Cargando…

An evaluation of clinical decision support tools for Patient Health Questionnaire-9 administration

INTRODUCTION: Many health care institutions are working to improve depression screening and management with the use of the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9). Clinical decision support (CDS) within the EHR is one strategy, but little is known about effective approaches to design or implement suc...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Maten, Naweid, Kroehl, Miranda E., Loeb, Danielle F., Bhat, Shubha, Ota, Taylor, Billups, Sarah J., Schilling, Lisa M., Heckman, Simeon, Reingardt, Crystal, Trinkley, Katy E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: College of Psychiatric & Neurologic Pharmacists 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8463004/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34621601
http://dx.doi.org/10.9740/mhc.2021.09.267
_version_ 1784572317877141504
author Maten, Naweid
Kroehl, Miranda E.
Loeb, Danielle F.
Bhat, Shubha
Ota, Taylor
Billups, Sarah J.
Schilling, Lisa M.
Heckman, Simeon
Reingardt, Crystal
Trinkley, Katy E.
author_facet Maten, Naweid
Kroehl, Miranda E.
Loeb, Danielle F.
Bhat, Shubha
Ota, Taylor
Billups, Sarah J.
Schilling, Lisa M.
Heckman, Simeon
Reingardt, Crystal
Trinkley, Katy E.
author_sort Maten, Naweid
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Many health care institutions are working to improve depression screening and management with the use of the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9). Clinical decision support (CDS) within the EHR is one strategy, but little is known about effective approaches to design or implement such CDS. The purpose of this study is to compare implementation outcomes of two versions of a CDS tool to improve PHQ-9 administration for patients with depression. METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational study comparing two versions of a CDS. Version 1 interrupted clinician workflow, and version 2 did not interrupt workflow. Outcomes of interest included reach, adoption, and effectiveness. PHQ-9 administration was determined by chart review. Chi-square tests were used to evaluate associations between PHQ-9 administration with versions 1 and 2. RESULTS: Version 1 resulted in PHQ-9 administration 77 times (15.3% of 504 unique encounters) compared with 49 times (9.8% of 502 unique encounters) with version 2 (P = .011). DISCUSSION: An interruptive CDS tool may be more effective at increasing PHQ-9 administration, but a noninterruptive CDS tool may be preferred to minimize alert fatigue despite a decrease in effectiveness.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8463004
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher College of Psychiatric & Neurologic Pharmacists
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84630042021-10-06 An evaluation of clinical decision support tools for Patient Health Questionnaire-9 administration Maten, Naweid Kroehl, Miranda E. Loeb, Danielle F. Bhat, Shubha Ota, Taylor Billups, Sarah J. Schilling, Lisa M. Heckman, Simeon Reingardt, Crystal Trinkley, Katy E. Ment Health Clin Original Research INTRODUCTION: Many health care institutions are working to improve depression screening and management with the use of the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9). Clinical decision support (CDS) within the EHR is one strategy, but little is known about effective approaches to design or implement such CDS. The purpose of this study is to compare implementation outcomes of two versions of a CDS tool to improve PHQ-9 administration for patients with depression. METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational study comparing two versions of a CDS. Version 1 interrupted clinician workflow, and version 2 did not interrupt workflow. Outcomes of interest included reach, adoption, and effectiveness. PHQ-9 administration was determined by chart review. Chi-square tests were used to evaluate associations between PHQ-9 administration with versions 1 and 2. RESULTS: Version 1 resulted in PHQ-9 administration 77 times (15.3% of 504 unique encounters) compared with 49 times (9.8% of 502 unique encounters) with version 2 (P = .011). DISCUSSION: An interruptive CDS tool may be more effective at increasing PHQ-9 administration, but a noninterruptive CDS tool may be preferred to minimize alert fatigue despite a decrease in effectiveness. College of Psychiatric & Neurologic Pharmacists 2021-09-24 /pmc/articles/PMC8463004/ /pubmed/34621601 http://dx.doi.org/10.9740/mhc.2021.09.267 Text en © 2021 CPNP. The Mental Health Clinician is a publication of the College of Psychiatric and Neurologic Pharmacists. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 License, which permits non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Research
Maten, Naweid
Kroehl, Miranda E.
Loeb, Danielle F.
Bhat, Shubha
Ota, Taylor
Billups, Sarah J.
Schilling, Lisa M.
Heckman, Simeon
Reingardt, Crystal
Trinkley, Katy E.
An evaluation of clinical decision support tools for Patient Health Questionnaire-9 administration
title An evaluation of clinical decision support tools for Patient Health Questionnaire-9 administration
title_full An evaluation of clinical decision support tools for Patient Health Questionnaire-9 administration
title_fullStr An evaluation of clinical decision support tools for Patient Health Questionnaire-9 administration
title_full_unstemmed An evaluation of clinical decision support tools for Patient Health Questionnaire-9 administration
title_short An evaluation of clinical decision support tools for Patient Health Questionnaire-9 administration
title_sort evaluation of clinical decision support tools for patient health questionnaire-9 administration
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8463004/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34621601
http://dx.doi.org/10.9740/mhc.2021.09.267
work_keys_str_mv AT matennaweid anevaluationofclinicaldecisionsupporttoolsforpatienthealthquestionnaire9administration
AT kroehlmirandae anevaluationofclinicaldecisionsupporttoolsforpatienthealthquestionnaire9administration
AT loebdaniellef anevaluationofclinicaldecisionsupporttoolsforpatienthealthquestionnaire9administration
AT bhatshubha anevaluationofclinicaldecisionsupporttoolsforpatienthealthquestionnaire9administration
AT otataylor anevaluationofclinicaldecisionsupporttoolsforpatienthealthquestionnaire9administration
AT billupssarahj anevaluationofclinicaldecisionsupporttoolsforpatienthealthquestionnaire9administration
AT schillinglisam anevaluationofclinicaldecisionsupporttoolsforpatienthealthquestionnaire9administration
AT heckmansimeon anevaluationofclinicaldecisionsupporttoolsforpatienthealthquestionnaire9administration
AT reingardtcrystal anevaluationofclinicaldecisionsupporttoolsforpatienthealthquestionnaire9administration
AT trinkleykatye anevaluationofclinicaldecisionsupporttoolsforpatienthealthquestionnaire9administration
AT matennaweid evaluationofclinicaldecisionsupporttoolsforpatienthealthquestionnaire9administration
AT kroehlmirandae evaluationofclinicaldecisionsupporttoolsforpatienthealthquestionnaire9administration
AT loebdaniellef evaluationofclinicaldecisionsupporttoolsforpatienthealthquestionnaire9administration
AT bhatshubha evaluationofclinicaldecisionsupporttoolsforpatienthealthquestionnaire9administration
AT otataylor evaluationofclinicaldecisionsupporttoolsforpatienthealthquestionnaire9administration
AT billupssarahj evaluationofclinicaldecisionsupporttoolsforpatienthealthquestionnaire9administration
AT schillinglisam evaluationofclinicaldecisionsupporttoolsforpatienthealthquestionnaire9administration
AT heckmansimeon evaluationofclinicaldecisionsupporttoolsforpatienthealthquestionnaire9administration
AT reingardtcrystal evaluationofclinicaldecisionsupporttoolsforpatienthealthquestionnaire9administration
AT trinkleykatye evaluationofclinicaldecisionsupporttoolsforpatienthealthquestionnaire9administration