Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Apr 18;5(2):ooac022.
doi: 10.1093/jamiaopen/ooac022. eCollection 2022 Jul.

Implementation approaches and barriers for rule-based and machine learning-based sepsis risk prediction tools: a qualitative study

Affiliations

Implementation approaches and barriers for rule-based and machine learning-based sepsis risk prediction tools: a qualitative study

Mugdha Joshi et al. JAMIA Open. .

Abstract

Objective: Many options are currently available for sepsis surveillance clinical decision support (CDS) from electronic medical record (EMR) vendors, third party, and homegrown models drawing on rule-based (RB) and machine learning (ML) algorithms. This study explores sepsis CDS implementation from the perspective of implementation leads by describing the motivations, tool choices, and implementation experiences of a diverse group of implementers.

Materials and methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with and a questionnaire was administered to 21 hospital leaders overseeing CDS implementation at 15 US medical centers. Participants were recruited via convenience sampling. Responses were coded by 2 coders with consensus approach and inductively analyzed for themes.

Results: Use of sepsis CDS is motivated in part by quality metrics for sepsis patients. Choice of tool is driven by ease of integration, customization capability, and perceived predictive potential. Implementation processes for these CDS tools are complex, time-consuming, interdisciplinary undertakings resulting in heterogeneous choice of tools and workflow integration. To improve clinician acceptance, implementers addressed both optimization of the alerts as well as clinician understanding and buy in. More distrust and confusion was reported for ML models, as compared to RB models. Respondents described a variety of approaches to overcome implementation barriers; these approaches related to alert firing, content, integration, and buy-in.

Discussion: While there are shared socio-technical challenges of implementing CDS for both RB and ML models, attention to user education, support, expectation management, and dissemination of effective practices may improve feasibility and effectiveness of ML models in quality improvement efforts.

Conclusion: Further implementation science research is needed to determine real world efficacy of these tools. Clinician acceptance is a significant barrier to sepsis CDS implementation. Successful implementation of less clinically intuitive ML models may require additional attention to user confusion and distrust.

Keywords: clinical decision support; implementation; machine learning; predictive analytics; sepsis.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Rhee C, Dantes R, Epstein L, et al. ; CDC Prevention Epicenter Program. Incidence and trends of sepsis in US hospitals using clinical vs claims data, 2009–2014. JAMA 2017; 318 (13): 1241–9. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Semler MW, Weavind L, Hooper MH, et al. An electronic tool for the evaluation and treatment of sepsis in the ICU: a randomized controlled trial. Crit Care Med 2015; 43 (8): 1595–602. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Klompas M, Rhee C.. The CMS sepsis mandate: right disease, wrong measure. Ann Intern Med 2016; 165 (7): 517–9. - PubMed
    1. Walkey AJ, Lindenauer PK.. Keeping it simple in sepsis measures. J Hosp Med 2017; 12 (12): 1019–20. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Nguyen SQ, Mwakalindile E, Booth JS, et al. Automated electronic medical record sepsis detection in the emergency department. PeerJ 2014; 2: e343. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources