upon suggestions efficiently. Third, conducting usability testing in series across sites allowed study teams to incorporate feedback based on previous sites' sessions prior to conducting their own testing. Conclusions:Snowball group usability testing provides an efficient method of obtaining multisite feedback on newly developed tools and systems, while addressing barriers typically associated with traditional usability testing methods. This method can be applied to test a wide variety of tools, including CDS tools, prior to launch so that they can be efficiently optimized.

Background During the COVID-19 pandemic, acute respiratory infection (ARI) antibiotic prescribing in ambulatory care markedly decreased. It is unclear if antibiotic prescription rates will remain lowered. Methods We used trend analyses of antibiotics prescribed during and after the first wave of COVID-19 to determine whether ARI antibiotic prescribing rates in ambulatory care have remained suppressed compared to pre-COVID-19 levels. Retrospective data was used from patients with ARI or UTI diagnosis code(s) for their encounter from 298 primary care and 66 urgent care practices within four academic health systems in New York, Wisconsin, and Utah between January 2017 and June 2022. The primary measures included antibiotic prescriptions per 100 non-COVID ARI encounters, encounter volume, prescribing trends, and change from expected trend. Results At baseline, during and after the first wave, the overall ARI antibiotic prescribing rates were 54.7, 38.5, and 54.7 prescriptions per 100 encounters, respectively. ARI antibiotic prescription rates saw a statistically significant decline after COVID-19 onset (step change -15.2, 95% CI: -19.6 to -4.8). During the first wave, encounter volume decreased 29.4% and, after the first wave, remained decreased by 188%. After the first wave, ARI antibiotic prescription rates were no longer significantly suppressed from baseline (step change 0.01, 95% CI: -6.3 to 6.2). There was no significant difference between UTI antibiotic prescription rates at baseline versus the end of the observation period. Conclusions The decline in ARI antibiotic prescribing observed after the onset of COVID-19 was temporary, not mirrored in UTI antibiotic prescribing, and does not represent a long-term change in clinician prescribing behaviors. During a period of heightened awareness of a viral cause of ARI, a substantial and clinically meaningful decrease in clinician antibiotic prescribing was observed. Future efforts in antibiotic stewardship may benefit from continued study of factors leading to this reduction and rebound in prescribing rates.

INTRODUCTION:Low-carbohydrate diets and time-restricted eating are methods to improve hemoglobin A1C in patients with type 2 diabetes. However, insulin-using patients are often counseled against these practices due to hypoglycemia concerns. This observational study evaluated a protocol utilizing both methods coupled with proactive insulin titration.OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the safety and feasibility of a timed eating protocol for insulin-using patients and to assess its impact on outcomes, including insulin use and hemoglobin A1C.METHODS:Participants included insulin-using adults ages 49 to 77 years with type 2 diabetes. They were counseled to eat 2 meals per day in a 6- to 8-hour window of their choosing, with a goal intake of ≤ 30 grams of carbohydrates per day. Glucose was closely monitored, and insulin was adjusted per study protocol. Primary outcomes included hypoglycemic events and compliance with timed eating. Insulin use, hemoglobin A1C, body mass index, blood pressure, and quality of life also were measured.RESULTS:Nineteen of the 20 participants completed the 6-month study. No hypoglycemic events requiring urgent medical care occurred. Symptomatic episodes with glucose between 47 and 80 mg/dl were reported by 37% (7/19) of participants. Average daily insulin use decreased by 62.2 U (P <  0.001) and insulin was discontinued for 14 participants. Average hemoglobin A1C remained unchanged. Average body mass index decreased by 4.0 (P = 0.01), systolic blood pressure decreased by 9.9 mm Hg (P = 0.02), and diabetes-related quality-of-life metrics improved significantly.CONCLUSIONS:These results demonstrate that a time-restricted eating protocol is feasible and safe for insulin-using patients with type 2 diabetes when paired with a proactive insulin titration.

