- Browse by Author
Browsing by Author "Apathy, Nate C."
Now showing 1 - 10 of 17
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item A decade post-HITECH: Critical access hospitals have electronic health records but struggle to keep up with other advanced functions(Oxford University Press, 2021) Apathy, Nate C.; Holmgren, A. Jay; Adler-Milstein, Julia; Health Policy and Management, Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public HealthObjective: Despite broad electronic health record (EHR) adoption in U.S. hospitals, there is concern that an "advanced use" digital divide exists between critical access hospitals (CAHs) and non-CAHs. We measured EHR adoption and advanced use over time to analyzed changes in the divide. Materials and methods: We used 2008 to 2018 American Hospital Association Information Technology survey data to update national EHR adoption statistics. We stratified EHR adoption by CAH status and measured advanced use for both patient engagement (PE) and clinical data analytics (CDA) domains. We used a linear probability regression for each domain with year-CAH interactions to measure temporal changes in the relationship between CAH status and advanced use. Results: In 2018, 98.3% of hospitals had adopted EHRs; there were no differences by CAH status. A total of 58.7% and 55.6% of hospitals adopted advanced PE and CDA functions, respectively. In both domains, CAHs were less likely to be advanced users: 46.6% demonstrated advanced use for PE and 32.0% for CDA. Since 2015, the advanced use divide has persisted for PE and widened for CDA. Discussion: EHR adoption among hospitals is essentially ubiquitous; however, CAHs still lag behind in advanced use functions critical to improving care quality. This may be rooted in different advanced use needs among CAH patients and lack of access to technical expertise. Conclusions: The advanced use divide prevents CAH patients from benefitting from a fully digitized healthcare system. To close the widening gap in CDA, policymakers should consider partnering with vendors to develop implementation guides and standards for functions like dashboards and high-risk patient identification algorithms to better support CAH adoption.Item Assessing the use of a clinical decision support tool for pain management in primary care(Oxford University Press, 2022-09-15) Apathy, Nate C.; Sanner, Lindsey; Adams, Meredith C.B.; Mamlin, Burke W.; Grout, Randall W.; Fortin, Saura; Hillstrom, Jennifer; Saha, Amit; Teal, Evgenia; Vest, Joshua R.; Menachemi, Nir; Hurley, Robert W.; Harle, Christopher A.; Mazurenko, Olena; Health Policy and Management, School of Public HealthObjective: 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.Item Barriers to Hospital Electronic Public Health Reporting and Implications for the COVID-19 Pandemic(Oxford University Press, 2020-06-01) Holmgren, A. Jay; Apathy, Nate C.; Adler-Milstein, Julia; Health Policy and Management, School of Public HealthWe sought to identify barriers to hospital reporting of electronic surveillance data to local, state, and federal public health agencies and the impact on areas projected to be overwhelmed by the COVID-19 pandemic. Using 2018 American Hospital Association data, we identified barriers to surveillance data reporting and combined this with data on the projected impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on hospital capacity at the hospital referral region level. Our results find the most common barrier was public health agencies lacked the capacity to electronically receive data, with 41.2% of all hospitals reporting it. We also identified 31 hospital referral regions in the top quartile of projected bed capacity needed for COVID-19 patients in which over half of hospitals in the area reported that the relevant public health agency was unable to receive electronic data. Public health agencies’ inability to receive electronic data is the most prominent hospital-reported barrier to effective syndromic surveillance. This reflects the policy commitment of investing in information technology for hospitals without a concomitant investment in IT infrastructure for state and local public health agencies.Item Corrigendum to: Practice and market factors associated with provider volume of health information exchange(Oxford University Press, 2021) Apathy, Nate C.; Vest, Joshua R.; Adler-Milstein, Julia; Blackburn, Justin; Dixon, Brian E.; Harle, Christopher A.; Health Policy and Management, Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public HealthJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association, doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocab024 The author name “Julia Adler-Milstein” was incorrectly given as “Julia Adler-Milstien”. This has been corrected online.Item Evaluation of electronic recruitment efforts of primary care providers as research subjects during the COVID-19 pandemic(BMC, 2022-04-28) Mazurenko, Olena; Sanner, Lindsey; Apathy, Nate C.; Mamlin, Burke W.; Menachemi, Nir; Adams, Meredith C.B.; Hurley, Robert W.; Fortin Erazo, Saura; Harle, Christopher A.; Medicine, School of MedicineBackground: Recruiting healthcare providers as research subjects often rely on in-person recruitment strategies. Little is known about recruiting provider participants via electronic recruitment methods. In this study, conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, we describe and evaluate a primarily electronic