Improving Quality by Maintaining Accurate Problems in the EHR
IQ-MAPLE
1 other identifier
interventional
2,386
1 country
4
Brief Summary
The overall goal of the IQ-MAPLE project is to improve the quality of care provided to patients with several heart, lung and blood conditions by facilitating more accurate and complete problem list documentation. In the first aim, the investigators will design and validate a series of problem inference algorithms, using rule-based techniques on structured data in the electronic health record (EHR) and natural language processing on unstructured data. Both of these techniques will yield candidate problems that the patient is likely to have, and the results will be integrated. In Aim 2, the investigators will design clinical decision support interventions in the EHRs of the four study sites to alert physicians when a candidate problem is detected that is missing from the patient's problem list - the clinician will then be able to accept the alert and add the problem, override the alert, or ignore it entirely. In Aim 3, the investigators will conduct a randomized trial and evaluate the effect of the problem list alert on three endpoints: alert acceptance, problem list addition rate and clinical quality.
Trial Health
Trial Health Score
Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach
participants targeted
Target at P75+ for not_applicable asthma
4 active sites
Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.
Trial Relationships
Click on a node to explore related trials.
Study Timeline
Key milestones and dates
First Submitted
Initial submission to the registry
October 19, 2015
CompletedFirst Posted
Study publicly available on registry
November 4, 2015
CompletedStudy Start
First participant enrolled
April 1, 2016
CompletedPrimary Completion
Last participant's last visit for primary outcome
March 1, 2018
CompletedFebruary 8, 2023
February 1, 2023
1.9 years
October 19, 2015
February 6, 2023
Conditions
Outcome Measures
Primary Outcomes (3)
Measuring the rate of acceptance of alerts calculated by number of acceptances for each alert divided by the total number of unique presentations of the alert
Acceptance of the alerts: This first endpoint is descriptive: the acceptance rate for the alerts presented to providers. This will be calculated by taking the total number of acceptances for each alert and dividing it by the total number or unique presentations of the alert. We will conduct a stratified analysis to look at differences in acceptance rates by institution, specialty, disease and provider demographic characteristics, and will report the results in tabular form.
Through study completion, or up to 1 year
Determining the effect of problem list completion by comparing the number of study-related problems added to problem lists in the electronic health record
Effect on the rate of problem list completion: In this endpoint, we will compare the number of study-related problems added to patient problems lists in the electronic health record in the intervention and control groups.
Through study completion, or up to 1 year
Determining the quality of care impact of adding suggested problems to the problem list based on 4 outcome measures from NCQA's HEDIS 2013 measure set
Effect on quality of care: Because a key goal of our study is improving clinical outcomes, we have selected four outcome measures to evaluate from NCQA's Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) 2013 measure set: LDL control in patients with a history of myocardial infarction, LDL control in patients with coronary artery disease, blood pressure control in patients with coronary artery disease and blood pressure control in patients with hypertension. The details for the numerator and denominator for each measure are given in the HEDIS manuals, and our study team will employ NCQA's procedures for calculation of each measure, with modifications as needed given the clinical nature of our dataset.
Through study completion, or up to 1 year
Secondary Outcomes (1)
Evaluating process measures using key process measures for each study condition from CMS, NHLBI, and NQMC
Through study completion, or up to 1 year
Study Arms (2)
Normal Use of EHR
NO INTERVENTIONSites will configure their EHR systems so that alerts will not be triggered for providers in the control arm if the patient does not have the condition on her/his problem list.
Intervention Arm
EXPERIMENTALSites will configure their EHR systems so that alerts for these conditions will be triggered for providers in the intervention arm if the patient does not have the condition on her/his problem list. Each alert will be actionable and allow the provider to add the problem to her or his patient's problem list with a single click. The provider will also be able to override the rule of the patient does not have the condition (in which case the alert will not be displayed again unless new information that would trigger the alert is added to the patient's record), or defer the alert until later.
Interventions
Sites will configure their EHR systems so that alerts for these conditions will be triggered for providers in the intervention arm if the patient does not have the condition on her/his problem list. each alert will be actionable and allow the provider to add the problem to her or his patient's problem list with a single click. The provider will also be able to override the rule of the patient does not have the condition (in which case the alert will not be displayed again unless new information that would trigger the alert is added to the patient's record), or defer the alert until later.
Eligibility Criteria
You may qualify if:
- All providers over the age of 18 that use the electronic health record at the specific site that the intervention is being observed.
Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.
Sponsors & Collaborators
- Brigham and Women's Hospitallead
- Geisinger Cliniccollaborator
- Oregon Health and Science Universitycollaborator
- Vanderbilt Universitycollaborator
Study Sites (4)
Brigham and Women's Hospital
Boston, Massachusetts, 02115, United States
Oregon Health and Science University
Portland, Oregon, 97239, United States
Holy Spirit Hospital
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, 17011, United States
Vanderbilt University Medical Center
Nashville, Tennessee, 37235, United States
Related Publications (8)
Wright A, Goldberg H, Hongsermeier T, Middleton B. A description and functional taxonomy of rule-based decision support content at a large integrated delivery network. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007 Jul-Aug;14(4):489-96. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M2364. Epub 2007 Apr 25.
PMID: 17460131BACKGROUNDKaplan DM. Clear writing, clear thinking and the disappearing art of the problem list. J Hosp Med. 2007 Jul;2(4):199-202. doi: 10.1002/jhm.242. No abstract available.
PMID: 17683098BACKGROUNDSzeto HC, Coleman RK, Gholami P, Hoffman BB, Goldstein MK. Accuracy of computerized outpatient diagnoses in a Veterans Affairs general medicine clinic. Am J Manag Care. 2002 Jan;8(1):37-43.
PMID: 11814171BACKGROUNDTang PC, LaRosa MP, Gorden SM. Use of computer-based records, completeness of documentation, and appropriateness of documented clinical decisions. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1999 May-Jun;6(3):245-51. doi: 10.1136/jamia.1999.0060245.
PMID: 10332657BACKGROUNDCarpenter JD, Gorman PN. Using medication list--problem list mismatches as markers of potential error. Proc AMIA Symp. 2002:106-10.
PMID: 12463796BACKGROUNDHartung DM, Hunt J, Siemienczuk J, Miller H, Touchette DR. Clinical implications of an accurate problem list on heart failure treatment. J Gen Intern Med. 2005 Feb;20(2):143-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.40206.x.
PMID: 15836547BACKGROUNDWright A, Chen ES, Maloney FL. An automated technique for identifying associations between medications, laboratory results and problems. J Biomed Inform. 2010 Dec;43(6):891-901. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2010.09.009. Epub 2010 Sep 25.
PMID: 20884377BACKGROUNDWright A, Pang J, Feblowitz JC, Maloney FL, Wilcox AR, Ramelson HZ, Schneider LI, Bates DW. A method and knowledge base for automated inference of patient problems from structured data in an electronic medical record. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011 Nov-Dec;18(6):859-67. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000121. Epub 2011 May 25.
PMID: 21613643BACKGROUND
MeSH Terms
Conditions
Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)
Study Design
- Study Type
- interventional
- Phase
- not applicable
- Allocation
- RANDOMIZED
- Masking
- SINGLE
- Who Masked
- PARTICIPANT
- Purpose
- OTHER
- Intervention Model
- PARALLEL
- Sponsor Type
- OTHER
- Responsible Party
- PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
- PI Title
- Associate Professor of Medicine
Study Record Dates
First Submitted
October 19, 2015
First Posted
November 4, 2015
Study Start
April 1, 2016
Primary Completion
March 1, 2018
Last Updated
February 8, 2023
Record last verified: 2023-02