BackgroundUp to 50% of antibiotic prescriptions for upper respiratory infections (URIs) are inappropriate. Clinical decision support (CDS) systems to mitigate unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions have been implemented into electronic health records, but their use by providers has been limited. ObjectiveAs a delegation protocol, we adapted a validated electronic health record–integrated clinical prediction rule (iCPR) CDS-based intervention for registered nurses (RNs), consisting of triage to identify patients with low-acuity URI followed by CDS-guided RN visits. It was implemented in February 2022 as a randomized controlled stepped-wedge trial in 43 primary and urgent care practices within 4 academic health systems in New York, Wisconsin, and Utah. While issues were pragmatically addressed as they arose, a systematic assessment of the barriers to implementation is needed to better understand and address these barriers. MethodsWe performed a retrospective case study, collecting quantitative and qualitative data regarding clinical workflows and triage-template use from expert interviews, study surveys, routine check-ins with practice personnel, and chart reviews over the first year of implementation of the iCPR intervention. Guided by the updated CFIR (Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research), we characterized the initial barriers to implementing a URI iCPR intervention for RNs in ambulatory care. CFIR constructs were coded as missing, neutral, weak, or strong implementation factors. ResultsBarriers were identified within all implementation domains. The strongest barriers were found in the outer setting, with those factors trickling down to impact the inner setting. Local conditions driven by COVID-19 served as one of the strongest barriers, impacting attitudes among practice staff and ultimately contributing to a work infrastructure characterized by staff changes, RN shortages and turnover, and competing responsibilities. Policies and laws regarding scope of practice of RNs varied by state and institutional application of those laws, with some allowing more clinical autonomy for RNs. This necessitated different study procedures at each study site to meet practice requirements, increasing innovation complexity. Similarly, institutional policies led to varying levels of compatibility with existing triage, rooming, and documentation workflows. These workflow conflicts were compounded by limited available resources, as well as an implementation climate of optional participation, few participation incentives, and thus low relative priority compared to other clinical duties. ConclusionsBoth between and within health care systems, significant variability existed in workflows for patient intake and triage. Even in a relatively straightforward clinical workflow, workflow and cultural differences appreciably impacted intervention adoption. Takeaways from this study can be applied to other RN delegation protocol implementations of new and innovative CDS tools within existing workflows to support integration and improve uptake. When implementing a system-wide clinical care intervention, considerations must be made for variability in culture and workflows at the state, health system, practice, and individual levels. Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04255303; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04255303

Up to 50% of antibiotic prescriptions for upper respiratory infections (URIs) are inappropriate. Clinical decisionsupport (CDS) systems to mitigate unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions have been implemented into electronic health records,but their use by providers has been limited. Objective: As a delegation protocol, we adapted a validated electronic health record-integrated clinical prediction rule (iCPR)CDS-based intervention for registered nurses (RNs), consisting of triage to identify patients with low-acuity URI followed byCDS-guided RN visits. It was implemented in February 2022 as a randomized controlled stepped-wedge trial in 43 primary andurgent care practices within 4 academic health systems in New York, Wisconsin, and Utah. While issues were pragmaticallyaddressed as they arose, a systematic assessment of the barriers to implementation is needed to better understand and addressthese barriers. Methods: We performed a retrospective case study, collecting quantitative and qualitative data regarding clinical workflowsand triage-template use from expert interviews, study surveys, routine check-ins with practice personnel, and chart reviews overthe first year of implementation of the iCPR intervention. Guided by the updated CFIR (Consolidated Framework for ImplementationResearch), we characterized the initial barriers to implementing a URI iCPR intervention for RNs in ambulatory care. CFIRconstructs were coded as missing, neutral, weak, or strong implementation factors. Results: Barriers were identified within all implementation domains. The strongest barriers were found in the outer setting,with those factors trickling down to impact the inner setting. Local conditions driven by COVID-19 served as one of the strongestbarriers, impacting attitudes among practice staff and ultimately contributing to a work infrastructure characterized by staffchanges, RN shortages and turnover, and competing responsibilities. Policies and laws regarding scope of practice of RNs variedby state and institutional application of those laws, with some allowing more clinical autonomy for RNs. This necessitated different study procedures at each study site to meet practice requirements, increasing innovation complexity. Similarly, institutionalpolicies led to varying levels of compatibility with existing triage, rooming, and documentation workflows. These workflowconflicts were compounded by limited available resources, as well as an implementation climate of optional participation, fewparticipation incentives, and thus low relative priority compared to other clinical duties. Conclusions: Both between and within health care systems, significant variability existed in workflows for patient intake andtriage. Even in a relatively straightforward clinical workflow, workflow and cultural differences appreciably impacted interventionadoption. Takeaways from this study can be applied to other RN delegation protocol implementations of new and innovativeCDS tools within existing workflows to support integration and improve uptake. When implementing a system-wide clinical careintervention, considerations must be made for variability in culture and workflows at the state, health system, practice, andindividual levels.

