Download PDF
Appl Clin Inform 2024; 15(01): 064-074
DOI: 10.1055/a-2216-5775
Research Article

Using Clinical Decision Support Systems to Decrease Intravenous Acetaminophen Use: Implementation and Lessons Learned

Gabriel Tse
1   Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Hospital Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, United States
,
Claudia Algaze
2   Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Cardiology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, United States
,
Natalie Pageler
3   Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, United States
,
Matthew Wood
4   Center for Pediatric and Maternal Value, Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, Palo Alto, California, United States
,
Whitney Chadwick
1   Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Hospital Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, United States
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) can enhance medical decision-making by providing targeted information to providers. While they have the potential to improve quality of care and reduce costs, they are not universally effective and can lead to unintended harm.

Objectives To describe the implementation of an unsuccessful interruptive CDSS that aimed to promote appropriate use of intravenous (IV) acetaminophen at an academic pediatric hospital, with an emphasis on lessons learned.

Methods Quality improvement methodology was used to study the effect of an interruptive CDSS, which set a mandatory expiry time of 24 hours for all IV acetaminophen orders. This CDSS was implemented on April 5, 2021. The primary outcome measure was number of IV acetaminophen administrations per 1,000 patient days, measured pre- and postimplementation. Process measures were the number of IV acetaminophen orders placed per 1,000 patient days. Balancing measures were collected via survey data and included provider and nursing acceptability and unintended consequences of the CDSS.

Results There was no special cause variation in hospital-wide IV acetaminophen administrations and orders after CDSS implementation, nor when the CDSS was removed. A total of 88 participants completed the survey. Nearly half (40/88) of respondents reported negative issues with the CDSS, with the majority stating that this affected patient care (39/40). Respondents cited delays in patient care and reduced efficiency as the most common negative effects.

Conclusion This study underscores the significance of monitoring CDSS implementations and including end user acceptability as an outcome measure. Teams should be prepared to modify or remove CDSS that do not achieve their intended goal or are associated with low end user acceptability. CDSS holds promise for improving clinical practice, but careful implementation and ongoing evaluation are crucial for maximizing their benefits and minimizing potential harm.

Keywords

clinical decision support system - quality improvement - electronic health record - pediatrics

Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

The study was performed in compliance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects and was reviewed by Stanford University's Institutional Review Board.