approach to recruiting primary care providers (PCPs) as subjects in a pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a decision support intervention. Methods: We adapted an existing framework for healthcare provider research recruitment, employing an electronic consent form and a mix of brief synchronous video presentations, email, and phone calls to recruit PCPs into the RCT. To evaluate the success of each electronic strategy, we estimated the number of consented PCPs associated with each strategy, the number of days to recruit each PCP and recruitment costs. Results: We recruited 45 of 63 eligible PCPs practicing at ten primary care clinic locations over 55 days. On average, it took 17 business days to recruit a PCP (range 0-48) and required three attempts (range 1-7). Email communication from the clinic leaders led to the most successful recruitments, followed by brief synchronous video presentations at regularly scheduled clinic meetings. We spent approximately $89 per recruited PCP. We faced challenges of low email responsiveness and limited opportunities to forge relationships. Conclusion: PCPs can be efficiently recruited at low costs as research subjects using primarily electronic communications, even during a time of high workload and stress. Electronic peer leader outreach and synchronous video presentations may be particularly useful recruitment strategies.Item Examining primary care provider experiences with using a clinical decision support tool for pain management(Oxford University Press, 2023-08-09) Mazurenko, Olena; McCord, Emma; McDonnell, Cara; Apathy, Nate C.; Sanner, Lindsey; Adams, Meredith C. B.; Mamlin, Burke W.; Vest, Joshua R.; Hurley, Robert W.; Harle, Christopher A.; Health Policy and Management, School of Public HealthObjective: To evaluate primary care provider (PCP) experiences using a clinical decision support (CDS) tool over 16 months following a user-centered design process and implementation. Materials and methods: We conducted a qualitative evaluation of the Chronic Pain OneSheet (OneSheet), a chronic pain CDS tool. OneSheet provides pain- and opioid-related risks, benefits, and treatment information for patients with chronic pain to PCPs. Using the 5 Rights of CDS framework, we conducted and analyzed semi-structured interviews with 19 PCPs across 2 academic health systems. Results: PCPs stated that OneSheet mostly contained the right information required to treat patients with chronic pain and was correctly located in the electronic health record. PCPs used OneSheet for distinct subgroups of patients with chronic pain, including patients prescribed opioids, with poorly controlled pain, or new to a provider or clinic. PCPs reported variable workflow integration and selective use of certain OneSheet features driven by their preferences and patient population. PCPs recommended broadening OneSheet access to clinical staff and patients for data entry to address clinician time constraints. Discussion: Differences in patient subpopulations and workflow preferences had an outsized effect on CDS tool use even when the CDS contained the right information identified in a user-centered design process. Conclusions: To increase adoption and use, CDS design and implementation processes may benefit from increased tailoring that accommodates variation and dynamics among patients, visits, and providers.Item Examining Training Motivations Among Public Health Workers(Wolters Kluwer, 2019-03) Apathy, Nate C.; Yeager, Valerie A.; Health Policy and Management, School of Public HealthCONTEXT: As public health needs and priorities evolve, maintaining a trained public health workforce is critical to the success of public health efforts. Researchers have examined training needs in various contexts and subpopulations, but a nationally representative study of what motivates public health workers to seek out training has yet to be conducted. By understanding these motivations, public health agencies and policy makers can appeal to worker motivations in both training programs and organizational incentives. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article was to describe overall training motivations and identify patterns of training motivations among public health workers. This study also explored whether or not training needs differ across prevalent motivational patterns. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Using data from the 2017 Public Health Workforce Interests and Needs Survey (PH WINS), the study used latent class analysis (LCA) to identify motivational patterns and logistic regression to analyze associations with training needs. RESULTS: The most prominent motivation to seek training was personal growth (82.7% of respondents). LCA identified 4 motivational classes of public health workers: those motivated by organizational pressure and requirements (31.8%), those motivated indiscriminately by all factors (28.4%), those motivated primarily by personal growth (21.7%), and those motivated by organizational accommodations and supports (18.2%). Motivational class was not associated with indicating training needs in any of 8 training domains, nor was it associated with indicating any training need in any domain. CONCLUSIONS: Public health agencies should consider the different motivational classes present in the public health workforce. In particular, motivational classes that represent organizational choices suggest that