BACKGROUND:Overprescribing of antibiotics for acute respiratory infections (ARIs) remains a major issue in outpatient settings. Use of clinical prediction rules (CPRs) can reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing but they remain underutilized by physicians and advanced practice providers. A registered nurse (RN)-led model of an electronic health record-integrated CPR (iCPR) for low-acuity ARIs may be an effective alternative to address the barriers to a physician-driven model.METHODS:Following qualitative usability testing, we will conduct a stepped-wedge practice-level cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) examining the effect of iCPR-guided RN care for low acuity patients with ARI. The primary hypothesis to be tested is: Implementation of RN-led iCPR tools will reduce antibiotic prescribing across diverse primary care settings. Specifically, this study aims to: (1) determine the impact of iCPRs on rapid strep test and chest x-ray ordering and antibiotic prescribing rates when used by RNs; (2) examine resource use patterns and cost-effectiveness of RN visits across diverse clinical settings; (3) determine the impact of iCPR-guided care on patient satisfaction; and (4) ascertain the effect of the intervention on RN and physician burnout.DISCUSSION:This study represents an innovative approach to using an iCPR model led by RNs and specifically designed to address inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. This study has the potential to provide guidance on the effectiveness of delegating care of low-acuity patients with ARIs to RNs to increase use of iCPRs and reduce antibiotic overprescribing for ARIs in outpatient settings.TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04255303, Registered February 5 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04255303 .

BACKGROUND Usability testing is valuable for assessing a new tool or system’s usefulness and ease-of-use. However, during clinical decision support (CDS) tool development, usability testing is often not done due to its time- and labor-intensiveness, cost, and the skills required to conduct the testing. OBJECTIVE Our objective was to develop a new method of usability testing that would enable efficient acquisition and dissemination of results among multiple institutions. METHODS We combined individual think aloud testing and focus groups into one session, and performed sessions serially across four institutions (Snowball Group Usability Testing) to assess the usability of two clinical decision support tools for use by nurses in the primary and urgent care settings. RESULTS The group testing and snowballing components of our new usability testing method proved to be highly beneficial. Study teams were more easily able to notice similarities in feedback among participants, and thus, to discuss and act upon suggestions efficiently, as feedback from multiple participants was obtained in a single session. Snowballing allowed study teams to incorporate feedback based on previous institutions’ sessions prior to conducting their own testing. CONCLUSIONS Snowball Group Usability Testing provides an efficient method of obtaining feedback on newly developed tools and systems, while addressing barriers typically associated with traditional usability testing methods. This method can be applied to test a wide variety of tools, including CDS tools, prior to launch so that they can be efficiently optimized, ultimately leading to higher adoption. CLINICALTRIAL NCT04255303

