Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up
N/A N=452 Randomized Single-blind Health Services Research

Integrating Contextual Factors Into Clinical Decision Support

Medical Errors · Decision Support Systems, Clinical · Diagnostic Errors

Enrolled (actual)
452
Serious AEs
0.0%
Results posted
Jan 2023
Primary outcome: Primary: Resolution of Contextual Red Flags — 116; 240; 83; 99 Red flags — p=.91

Study Design & Population

Study type
Interventional
Phase
N/A
Interventions
Contextual clinical decision support (Other); Contextual survey (Behavioral)
Age
Adult, Older Adult · 18+ yrs
Sex
All
Sponsor
University of Illinois at Chicago
Primary completion
Nov 2021

Outcome Measures

OutcomeResultp-value
PRIMARY
Resolution of Contextual Red Flags
116; 240; 83; 99; 163; 201 .91
SECONDARY
Probing of Contextual Red Flags
215; 271; 147; 269 0.02 sig
SECONDARY
Planning for Contextual Factors
221; 255; 162; 254 .006 sig

Summary

Preventing contextual errors requires heightening clinician responsiveness to clues that there are contextual factors during the clinical encounter, in real time. These clues, termed contextual red flags are evident in two sources: the medical record and from patients directly. An effective intervention would prompt clinicians to determine whether there are underlying contextual factors that could be addressed in the care plan, averting contextual error. This desirable process is termed contextual probing. While clinical decision support (CDS) has been used to provide physicians with timely biomedical information at the point of care to prevent errors and promote appropriate care, this technology also affords an opportunity to draw physician attention to both contextual red flags and contextual factors in order to avert contextual errors. This study assesses the potential of "contextualized CDS" to improve contextualization of care through a randomized controlled intervention trial, with assessment measures of both patient health care outcomes and averted costs associated with overuse and misuse of medical services. The three hypotheses are that CDS: 1. Reduces contextual error: CDS tools that inform clinicians of contextual factors and prompt them to explore contextual red flags should result in a reduction in contextual error. 2. Improve health care outcomes: Contextualized CDS predicts improved health care outcomes defined as a partial or full resolution of the contextual red flag (e.g. elevated HgB A1c) after the index visit. 3. Reduces avoidable health care costs: Contextualized CDS is associated with a reduction in misuse and overuse of inappropriate or unnecessary medical services.

Eligibility Criteria

Inclusion Criteria

  • English-speaking adult patients presenting to outpatient primary care clinics for scheduled appointments who can be contacted in advance of their appointment and the clinicians (physicians or nurse practitioners) seeing those patients at those visits.

Exclusion Criteria

  • • Patients with emergent or unscheduled visits or who do not speak English.
View full record on ClinicalTrials.gov →

Data sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03244033). Outcome figures and adverse-event rates are extracted automatically from the registry's posted results and are provided for clinician reference, not as a substitute for the primary publication.

Back to search