Cited by 4Electronic Health Records SystemsSmoking Behavior and CessationNursing Diagnosis and Documentation

Monitoring the Implementation of Tobacco Cessation Support Tools: Using Novel Electronic Health Record Activity Metrics

Open access
Chen, Jinying, Cutrona, Sarah L, Dharod, Ajay, Bunch, Stephanie C, Foley, Kristie L, Ostasiewski, Brian, Hale, Erica R, Bridges, Aaron +5 more·2023·JMIR Medical Informatics

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Clinical decision support (CDS) tools in electronic health records (EHRs) are often used as core strategies to support quality improvement programs in the clinical setting. Monitoring the impact (intended and unintended) of these tools is crucial for program evaluation and adaptation. Existing approaches for monitoring typically rely on health care providers' self-reports or direct observation of clinical workflows, which require substantial data collection efforts and are prone to reporting bias. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to develop a novel monitoring method leveraging EHR activity data and demonstrate its use in monitoring the CDS tools implemented by a tobacco cessation program sponsored by the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (C3I). METHODS: We developed EHR-based metrics to monitor the implementation of two CDS tools: (1) a screening alert reminding clinic staff to complete the smoking assessment and (2) a support alert prompting health care providers to discuss support and treatment options, including referral to a cessation clinic. Using EHR activity data, we measured the completion (encounter-level alert completion rate) and burden (the number of times an alert was fired before completion and time spent handling the alert) of the CDS tools. We report metrics tracked for 12 months post implementation, comparing 7 cancer clinics (2 clinics implemented the screening alert and 5 implemented both alerts) within a C3I center, and identify areas to improve alert design and adoption. RESULTS: The screening alert fired in 5121 encounters during the 12 months post implementation. The encounter-level alert completion rate (clinic staff acknowledged completion of screening in EHR: 0.55; clinic staff completed EHR documentation of screening results: 0.32) remained stable over time but varied considerably across clinics. The support alert fired in 1074 encounters during the 12 months. Providers acted upon (ie, not postponed) the support alert in 87.3% (n=938) of encounters, identified a patient ready to quit in 12% (n=129) of encounters, and ordered a referral to the cessation clinic in 2% (n=22) of encounters. With respect to alert burden, on average, both alerts fired over 2 times (screening alert: 2.7; support alert: 2.1) before completion; time spent postponing the screening alert was similar to completing (52 vs 53 seconds) the alert, and time spent postponing the support alert was more than completing (67 vs 50 seconds) the alert per encounter. These findings inform four areas where the alert design and use can be improved: (1) improving alert adoption and completion through local adaptation, (2) improving support alert efficacy by additional strategies including training in provider-patient communication, (3) improving the accuracy of tracking for alert completion, and (4) balancing alert efficacy with the burden. CONCLUSIONS: EHR activity metrics were able to monitor the success and burden of tobacco cessation alerts, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of potential trade-offs associated with alert implementation. These metrics can be used to guide implementation adaptation and are scalable across diverse settings.

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 · 10.2196/43097

Cites

50 of 50 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: 2

  1. [13]National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (US) Office on Smoking and Health The Health Consequences of Smoking—50 Years of Progress: A Report of the Surgeon General 2014 Atlanta, GA Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 24455788
  2. [47]Henry J Pylypchuk Y Searcy T Patel V Adoption of electronic health record systems among U.S. non-federal acute care hospitals: 2008-2015 HealthIT.gov 2008 2023-02-03 https://www.healthit.gov/data/data-briefs/adoption-electronic-health-​record-systems-among-us-non-federal-acute-care-1 40127322

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chen, J., Cutrona, S. L., Dharod, A., Bunch, S. C., Foley, K. L., Ostasiewski, B., Hale, E. R., Bridges, A., Moses, A., Donny, E. C., Sutfin, E. L., Houston, T. K., & iDAPT Implementation Science Center for Cancer Control
Affiliations
  • Boston University (US)
  • University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School (US)
  • Wake Forest University Health Sciences (US)
  • RTI International (US)
Corresponding author
Chen, Jinying
Venue
JMIR Medical Informatics
Published
2023-03-02
Volume
11
Pages
e43097
ISSN
2291-9694 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4322757339
Cited by
4
References
50
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1
FWCI
0.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JMIR Medical Informatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR001420)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (K12HL138049)
  • National Cancer Institute (P50CA244693, P30CA012197)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Smoking Behavior and Cessation
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Issues, ethics and legal aspects › Nursing Diagnosis and Documentation
Keywords
tobacco cessation, clinical decision support, electronic health record alerts, implementation monitoring, smoking screening, alert burden, cancer centers, quality improvement, smoking cessation referral, program evaluation, reporting bias, tobacco control policy evaluation

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