Cited by 9Electronic Health Records SystemsOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentPain Management and Opioid Use

Assessing the use of a clinical decision support tool for pain management in primary care

Open access
Apathy, Nate C, Sanner, Lindsey, Adams, Meredith C B, Mamlin, Burke W, Grout, Randall W, Fortin, Saura, Hillstrom, Jennifer, Saha, Amit +6 more·2022·JAMIA Open

Abstract

Objective: Given time constraints, poorly organized information, and complex patients, primary care providers (PCPs) can benefit from clinical decision support (CDS) tools that aggregate and synthesize problem-specific patient information. First, this article describes the design and functionality of a CDS tool for chronic noncancer pain in primary care. Second, we report on the retrospective analysis of real-world usage of the tool in the context of a pragmatic trial. Materials and methods: The tool known as OneSheet was developed using user-centered principles and built in the Epic electronic health record (EHR) of 2 health systems. For each relevant patient, OneSheet presents pertinent information in a single EHR view to assist PCPs in completing guideline-recommended opioid risk mitigation tasks, review previous and current patient treatments, view patient-reported pain, physical function, and pain-related goals. Results: Overall, 69 PCPs accessed OneSheet 2411 times (since November 2020). PCP use of OneSheet varied significantly by provider and was highly skewed (site 1: median accesses per provider: 17 [interquartile range (IQR) 9–32]; site 2: median: 8 [IQR 5–16]). Seven “power users” accounted for 70% of the overall access instances across both sites. OneSheet has been accessed an average of 20 times weekly between the 2 sites. Discussion: Modest OneSheet use was observed relative to the number of eligible patients seen with chronic pain. Conclusions: Organizations implementing CDS tools are likely to see considerable provider-level variation in usage, suggesting that CDS tools may vary in their utility across PCPs, even for the same condition, because of differences in provider and care team workflows.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jamiaopen/ooac074

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [11]Gatchel RJ, Turk DC, eds. Psychosocial Factors in Pain: Critical Perspectives. New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 1999.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Apathy, N. C., Sanner, L., Adams, M. C. B., Mamlin, B. W., Grout, R. W., Fortin, S., Hillstrom, J., Saha, A., Teal, E., Vest, J. R., Menachemi, N., Hurley, R. W., Harle, C. A., & Mazurenko, O.
Affiliations
  • Regenstrief Institute (US)
  • Indiana University Indianapolis (US)
  • Wake Forest University Health Sciences (US)
  • Primary Care, Eskenazi Health , Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
  • Eskenazi Health (US)
Corresponding author
Mazurenko, Olena
Venue
JAMIA Open
Published
2022-07-11
Volume
5
Issue
3
Pages
ooac074-ooac074
ISSN
2574-2531 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4295941097
Cited by
9
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2
FWCI
1.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMIA Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • IUScholarWorks (Indiana University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (R33DA046085)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Opioid Use Disorder Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
Keywords
clinical decision support, chronic non-cancer pain, pain management, primary care, electronic health records, user-centered design, guideline adherence, patient-reported pain

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review