public health agencies should both motivate workers with organizational requirements and pressure from managers and offer institutional support via paid travel and covered time for training.Item Guidance for reporting analyses of metadata on electronic health record use(American Medical Informatics Association, 2024) Rule, Adam; Kannampallil, Thomas; Hribar, Michelle R.; Dziorny, Adam C.; Thombley, Robert; Apathy, Nate C.; Adler-Milstein, Julia; Center for Biomedical InformaticsIntroduction: Research on how people interact with electronic health records (EHRs) increasingly involves the analysis of metadata on EHR use. These metadata can be recorded unobtrusively and capture EHR use at a scale unattainable through direct observation or self-reports. However, there is substantial variation in how metadata on EHR use are recorded, analyzed and described, limiting understanding, replication, and synthesis across studies. Recommendations: In this perspective, we provide guidance to those working with EHR use metadata by describing 4 common types, how they are recorded, and how they can be aggregated into higher-level measures of EHR use. We also describe guidelines for reporting analyses of EHR use metadata-or measures of EHR use derived from them-to foster clarity, standardization, and reproducibility in this emerging and critical area of research.Item Health Information Technology and Accountable Care Organizations: A Systematic Review and Future Directions(AcademyHealth, 2019-07-08) Balio, Casey P.; Apathy, Nate C.; Danek, Robin L.; Health Policy and Management, School of Public HealthBackground: Since the inception of Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs), many have acknowledged the potential synergy between ACOs and health information technology (IT) in meeting quality and cost goals. Objective: We conducted a systematic review of the literature in order to describe what research has been conducted at the intersection of health IT and ACOs and identify directions for future research. Methods: We identified empirical studies discussing the use of health IT via PubMed search with subsequent snowball reference review. The type of health IT, how health IT was included in the study, use of theory, population, and findings were extracted from each study. Results: Our search resulted in 32 studies describing the intersection of health IT and ACOs, mainly in the form of electronic health records and health information exchange. Studies were divided into three streams by purpose; those that considered health IT as a factor for ACO participation, health IT use by current ACOs, and ACO performance as a function of health IT capabilities. Although most studies found a positive association between health IT and ACO participation, studies that address the performance of ACOs in terms of their health IT capabilities show more mixed results. Conclusions: In order to better understand this emerging relationship between health IT and ACO performance, we propose future research should consider more quasi-experimental studies, the use of theory, and merging health, quality, cost, and health IT use data across ACO member organizations.Item Inbox message prioritization and management approaches in primary care(Oxford University Press, 2024-11-11) Apathy, Nate C.; Hicks, Katelyn; Bocknek, Lucy; Zabala, Garrett; Adams, Katharine; Gomes, Kylie M.; Saggar, Tara; Medicine, School of MedicineObjectives: Patient messaging to clinicians has dramatically increased since the pandemic, leading to informatics efforts to categorize incoming messages. We examined how message prioritization (as distinct from categorization) occurs in primary care, and how primary care clinicians managed their inbox workflows. Materials and methods: Semi-structured interviews and inbox work observations with 11 primary care clinicians at MedStar Health. We analyzed interview and observation transcripts and identified themes and subthemes related to prioritization and inbox workflows. Results: Clinicians widely reported that they did not prioritize messages due to time constraints and the necessity of attending to all messages, which made any prioritization purely additive to overall inbox time. We identified 6 themes and 14 subthemes related to managing inbox workloads. The top themes were (1) establishing workflow norms with different teams, primarily medical assistants (MAs); (2) boundary-setting with patients, other clinicians, and with themselves; and (3) message classification heuristics that allowed clinicians to mentally categorize messages that required follow-up, messages that could be quickly deleted or acknowledged, and purely informational messages that ranged in clinical utility from tedious to valuable for care coordination. Discussion: Time constraints in primary care prevent clinicians from prioritizing their inbox messages for increased efficiency. Involvement of MAs and co-located staff was successful; however, standardization was needed for messaging workflows that involved centralized resources like call centers. Organizations should consider ways in which they can support the establishment and maintenance of boundaries, to avoid this responsibility falling entirely on clinicians. Conclusion: Clinicians generally lack the time to prioritize patient messages. Future research should explore the efficacy of collaborative inbox workflows for time-savings and management of patient messages.