Background Preventable adverse events continue to be a threat to hospitalized patients. Clinical decision support in the form of dashboards may improve compliance with evidence-based safety practices. However, limited research describes providers' experiences with dashboards integrated into vendor electronic health record (EHR) systems. Objective This study was aimed to describe providers' use and perceived usability of the Patient Safety Dashboard and discuss barriers and facilitators to implementation. Methods The Patient Safety Dashboard was implemented in a cluster-randomized stepped wedge trial on 12 units in neurology, oncology, and general medicine services over an 18-month period. Use of the Dashboard was tracked during the implementation period and analyzed in-depth for two 1-week periods to gather a detailed representation of use. Providers' perceptions of tool usability were measured using the Health Information Technology Usability Evaluation Scale (rated 1–5). Research assistants conducted field observations throughout the duration of the study to describe use and provide insight into tool adoption. Results The Dashboard was used 70% of days the tool was available, with use varying by role, service, and time of day. On general medicine units, nurses logged in throughout the day, with many logins occurring during morning rounds, when not rounding with the care team. Prescribers logged in typically before and after morning rounds. On neurology units, physician assistants accounted for most logins, accessing the Dashboard during daily brief interdisciplinary rounding sessions. Use on oncology units was rare. Satisfaction with the tool was highest for perceived ease of use, with attendings giving the highest rating (4.23). The overall lowest rating was for quality of work life, with nurses rating the tool lowest (2.88). Conclusion This mixed methods analysis provides insight into the use and usability of a dashboard tool integrated within a vendor EHR and can guide future improvements and more successful implementation of these types of tools.

Background Patient-facing health information technology (HIT) tools, such as patient portals, are recognized as a potential mechanism to facilitate patient engagement and patient-centered care, yet the use of these tools remains limited in the hospital setting. Although research in this area is growing, it is unclear how the use of acute care patient portals might affect outcomes, such as patient activation. Objective The aim of this study was to describe the use of an acute care patient portal and investigate its association with patient and care partner activation in the hospital setting. Methods We implemented an acute care patient portal on 6 acute care units over an 18-month period. We investigated the characteristics of the users (patients and their care partners) of the patient portal, as well as their use of the portal. This included the number of visits to each page, the number of days used, the length of the user’s access period, and the average percent of days used during the access period. Patient and care partner activation was assessed using the short form of the patient activation measure (PAM-13) and the caregiver patient activation measure (CG-PAM). Comparisons of the activation scores were performed using propensity weighting and robust weighted linear regression. Results Of the 2974 randomly sampled patients, 59.01% (1755/2974) agreed to use the acute care patient portal. Acute care patient portal enrollees were younger, less sick, less likely to have Medicare as their insurer, and more likely to use the Partners Healthcare enterprise ambulatory patient portal (Patient Gateway). The most used features of the acute care patient portal were the laboratory test results, care team information, and medication list. Most users accessed the portal between 1 to 4 days during their hospitalization, and the average number of days used (logged in at least once per day) was 1.8 days. On average, users accessed the portal 42.69% of the hospital days during which it was available. There was significant association with patient activation on the neurology service ( P <.001) and medicine service ( P =.01), after the introduction of HIT tools and the acute care patient portal, but not on the oncology service. Conclusions Portal users most often accessed the portal to view their clinical information, though portal usage was limited to only the first few days of enrollment. We found an association between the use of the portal and HIT tools with improved levels of patient activation. These tools may help facilitate patient engagement and improve outcomes when fully utilized by patients and care partners. Future study should leverage usage metrics to describe portal use and assess the impact of HIT tools on specific outcome measures in the hospital setting.