Publication History

Received: 20 July 2023

Accepted: 22 November 2023

Accepted Manuscript online:
23 November 2023

Article published online:
24 January 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Das M, Eichner J. . Challenges and Barriers to Clinical Decision Support (CDS) Design and Implementation Experienced in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality CDS Demonstrations (Prepared for the AHRQ National Resource Center for Health Information Technology under Contract No. 290-04-0016.) AHRQ Publication No. 10-0064-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. March 2010.
    PubMed
  • 2 Kharbanda EO, Asche SE, Sinaiko AR. et al. Clinical decision support for recognition and management of hypertension: a randomized trial. Pediatrics 2018; 141 (02) e20172954
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Prgomet M, Li L, Niazkhani Z, Georgiou A, Westbrook JI. Impact of commercial computerized provider order entry (CPOE) and clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) on medication errors, length of stay, and mortality in intensive care units: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2017; 24 (02) 413-422
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Hayatghaibi SE, Sammer MBK, Varghese V, Seghers VJ, Sher AC. Prospective cost implications with a clinical decision support system for pediatric emergency head computed tomography. Pediatr Radiol 2021; 51 (13) 2561-2567
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Lewkowicz D, Wohlbrandt A, Boettinger E. Economic impact of clinical decision support interventions based on electronic health records. BMC Health Serv Res 2020; 20 (01) 871
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 MacMillan TE, Gudgeon P, Yip PM, Cavalcanti RB. Reduction in unnecessary red blood cell folate testing by restricting computerized physician order entry in the electronic health record. Am J Med 2018; 131 (08) 939-944
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Chin KK, Hom J, Tan M. et al. Effect of electronic clinical decision support on 25(OH) vitamin D testing. J Gen Intern Med 2019; 34 (09) 1697-1699
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Sutton RT, Pincock D, Baumgart DC, Sadowski DC, Fedorak RN, Kroeker KI. An overview of clinical decision support systems: benefits, risks, and strategies for success. NPJ Digit Med 2020; 3 (01) 17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Powers EM, Shiffman RN, Melnick ER, Hickner A, Sharifi M. Efficacy and unintended consequences of hard-stop alerts in electronic health record systems: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2018; 25 (11) 1556-1566
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Sweeney J. IV vs. oral acetaminophen for children: weighing cost against need. Pharmacy Today. 2019; 25 (06) 4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Bourgeois FT, Graham DA, Kesselheim AS, Randolph AG. Cost implications of escalating intravenous acetaminophen use in children. JAMA Pediatr 2019; 173 (05) 489-491
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Nguyen LP, Nguyen L, Austin JP. A quality improvement initiative to decrease inappropriate intravenous acetaminophen use at an academic medical center. Hosp Pharm 2020; 55 (04) 253-260
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Bertolini A, Ferrari A, Ottani A, Guerzoni S, Tacchi R, Leone S. Paracetamol: new vistas of an old drug. CNS Drug Rev 2006; 12 (3-4): 250-275
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Jahr JS, Lee VK. Intravenous acetaminophen. Anesthesiol Clin 2010; 28 (04) 619-645
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Tompkins DM, DiPasquale A, Segovia M, Cohn SM. Review of intravenous acetaminophen for analgesia in the postoperative setting. Am Surg 2021; 87 (11) 1809-1822
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Wasserman I, Poeran J, Zubizarreta N. et al. Impact of intravenous acetaminophen on perioperative opioid utilization and outcomes in open colectomies: a claims database analysis. Anesthesiology 2018; 129 (01) 77-88
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Ogrinc G, Davies L, Goodman D, Batalden P, Davidoff F, Stevens D. SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for QUality Improvement Reporting Excellence): revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process. BMJ Qual Saf 2016; 25 (12) 986-992
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Benneyan JC, Lloyd RC, Plsek PE. Statistical process control as a tool for research and healthcare improvement. Qual Saf Health Care 2003; 12 (06) 458-464
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Langley G, Moen R, Nolan K, Nolan T, Norman C, Provost L. The Improvement Guide. 2nd ed. Jossey-Bass; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Carroll AR, Johnson DP. Know it when you see it: identifying and using special cause variation for quality improvement. Hosp Pediatr 2020; 10 (11) e8-e10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Strom BL, Schinnar R, Aberra F. et al. Unintended effects of a computerized physician order entry nearly hard-stop alert to prevent a drug interaction: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med 2010; 170 (17) 1578-1583
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Jankovic I, Chen JH. Clinical decision support and implications for the clinician burnout crisis. Yearb Med Inform 2020; 29 (01) 145-154
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Bates DW, Kuperman GJ, Wang S. et al. Ten commandments for effective clinical decision support: making the practice of evidence-based medicine a reality. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2003; 10 (06) 523-530
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Van de Velde S, Kunnamo I, Roshanov P. et al; GUIDES expert panel. The GUIDES checklist: development of a tool to improve the successful use of guideline-based computerised clinical decision support. Implement Sci 2018; 13 (01) 86
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Jacob V, Thota AB, Chattopadhyay SK. et al. Cost and economic benefit of clinical decision support systems for cardiovascular disease prevention: a community guide systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2017; 24 (03) 669-676
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 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
  • 27 Mollon B, Chong Jr J, Holbrook AM, Sung M, Thabane L, Foster G. Features predicting the success of computerized decision support for prescribing: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2009; 9 (01) 11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Kwan JL, Lo L, Ferguson J. et al. Computerised clinical decision support systems and absolute improvements in care: meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 2020; 370: m3216
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar