Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Accepted for/Published in: Journal of Medical Internet Research

Date Submitted: Aug 13, 2022
Date Accepted: Mar 21, 2023

The final, peer-reviewed published version of this preprint can be found here:

Provider Interaction With an Electronic Health Record Notification to Identify Eligible Patients for a Cluster Randomized Trial of Advance Care Planning in Primary Care: Secondary Analysis

Ma JE, Lowe J, Berkowitz C, Kim A, Togo I, Musser RC, Fischer J, Shah K, Ibrahim S, Bosworth HB, Totten AM, Dolor R

Provider Interaction With an Electronic Health Record Notification to Identify Eligible Patients for a Cluster Randomized Trial of Advance Care Planning in Primary Care: Secondary Analysis

J Med Internet Res 2023;25:e41884

DOI: 10.2196/41884

PMID: 37171856

PMCID: 10221493

Provider Interaction with an Electronic Health Record Notification to Identify Eligible Patients for a Cluster Randomized Trial of Advance Care Planning in Primary Care: A Secondary Analysis

  • Jessica E Ma; 
  • Jared Lowe; 
  • Callie Berkowitz; 
  • Azalea Kim; 
  • Ira Togo; 
  • R Clayton Musser; 
  • Jonathan Fischer; 
  • Kevin Shah; 
  • Salam Ibrahim; 
  • Hayden B Bosworth; 
  • Annette M Totten; 
  • Rowena Dolor

ABSTRACT

Background:

Advance care planning (ACP) improves patient-provider communication and aligns care to patient values, preferences, and goals. Within a multi-site Meta-LARC ACP study, one health system deployed an EHR notification and algorithm to alert providers about patients potentially appropriate for ACP and the clinical study.

Objective:

To evaluate an electronic health record (EHR) notification for referring patients to an ACP study and engaging patients in ACP conversations and documentation.

Methods:

A secondary analysis assessed provider utilization and their response to the notification (e.g., acknowledge, dismiss, or engage patient in ACP conversation and refer patient to the clinical study).

Results:

Among the 2,877 patients identified by the EHR algorithm over 20 months, 17,047 unique notifications were presented to 45 providers in 6 clinics, who then referred 290 (10%) patients. Providers had a median of 269 [IQR 65 – 552] total notifications and patients had a median of 4 [IQR 2 – 8]. Patients with more (over 5) notifications were less likely to be referred to the study than those with fewer notifications (5.2% vs. 13.1%, P < .001). Providers who referred patients to the study were more likely to document ACP and submit ACP billing codes (P < .001).

Conclusions:

An EHR notification can be implemented to remind providers to both perform ACP conversations and refer patients to a clinical study. With diminishing returns after the fifth notification, optimization of EHR notifications for study referrals and ACP should consider provider workflow and alert fatigue to improve implementation and adoption. Clinical Trial: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03577002


 Citation

Please cite as:

Ma JE, Lowe J, Berkowitz C, Kim A, Togo I, Musser RC, Fischer J, Shah K, Ibrahim S, Bosworth HB, Totten AM, Dolor R

Provider Interaction With an Electronic Health Record Notification to Identify Eligible Patients for a Cluster Randomized Trial of Advance Care Planning in Primary Care: Secondary Analysis

J Med Internet Res 2023;25:e41884

DOI: 10.2196/41884

PMID: 37171856

PMCID: 10221493

Download PDF


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.