Chapter 3.4e Informatics interventions

Samir Gupta1and K. Ann McKibbon2 1University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada 2McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

Key learning points  Knowledge translation (KT) and informatics domains share many of the same basic components of collecting, summarizing, packaging, and delivering knowledge. KT concentrates on implementing pub- lished evidence while informatics interventions focus on providing patient- or population-specific knowledge and data.  Many informatics applications can be effective KT tools, delivering evidence to health professionals, patients, and informal caregivers.  Informatics interventions that speed KT can be found in the areas of patient and physician education, mobile health, communication and support, reminder systems, and computerized clinical decision sup- port systems. They have been shown to change knowledge and behavior, improve adherence through reminders, efficiently collect and present data from multiple sources, and effectively support deci- sion making. Their effects on health care costs and health outcomes have been less well demonstrated.  Many of these effective informatics applications exist as demonstra- tion projects or on a small scale. We have yet to harness the full potential of integration of the KT process with informatics applications.

Knowledge Translation in Health Care: Moving from Evidence to Practice, Second Edition. Sharon E. Straus, Jacqueline Tetroe and Ian D. Graham. Ó 2013 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2013 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

189 190 Knowledge translation in health care

Knowledge translation (KT) deals with the collection, summarization, and packaging of (research) knowledge and its delivery in a timely and appropriate format to those who can use it caring for patients and populations. Informatics does the same with (patient or population) information: collecting, summarizing, packaging, and delivering. Both domains share the theoretical foundation of epistemology: understand- ing and knowing the limits and validity of knowledge [1, 2]. KT and informatics are natural partners and the question for this chapter is how do, and which, informatics applications best support KT. Infor- matics interventions can support or implement knowledge use by mak- ing data collection and analysis easier and faster; enhancing communication with new devices; improving educational projects through multifaceted, individualized programs; and providing clinical support through reminders, clinical decision support, and order entry systems.

What sources of data can be used for planning and evaluating KT projects? Electronic medical records (EMR), personal health records and other large clinical systems have data which can be analyzed to show evi- dence–practice gaps (needs assessment) and evaluate KT interventions. These systems can be used in audit and feedback, quality improvement, and many other KT projects. Hynes and colleagues [3] describe how the US Veterans Affairs health systems use informatics resources including EMR data in quality improvement. Quality improvement (see Chap- ter 4.5) may not be completely under the purview of KT but we can learn much from their work. Mobile health (e.g., cell phones and tablets and their apps and medical devices such as automated glucometers and step counters) is also fast becoming an important KT tool for both delivering care and data collection before, during, and after KT imple- mentations [4]. These mobile devices are described further below. Per- sonal health records systems are collections of health and wellness data kept by patients. Their roots are in paper records for patients, especially in areas such as charting and monitoring pregnancies and data related to children (e.g., immunizations and other health milestones). Personal health records systems, especially those tethered (e.g., can send data to and receive data from) clinician-kept or institutional EMR systems also provide opportunities for data collection and behavior based interven- tions [5, 6]. Informatics interventions 191

What informatics interventions might be effective in achieving KT?

Multifaceted educational interventions with new informatics tools (mobile health) One of the areas where informatics may have the greatest effect on KT interventions is the use of the internet to educate and support clinicians, patients, and families in relation to health and wellness. (See also Chap- ter 3.4b for more information on education.) Pletneva and colleagues [4] report that half of their survey participants in Europe in 2011 used the internet at least weekly to seek health information. North American data are similar. The most effective use of the internet for educating and chang- ing behavior is if the intervention has multiple components and includes such things as goal setting, individualized support or tutoring, communica- tion with real or “electronic” personnel, and if it is ongoing. This pattern of success is shown in reviews by Neve and colleagues [7] on the effects of web based interventions on weight loss and maintenance, by Ramadas and col- leagues [8] on web based interventions for patients with diabetes, and by Krebs and colleagues [9] who summarize the evidence on the effects of behavior targeted informatics projects on smoking cessation, healthy eating, physical activity, and mammography screening. Mobile health is defined as systems (often cell phones, tablets, or monitoring devices) with wireless connectivity that are consumer centered; record, monitor, and transmit health or wellness data; and often direct actions based on analyzed data. Mobile health is new and evolving and early evidence supports its spread and usefulness [4]. The caveat across these electronic knowledge domains, however, is that although the studies uniformly show important improve- ments, their methods are often weak and contain problems.

