Back

Clinical Decision Support with a Comprehensive in-EHR Patient Tracking System Improves Genetic Testing Follow Up

Campbell, I. M.; Karavite, D. J.; McManus, M. L.; Cusick, F. C.; Junod, D. C.; Sheppard, S. E.; Lourie, E. M.; Shelov, E. D.; Hakonarson, H.; Luberti, A. A.; Muthu, N.; Grundmeier, R. W.

2023-01-26 health informatics
10.1101/2023.01.24.23284923 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveWe sought to develop and evaluate an electronic health record (EHR) genetic testing tracking system to address the barriers and limitations of existing spreadsheet-based workarounds. Materials and MethodsWe evaluated the spreadsheet-based system using mixed effects logistic regression to identify factors associated with delayed follow up. These factors informed the design of an EHR-integrated genetic testing tracking system. After deployment we assessed the system in two ways. We analyzed EHR access logs and note data to assess patient outcomes and performed semi-structured interviews with users to identify impact of the system on work. ResultsWe found that patient-reported race was a significant predictor of documented genetic testing follow up, indicating a possible inequity in care. We implemented a CDS system including a patient data capture form and management dashboard to facilitate important care tasks. The system significantly speeded review of results and significantly increased documentation of follow-up recommendations. Interviews with system users identified key team members ensuring success and revealed that the system addresses a number of sociotechnical factors that collectively result in safer and more efficient care. DiscussionOur new tracking system ended decades of workarounds for identifying and communicating test results and improved clinical workflows. Interview participants related that the system decreased cognitive and time burden which allowed them to focus on direct patient interaction. ConclusionBy assembling a multidisciplinary team, we designed a novel patient tracking system that improves genetic testing follow up. Similar approaches may be effective in other clinical settings.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.1%
2
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.0%
3
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.0%
4
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
6.1%
50% of probability mass above
5
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.7%
6
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.7%
7
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.9%
8
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
45 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
3.9%
9
DIGITAL HEALTH
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.5%
10
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
3.0%
11
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.8%
12
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 55%
1.6%
13
Journal of General Internal Medicine
20 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.6%
14
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
15
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.3%
16
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 65%
1.3%
17
International Journal of Medical Informatics
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
18
BMJ Open Quality
15 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
19
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
45 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
20
Genetics in Medicine
69 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.7%
21
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
22
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
11 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
23
BMC Medical Research Methodology
43 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%