AbstractObjectivesThe use of electronic health record (EHR)-embedded child abuse clinical decision support (CA-CDS) may help decrease morbidity from child maltreatment. We previously reported on the development of CA-CDS in Epic and Allscripts. The objective of this study was to implement CA-CDS into Epic and Allscripts and determine its effects on identification, evaluation, and reporting of suspected child maltreatment.Materials and MethodsAfter a preimplementation period, CA-CDS was implemented at University of Wisconsin (Epic) and Northwell Health (Allscripts). Providers were surveyed before the go-live and 4 months later. Outcomes included the proportion of children who triggered the CA-CDS system, had a positive Child Abuse Screen (CAS) and/or were reported to Child Protective Services (CPS).ResultsAt University of Wisconsin (UW), 3.5% of children in the implementation period triggered the system. The CAS was positive in 1.8% of children. The proportion of children reported to CPS increased from 0.6% to 0.9%. There was rapid uptake of the abuse order set.At Northwell Health (NW), 1.9% of children in the implementation period triggered the system. The CAS was positive in 1% of children. The child abuse order set was rarely used. Preimplementation, providers at both sites were similar in desire to have CA-CDS system and perception of CDS in general. After implementation, UW providers had a positive perception of the CA-CDS system, while NW providers had a negative perception.DiscussionCA-CDS was able to be implemented in 2 different EHRs with differing effects on clinical care and provider feedback. At UW, the site with higher uptake of the CA-CDS system, the proportion of children who triggered the system and the rate of positive CAS was similar to previous studies and there was an increase in the proportion of cases of suspected abuse identified as measured by reports to CPS. Our data demonstrate how local environment, end-users’ opinions, and limitations in the EHR platform can impact the success of implementation.ConclusionsWhen disseminating CA-CDS into different hospital systems and different EHRs, it is critical to recognize how limitations in the functionality of the EHR can impact the success of implementation. The importance of collecting, interpreting, and responding to provider feedback is of critical importance particularly with CDS related to child maltreatment.

See editorial, p 11 Improving Child Abuse Recognition and Management: Moving Forward with Clinical Decision SupportThe Journal of PediatricsVol. 252PreviewChild physical abuse is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in children and often is unrecognized by frontline providers in emergency departments (EDs).1 This problem is heightened for providers in general EDs, where the majority of US children present for emergency care, and abusive injuries are missed more frequently than in pediatric EDs.2 Clinical decision support (CDS) can improve clinical outcomes by providing clinicians with filtered knowledge and person-specific information at appropriate times in the health care encounter. Full-Text PDF

BACKGROUND:Variation in clinicians' diagnostic test utilization is incompletely explained by demographics and likely relates to cognitive characteristics. We explored clinician factors associated with diagnostic test utilization. METHODS:We used a self-administered survey of attitudes, cognitive characteristics, and reported likelihood of test ordering in common scenarios; frequency of lipid and liver testing in patients on statin therapy. Participants were 552 primary care physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants from practices in 8 US states across 3 regions, from June 1, 2018 to November 26, 2019. We measured Testing Likelihood Score: the mean of 4 responses to testing frequency and self-reported testing frequency in patients on statins. RESULTS:Respondents were 52.4% residents, 36.6% attendings, and 11.0% nurse practitioners/physician assistants; most were white (53.6%) or Asian (25.5%). Median age was 32 years; 53.1% were female. Participants reported ordering tests for a median of 20% (stress tests) to 90% (mammograms) of patients; Testing Likelihood Scores varied widely (median 54%, interquartile range 43%-69%). Higher scores were associated with geography, training type, low numeracy, high malpractice fear, high medical maximizer score, high stress from uncertainty, high concern about bad outcomes, and low acknowledgment of medical uncertainty. More frequent testing of lipids and liver tests was associated with low numeracy, high medical maximizer score, high malpractice fear, and low acknowledgment of uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS:Clinician variation in testing was common, with more aggressive testing consistently associated with low numeracy, being a medical maximizer, and low acknowledgment of uncertainty. Efforts to reduce undue variations in testing should consider clinician cognitive drivers.

Key Points Question Do practitioners understand the probability of common clinical diagnoses? Findings In this survey study of 553 practitioners performing primary care, respondents overestimated the probability of diagnosis before and after testing. This posttest overestimation was associated with consistent overestimates of pretest probability and overestimates of disease after specific diagnostic test results. Meaning These findings suggest that many practitioners are unaccustomed to using probability in diagnosis and clinical practice. Widespread overestimates of the probability of disease likely contribute to overdiagnosis and overuse.

IMPORTANCE Knowing the expected effect of treatment on an individual patient is essential for patient care. OBJECTIVE To explore clinicians' conceptualizations of the chance that treatments will decrease the risk of disease outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This survey study of attending and resident physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants was conducted in outpatient clinical settings in 8 US states from June 2018 to November 2019. The survey was an in-person, paper, 26-item survey in which clinicians were asked to estimate the probability of adverse disease outcomes and expected effects of therapies for diseases common in primary care. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Estimated chance that treatments would benefit an individual patient. RESULTS Of 723 clinicians, 585 (81%) responded, and 542 completed all the questions necessary for analysis, with a median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 32 (29-44) years, 287 (53%) women, and 294 (54%) White participants. Clinicians consistently overestimated the chance that treatments would benefit an individual patient. The median (IQR) estimated chance that warfarin would prevent a stroke in the next year was 50% (5%-80%) compared with scientific evidence, which indicates an absolute risk reduction (ARR) of 0.2% to 1.0% based on a relative risk reduction (RRR) of 39% to 50%. The median (IQR) estimated chance that antihypertensive therapy would prevent a cardiovascular event within 5 years was 30% (10%-70%) vs evidence of an ARR of 0% to 3% based on an RRR of 0% to 28%. The median (IQR) estimated chance that bisphosphonate therapy would prevent a hip fracture in the next 5 years was 40% (10%-60%) vs evidence of ARR of 0.1% to 0.4% based on an RRR of 20% to 40%. The median (IQR) estimated chance that moderate-intensity statin therapy would prevent a cardiovascular event in the next 5 years was 20% (IQR 5%-50%) vs evidence of an ARR of 0.3% to 2% based on an RRR of 19% to 33%. Estimates of the chance that a treatment would prevent an adverse outcome exceeded estimates of the absolute chance of that outcome for 60% to 70% of clinicians. Clinicians whose overestimations were greater were more likely to report using that treatment for patients in their practice (eg, use of warfarin: correlation coefficient, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.40-0.53; P <.001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this survey study, clinicians significantly overestimated the benefits of treatment to individual patients. Clinicians with greater overestimates were more likely to report using treatments in actual patients.

Hypertension has long been thought to influence the risk and severity of epistaxis. However, evaluation of the relevant literature reveals articles with methodologic concerns or limited quality. In many instances, these studies are not adequately controlled, and lack of multivariate analyses calls into question any noted association between epistaxis and hypertension. The goal of this commentary is to explain why there is limited guidance about the management of hypertension and the possible association with nosebleed in the 2020 American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation clinical practice guideline for nosebleeds. Background on the literature that describes the association between hypertension and nosebleeds is provided.

BackgroundChild maltreatment is a leading cause of pediatric morbidity and mortality. We previously reported on development and implementation of a child abuse clinical decision support system (CA-CDSS) in the Cerner electronic health record (EHR). Our objective was to develop a CA-CDSS in two different EHRs.MethodsUsing the CA-CDSS in Cerner as a template, CA-CDSSs were developed for use in four hospitals in the Northwell Health system who use Allscripts and two hospitals in the University of Wisconsin health system who use Epic. Each system had a combination of triggers, alerts and child abuse-specific order sets. Usability evaluation was done prior to launch of the CA-CDSS.ResultsOver an 18-month period, a CA-CDSS was embedded into Epic and Allscripts at two hospital systems. The CA-CDSSs vary significantly from each other in terms of the type of triggers which were able to be used, the type of alert, the ability of the alert to link directly to child abuse-specific order sets and the order sets themselves.ConclusionsDissemination of CA-CDSS from one EHR into the EHR in other health care systems is possible but time-consuming and needs to be adapted to the strengths and limitations of the specific EHR. Site-specific usability evaluation, buy-in of multiple stakeholder groups and significant information technology support are needed. These barriers limit scalability and widespread dissemination of CA-CDSS.