Computerized Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSSs) Computers are excellent at storing, synthesizing, and presenting data in an efficient and user-friendly format. CDSSs are electronic systems that aid clinical decision making by generating patient-specific assessments and rec- ommendations through software algorithms that match individual patient data to a computerized knowledge database [10]. Such systems can “push” information to clinicians through alerts or reminders at the point-of-care, or through system-wide approaches such as evidence-based order sets. Alerts or prompts can either be active (requiring users to act on them) or passive (appearing without requiring user action) [11]. Alternatively, CDSSs can act as simple information repositories from which clinicians can “pull” context-specific knowledge as required [10]. 192 Knowledge translation in health care

CDSSs are superior to paper-based resources because they are more flexi- ble and can rapidly retrieve vast amounts of data (e.g., test results), perform time-consuming calculations, and navigate complex care algorithms [12]. They can also present information “just-in-time,” without overloading pro- viders with unnecessary data. For example, British Columbia’s PharmaNet is a simple CDSS which provides physicians with patients’ prior prescrip- tion data at the point-of-care [13]. In a more sophisticated CDSS, the UK’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (described in Chap- ter 2.2), has developed tagging specifications for guidelines so that their content can be electronically “matched” to individual patients in EMRs and suggestions can be presented to clinicians during clinical decision making [14]. Finally, CDSSs can improve care by giving clinicians performance feedback on quality indicators, enabling them to identify and bridge their own practice gap [10, 15]. CDSSs can address diagnostic, prevention or screening, drug dosing, and disease management decisions. They may be stand-alone systems functioning in parallel to an existing paper or EMR system, or may be integrated into an EMR, enabling direct and automated patient data import. They can also work on mobile devices, thus being well suited to clinicians delivering care in diverse locations. With the convergence of laptop, tablet, and Smartphone computing capabilities, and the fact that nearly two-thirds of physicians now own a Smartphone [12], bar- riers to introducing portable computing devices into the care milieu have been reduced. Not only do physicians already use Smartphones to access information to guide patient care, but many medical apps have rendered this task more efficient and user friendly [16]. This portabil- ity, ease of use, speed, accessibility, and abilities to support both patients and their families and clinicians are perceived by physicians to improve productivity and care [12]. For example, a handheld com- puter-based CDSS for patients with suspected pulmonary embolism increased clinicians’ use of evidence-based pretest probability calcula- tions, appropriateness of diagnostic testing, and guideline adherence, when compared to paper-based guidelines [17]. In a systematic review of the effectiveness of CDSSs, Bright and col- leagues reported a significant improvement in process measures [10]. However, effects on clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness were meas- ured in a minority of studies and were inconclusive. Other caveats include potential for decreased clinician efficiency and increased work- load, clinician “deskilling” due to task automation, and inadvertent deleterious effects on clinician performance and patient safety due to flawed system design [11]. Informatics interventions 193

