Background and Objectives: In an effort to improve and standardize the collection of adverse event data, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality is developing and testing a patient safety surveillance system called the Quality and Safety Review System (QSRS). Its current abstraction from medical records is through manual human coders, taking an average of 75 minutes to complete the review and abstraction tasks for one patient record. With many healthcare systems across the country adopting electronic health record (EHR) technology, there is tremendous potential for more efficient abstraction by automatically populating QSRS. In the absence of real-world testing data and models, which require a substantial investment, we provide a heuristic assessment of the feasibility of automatically populating QSRS questions from EHR data. Methods:To provide an assessment of the automation feasibility for QSRS, we first developed a heuristic framework, the Relative Abstraction Complexity Framework, to assess relative complexity of data abstraction questions. This framework assesses the relative complexity of characteristics or features of abstraction questions that should be considered when determining the feasibility of automating QSRS. Questions are assigned a final relative complexity score (RCS) of low, medium, or high by a team of clinicians, human factors, and natural language processing researchers.Results: One hundred thirty-four QSRS questions were coded using this framework by a team of natural language processing and clinical experts. Fifty-five questions (41%) had high RCS and would be more difficult to automate, such as "Was use of a device associated with an adverse outcome(s)?" Forty-two questions (31%) had medium RCS, such as "Were there any injuries as a result of the fall(s)?" and 37 questions (28%) had low RCS, such as "Did the patient deliver during this stay?" These results suggest that Blood and Hospital Acquired Infections-Clostridium Difficile Infection (HAI-CDI) modules would be relatively easier to automate, whereas Surgery and HAI-Surgical Site Infection would be more difficult to automate. Conclusions:Although EHRs contain a wealth of information, abstracting information from these records is still very challenging, particularly for complex questions, such as those concerning patient adverse events. In this work, we developed a heuristic framework, which can be applied to help guide conversations around the feasibility of automating QSRS data abstraction. This framework does not aim to replace testing with real data but complement the process by providing initial guidance and direction to subject matter experts to help prioritize, which abstraction questions to test for feasibility using real data.

Although generic oral contraceptives (OCPs) can improve adherence and reduce health care expenditures, use of generic OCPs remains low, and the factors that affect generic prescribing are not well understood. We aimed to understand the barriers and facilitators of generic OCP prescribing and potential solutions to increase generic OCP prescribing, as well as pilot an educational module to address clinician misconceptions about generic OCPs. We developed focus group scripts using the 4D model of appreciative inquiry. A total of four focus groups occurred, two at the American Association of Nurse Practitioners (AANP) national conference and two at the American College of Physicians (ACP) Internal Medicine meeting. Focus group transcripts were analyzed using a constant comparative method with no a priori hypothesis to generate emerging and reoccurring themes. Findings from these focus groups were used to develop an educational module promoting generic OCP prescribing. Participants were recruited from the AANP Network for Research and the ACP Research Panel. This study demonstrates that health system factors, workflow factors, clinician factors, and patient factors were the main barriers to and facilitators of generic OCP prescribing. Nurse practitioners were responsive to an educational module and reported increased willingness to discuss and prescribe generic OCPs after completing the module. Interventions to increase generic OCP prescribing must address clinician and patient factors within the context of workflow and larger health system factors.

What is known and objective The use of generic oral contraceptives (OCPs) can improve adherence and reduce healthcare costs, yet scepticism of generic drugs remains a barrier to generic OCP discussion and prescription. An educational web module was developed to reduce generic scepticism related to OCPs, improve knowledge of generic drugs and increase physician willingness to discuss and prescribe generic OCPs. Methods A needs assessment was completed using in‐person focus groups at American College of Physicians (ACP) Annual Meeting and a survey targeting baseline generic scepticism. Insights gained were used to build an educational web module detailing barriers and benefits of generic OCP prescription. The module was disseminated via email to an ACP research panel who completed our baseline survey. Post‐module evaluation measured learner reaction, knowledge and intention to change behaviour along with generic scepticism. Results and discussion The module had a response rate of 56% (n = 208/369). Individuals defined as generic sceptics at baseline were significantly less likely to complete our module compared to non‐sceptics (responders 9.6% vs non‐responders 16.8%, P = 0.04). The majority (85%, n = 17/20) of baseline sceptics were converted to non‐sceptics (P < 0.01) following completion of the module. Compared to non‐sceptics, post‐module generic sceptics reported less willingness to discuss (sceptic 33.3% vs non‐sceptic 71.5%, P < 0.01), but not less willingness to prescribe generic OCPs (sceptic 53.3% vs non‐sceptic 67.9%, P = 0.25). Non‐white physicians and international medical graduates (IMG) were more likely to be generic sceptics at baseline (non‐white 86.9% vs white 69.9%, P = 0.01, IMG 13.0% vs USMG 5.0% vs unknown 18.2%, P = 0.03) but were also more likely to report intention to prescribe generic OCPs as a result of the module (non‐white 78.7% vs white 57.3%, P < 0.01, IMG 76.1% vs USMG 50.3% vs unknown 77.3%, P = 0.03). What is new and conclusion A brief educational web module can be used to promote prescribing of generic OCPs and reduce generic scepticism.

IMPORTANCE: As prescription drug costs rise, it is important to understand attitudes among primary care physicians and nurse practitioners (NPs) towards generic drugs. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine the generic skepticism index (GSI) among primary care clinicians, and their willingness to discuss and prescribe generic antidepressants (ADs) and generic oral contraceptives (OCPs). DESIGN: We used a factorial vignette design survey to test 4 factors: message source, message, brand preference, and drug class. Participants were randomized to different combinations of factors. SETTING: This was a cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: Physicians registered with the American College of Physicians (ACP) and NPs registered with the American Association of Nurse Practitioners (AANP) participated in the study. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcomes were generic skepticism as measured using the generic skepticism index (GSI), and clinician willingness to discuss and prescribe generics. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 56% of physicians (n = 369/661) and 60% of NPs (n = 493/819). Compared with physicians, NPs were younger (p < 0.001), predominantly female (p < 0.001), and differed in the race (p < 0.001). According to the GSI, 16% (n = 138/862) were identified as generic skeptics (18.5% of NPs and 12.7% of physicians, p = 0.023). Generic skeptics had lower odds of willingness to discuss switching (OR 0.22, 95% CI (0.14-0.35), p < 0.001) or prescribe (OR 0.18, 95% CI (0.11-0.28), p < 0.001) generic OCPs. Participants had lower odds of willingness to prescribe generic drugs to patients with brand preference compared with brandneutral patients (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.50-0.82, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Generic skepticism was associated with lower willingness to discuss or prescribe generic drugs. Clinicians reported lower willingness to discuss switching or prescribe generics for OCPs than for ADs. Patient brand preference hindered generic prescribing. Message source and message type were not significantly associated with outcomes.