always received, and discontinued medications was the area of largest gap between preference and experience. Much less value was perceived in historical information such as previously discontinued “all medications,” though even there more than half found them useful. RECOMMENDATIONS Ensure that medications lists include all medications that are active, that are newly prescribed, and that were discontinued. Each of these should be distinctly labeled and identified. The question was not asked whether they should be separate lists, or a single list with new and discontinued medications distinguished somehow. If any past medications (discontinued prior to the current visit) are included, separate them from those that were active, new, or discontinued as of the current visit. Include the reasons for discontinuation (e.g., ineffective, condition resolved, superseded by different medication, adverse reaction, etc.), if available. Alternative Approaches While the original premise of the Relevant and Pertinent Project was focused on document generation (and avoiding sending much information”), it became apparent that there could be alternative “too approaches to meeting the needs of clinicians. It is not always feasible due to lack of knowledge, lack – of time, or other reasons -- for the sender to know what the receiver prefers and to modify the document accordingly. Some senders do not feel comfortable withholding information even that they think would not be relevant, at the risk of making the wrong decision. So an alternative question was asked: you prefer to manage ToC content by receiving more information and having better “Do presentation and incorporation capability in your EHR?” If yes, then they were asked about several potential alternatives, as shown in the table below. Table 31: Interest in Alternative Approaches All Currently receiving ToC Prefer sender to limit information 264 43 % 107 39 % Prefer more information and better 349 57 % 168 61 % display/incorporation capability 1 2 3 4 5 No Resp User defined summary 2 % 3 % 7 % 18 % 25 % 45 % Table of contents with links 2 % 3 % 9 % 16 % 23 % 47 % Drag and Drop 2 % 3 % 6 % 16 % 27 % 46 % Automatic incorporation 3 % 3 % 8 % 15 % 26 % 46 % Duplication detection 1 % 3 % 5 % 13 % 33 % 45 % 55 respondents provided suggestions. Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding.
always received, and discontinued medications was the area of largest gap between preference and experience. Much less value was perceived in historical information such as “all previously discontinued medications,” though even there more than half found them useful. RECOMMENDATIONS Ensure that medications lists include all medications that are active, that are newly prescribed, and that were discontinued. Each of these should be distinctly labeled and identified. The question was not asked whether they should be separate lists, or a single list with new and discontinued medications distinguished somehow. If any past medications (discontinued prior to the current visit) are included, separate them from those that were active, new, or discontinued as of the current visit. Include the reasons for discontinuation (e.g., ineffective, condition resolved, superseded by different medication, adverse reaction, etc.), if available. Alternative Approaches While the original premise of the Relevant and Pertinent Project was focused on document generation (and avoiding sending “too much information”), it became apparent that there could be alternative approaches to meeting the needs of clinicians. It is not always feasible – due to lack of knowledge, lack of time, or other reasons -- for the sender to know what the receiver prefers and to modify the document accordingly. Some senders do not feel comfortable withholding information even that they think would not be relevant, at the risk of making the wrong decision. So an alternative question was asked: “Do you prefer to manage ToC content by receiving more information and having better presentation and incorporation capability in your EHR?” If yes, then they were asked about several potential alternatives, as shown in the table below. Table 31: Interest in Alternative Approaches All Currently receiving ToC Prefer sender to limit information 264 43 % 107 39 % Prefer more information and better display/incorporation capability 349 57 % 168 61 % 1 2 3 4 5 No Resp User defined summary 2 % 3 % 7 % 18 % 25 % 45 % Table of contents with links 2 % 3 % 9 % 16 % 23 % 47 % Drag and Drop 2 % 3 % 6 % 16 % 27 % 46 % Automatic incorporation 3 % 3 % 8 % 15 % 26 % 46 % Duplication detection 1 % 3 % 5 % 13 % 33 % 45 % 55 respondents provided suggestions. Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding.
20170221204105%21CDAR2_IG_PATSUMRNP_R1_I1_2017JAN_Reconciliation.docx