CDSSs have been shown to improve care when they are used directly by patients. Patients can enter data into a CDSS which processes, transfers, and presents it directly to their physicians. Such systems can facilitate clinician decision making, and influence clinician decisions through patient- prompting (a form of patient-mediated KT, discussed in chapter 3.4f). Web-based and mobile-enabled CDSSs are increasingly accessible to patients. Other platforms include mobile phone-based short message ser- vice (SMS) system [18] or electronic information kiosks. For example, a web-based diabetes care tool enabling patients to upload and relay their monitoring data to care managers resulted in improved glycemic control, compared to education and usual care [19]. Alternatively, CDSSs may empower patients to self-manage chronic diseases, or to guide complex medical decision making. For example, in a randomized controlled trial, patients who managed their asthma through an internet-based CDSS had improvements in asthma control and lung function compared to those who received standard medical care [20]. Electronic patient can improve care by empowering patients to participate in their own health care decisions. For example, Protheroe and colleagues [21] used a random- ized controlled trial to demonstrate that a self-directed, interactive comput- erized decision aid for women with menorrhagia reduced decisional conflict and improved menorrhagia-specific knowledge and quality of life, compared to information leaflets alone. A large literature on clinician and patient reminder systems also exists and is summarized by Shojania and colleagues [22]. Similar to CDSSs this evidence summary on point of care reminders shows modest improvement in processes of care but often the systems did not meet expected targets of improved clinical outcomes. Although these reminder systems are thought to be useful their implementation still need enhancing if this usefulness is going to be achieved.

Summary As the volume and breadth of research evidence continues to grow, a wide and advancing range of informatics interventions will assume an increasingly important role in ensuring the effective and timely trans- lation of this new knowledge into clinical practice. Web 2.0, multifac- eted individualized educational interventions, and mobile-based applications represent a particularly exciting future medium for KT interventions. Age is still a determining factor is the use of informatics applications for health information with more young people using them but this difference in use based on age is decreasing quickly 194 Knowledge translation in health care

[23]. However, the use of informatics interventions, such as limited access to such large-scale information technology (IT) as EMRs in some developing countries, inconsistent EMR use, and a paucity of systems that integrate evidence with clinical data in a user- and work- flow-friendly format present some limitations. However, mobile health has made much progress in developing countries [24]. Successful intervention design will require an understanding of evolving eHealth literacy among both providers and patients [24]. Future studies should adhere to a standardized reporting format, in accordance with the CONSORT-EHEALTH (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials of Electronic and Mobile HEalth Applications and onLine ) statement [25].

Future research Informatics interventions that support KT (e.g., mobile health, personal health records), IT interventions that are essentially KT interventions (e.g., SMS devices or computer tutors for weight loss), or IT tools (e.g.,CDSS, EMR systems) exist in many forms and locations, facilitating KT. Together they hold much potential for improving health care by supporting the information needs of patients, clinicians, and families. These systems also improve communication, identify health needs or trends, and engage clini- cians, patients, and families to work towards patient empowered health and wellness care Many of these interventions, however, are demonstration projects or have been implemented only in local settings. Broadening the scope of these interventions remains an area for future research and devel- opment. This research should involve many facets and partners, including technology (improving information standards and enhancing system inter- operability), social sciences (understanding individual needs and character- istics to design truly useful and easy-to-use interventions), business (managing system change with financial integrity), and methodologists (studies are often poorly done, poorly reported, or both) in addition to decision makers, health providers, and patients. Personal health records and mobile health are areas of great potential that require interdisciplinary research, both qualitative and quantitative, to obtain the best results for all stakeholders. We also need future research to assess the cost-effectiveness of informatics KT interventions, the sustainability of their effects, their effects on patient outcomes and good assessment of the unintended consequences of these new tools. To date, we have a good understanding of the effects of these interventions on process, but little evidence of their benefit on the outcome that matters most: patient health and well-being. Informatics interventions 195

