Fig 1.
Framework of complementary decision support solutions implemented in the U-PGx project.
The provided set of solutions accommodates the needs and requirements of the highly diverse implementation sides while guaranteeing a standardized intervention. Clinical sites with the infrastructural capabilities for interruptive CDS alerts in the form of pop-up messages in the EHR or e-prescription system are provided with semi-structured data. For all other sites, passive CDS can be delivered either inside the EHR system as a digital report, or outside the EHR system via mobile- and paper-based solutions. A more detailed technical description is available in [14].
Fig 2.
Front and back side of an exemplary Safety Code card for a fictional patient.
The Safety Code card is given to all patients recruited for the ‘PGx-guided treatment’ arm of the study. Patients recruited for the control arm were eligible to receive a Safety Code card at the end of the study [14].
Fig 3.
Phases and tools of the implementation process.
Table 1.
Identified risks per thematic category and severity rating.
LIMS: Laboratory information management system.
Fig 4.
Number of genotyping samples uploaded per country as of March 2021.
Processing of samples of control arm patients was still ongoing at the time of writing.
Fig 5.
a) Invited healthcare providers vs. number of respondents per country, b) Percentage of respondents per country.
Table 2.
Demographics of the survey participants.
Fig 6.
Healthcare provider’s self-reported comfortableness with computers, mobile devices and electronic health records (EHRs).
Table 3.
Reported usage of the different CDS tools among survey participants.
More than one CDS tool can be used by a single user.
Fig 7.
Healthcare providers’ rating of workflow integration of the different CDS tools.
SC: Safety Code cards, PR: printed reports, DR: digital reports, AA: automatic alerts.
Fig 8.
Healthcare providers’ perception of the information amount of the different CDS tools.
SC: Safety Code cards, PR: printed reports, DR: digital reports, AA: automatic alerts.
Fig 9.
Healthcare providers’ perceived sufficiency of the received training on the different CDS tools.
SC: Safety Code cards, PR: printed reports, DR: digital reports, AA: automatic alerts.
Fig 10.
Healthcare providers’ rating of the user-friendliness of the different CDS tools.
SC: Safety Code cards, PR: printed reports, DR: digital reports, AA: automatic alerts.
Fig 11.
Healthcare providers’ overall satisfaction with the different CDS tools.
SC: Safety Code cards, PR: printed reports, DR: digital reports, AA: automatic alerts.
Fig 12.
a) Report retrievals from April 2018 to March 2021. Report retrieval logging started in April 2018, thus retrievals before this date are not included. b) Samples uploaded vs. number of report retrievals via the Safety Code card during and after the study per implementation site. Patients recruited for the control arm received their Safety Code cards only after completion of the study.