We established a Patient Safety Learning Laboratory comprising 2 core and 3 individual project teams to introduce a suite of digital health tools integrated with our electronic health record to identify, assess, and mitigate threats to patient safety in real time. One of the core teams employed systems engineering (SE) and human factors (HF) methods to analyze problems, design and develop improvements to intervention components, support implementation, and evaluate the system of systems as an integrated whole. Of the 29 participants, 19 and 16 participated in surveys and focus groups, respectively, about their perception of SE and HF. We identified 7 themes regarding use of the 12 SE and HF methods over the 4-year project. Qualitative methods (interviews, focus, groups, observations, usability testing) were most frequently used, typically by individual project teams, and generated the most insight. Quantitative methods (failure mode and effects analysis, simulation modeling) typically were used by the SE and HF core team but generated variable insight. A decentralized project structure led to challenges using these SE and HF methods at the project and systems level. We offer recommendations and insights for using SE and HF to support digital health patient safety initiatives.

Background Poor discharge preparation during hospitalization may lead to adverse events after discharge. Checklists and videos that systematically engage patients in preparing for discharge have the potential to improve safety, especially when integrated into clinician workflow via the electronic health record (EHR). Objective This study aims to evaluate the implementation of a suite of digital health tools integrated with the EHR to engage hospitalized patients, caregivers, and their care team in preparing for discharge. Methods We used the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to identify pertinent research questions related to implementation. We iteratively refined patient and clinician-facing intervention components using a participatory process involving end users and institutional stakeholders. The intervention was implemented at a large academic medical center from December 2017 to July 2018. Patients who agreed to participate were coached to watch a discharge video, complete a checklist assessing discharge readiness, and request postdischarge text messaging with a physician 24 to 48 hours before their expected discharge date, which was displayed via a patient portal and bedside display. Clinicians could view concerns reported by patients based on their checklist responses in real time via a safety dashboard integrated with the EHR and choose to open a secure messaging thread with the patient for up to 7 days after discharge. We used mixed methods to evaluate our implementation experience. Results Of 752 patient admissions, 510 (67.8%) patients or caregivers participated: 416 (55.3%) watched the video and completed the checklist, and 94 (12.5%) completed the checklist alone. On average, 4.24 concerns were reported per each of the 510 checklist submissions, most commonly about medications (664/2164, 30.7%) and follow-up (656/2164, 30.3%). Of the 510 completed checklists, a member of the care team accessed the safety dashboard to view 210 (41.2%) patient-reported concerns. For 422 patient admissions where postdischarge messaging was available, 141 (33.4%) patients requested this service; of these, a physician initiated secure messaging for 3 (2.1%) discharges. Most patient survey participants perceived that the intervention promoted self-management and communication with their care team. Patient interview participants endorsed gaps in communication with their care team and thought that the video and checklist would be useful closer toward discharge. Clinicians participating in focus groups perceived the value for patients but suggested that low awareness and variable workflow regarding the intervention, lack of technical optimization, and inconsistent clinician leadership limited the use of clinician-facing components. Conclusions A suite of EHR-integrated digital health tools to engage patients, caregivers, and clinicians in discharge preparation during hospitalization was feasible, acceptable, and valuable; however, important challenges were identified during implementation. We offer strategies to address implementation barriers and promote adoption of these tools. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03116074; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03116074.

Objective The objective of this paper is to share challenges, recommendations, and lessons learned regarding the development and implementation of a Patient Safety Learning Laboratory (PSLL) project, an innovative and complex intervention comprised of a suite of Health Information Technology (HIT) tools integrated with a newly implemented Electronic Health Record (EHR) vendor system in the acute care setting at a large academic center. Materials and Methods The PSLL Administrative Core engaged stakeholders and study personnel throughout all phases of the project: problem analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation. Implementation challenges and recommendations were derived from direct observations and the collective experience of PSLL study personnel. Results The PSLL intervention was implemented on 12 inpatient units during the 18-month study period, potentially impacting 12,628 patient admissions. Challenges to implementation included stakeholder engagement, project scope/complexity, technology/governance, and team structure. Recommendations to address each of these challenges were generated, some enacted during the trial, others as lessons learned for future iterative refinements of the intervention and its implementation. Conclusion Designing, implementing, and evaluating a suite of tools integrated within a vendor EHR to improve patient safety has a variety of challenges. Keys to success include continuous stakeholder engagement, involvement of systems and human factors engineers within a multidisciplinary team, an iterative approach to user-centered design, and a willingness to think outside of current workflows and processes to change health system culture around adverse event prevention.