References

1. Musen MA. Medical informatics: searching for underlying components. Methods Inf Med 2002; 41: 12–19. 2. Blois MS. Information and : the nature of medical descriptors. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. 3. Hynes DM, Perrin RA. Rappaport S, Stevens JM, Demakis JG. Informatics resources to support health care quality improvement in the Veterans Health Administration. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2004; 11: 344–50. 4. Pletneva N, Vargas A, Kalogianni K, Boyer C. Online health information search: what struggles and empowers the users? Results of an online survey. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2012; 180: 843–7. 5. Archer N, Fevrier-Thomas U, Lokker C, McKibbon KA, Straus SE. Personal health records: a scoping review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011; 18: 515–22. 6. Holroyd-Leduc JM, Lorenzetti D, Straus SE, Sykes L, Quan H. The impact of the elctronic on structure, process and outcomes within primary care. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011; 18: 732–7. 7. Neve M, Morgan PJ, Jones PR, Collins CE. Effectiveness of web-based interven- tions in achieving weight loss and weight loss maintenance in overweight and obese adults: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Obes Rev. 2010; 11(4): 306–21. 8. Ramadas A, Quek KF, Chan CK, Oldenburg B. Web-based interventions for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus: a systematic review of recent evidence. Int J Med Inform. 2011; 80(6): 389–405. 9. Krebs P, Prochaska JO, Rossi JS. A meta-analysis of computer-tailored interven- tions for health behavior change. Prev Med. 2010; 51(3–4): 214–21. 10. Bright TJ, Wong A, Dhurjati R, et al. Effect of clinical decision-support systems: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2012; 157: 29–43. 11. Black AD, Car J, Pagliari C, et al. The impact of eHealth on the quality and safety of health care: a systematic overview. PLoS Medicine=Public Library of Science 2011; 8: e1000387. 12. Rothschild JM. Handy point-of-care decision support. AnnInternMed2009; 151: 748–9. 13. BC Doctors Welcome PharmaNet’s Expansion. Vancouver: BC Ministry of Health. 14. Peleg M, Boxwala AA, Tu S, et al. The InterMed approach to sharable computer- interpretable guidelines: a review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2004; 11: 1–10. 15. Ho K, Bloch R, Gondocz T, et al. Technology-enabled knowledge translation: frameworks to promote research and practice. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2004; 24: 90–9. 16. Dolan PL. Can a surge in physicians’ use of smartphones ripple to health IT adoption?: American Medial News 2009. 17. Roy P-M, Durieux P, Gillaizeau F, et al. A computerized handheld decision- support system to improve pulmonary embolism diagnosis: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2009; 151: 677–86. 196 Knowledge translation in health care

18. Norman C. eHealth literacy 2.0: problems and opportunities with an evolving concept. J Med Internet Res. 2011; 13: e125. 19. McMahon GT, Gomes HE, Hickson Hohne S, et al. Web-based care manage- ment in patients with poorly controlled diabetes. Diabetes Care 2005; 28: 1624–9. 20. van der Meer V, Bakker MJ, van den Hout WB, et al. Internet-based self- management plus education compared with usual care in asthma: a randomized trial [Summary for patients in AnnInternMed.2009 Jul 21;151(2): I-42; PMID: 19620146]. Ann Intern Med. 2009; 151: 110–20. 21. Protheroe J, Bower P, Chew-Graham C, Peters TJ, Fahey T. Effectiveness of a computerized decision aid in primary care on decision making and quality of life in menorrhagia: results of the MENTIP randomized controlled trial. Med Decis Making. 2007; 27(5): 575–84. 22. Shojania KG, Jennings A, Mayhew A, Ramsay C, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. Effect of point-of-care computer reminders on physician behaviour: a systematic review. CMAJ. 2010; 182(5): E216–25. 23. van der Vaart R, Drossaert CH, de Heus M, Taal E, van de Laar MA. Measuring Actual eHealth literacy among patients with rheumatic diseases: a qualitative analysis of problems encountered using health 1.0 and Health 2.0 Applications. J Med Internet Res. 2013; 15(2): e27. 24. Ali MK, Shah S, Tandon N. Review of electronic decision-support tools for dia- betes care: a viable option for low- and middle-income countries? J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2011; 5(3): 553–70. 25. Eysenbach G; CONSORT-EHEALTH Group. CONSORT-EHEALTH: improv- ing and standardizing evaluation reports of web-based and mobile health inter- ventions. J Med Internet Res. 2011; 13(4): e126.