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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |