OBJECTIVE: To develop and evaluate a data-driven process to generate suggestions for improving alert criteria using explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) approaches. METHODS: We extracted data on alerts generated from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2020, at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. We developed machine learning models to predict user responses to alerts. We applied XAI techniques to generate global explanations and local explanations. We evaluated the generated suggestions by comparing with alert's historical change logs and stakeholder interviews. Suggestions that either matched (or partially matched) changes already made to the alert or were considered clinically correct were classified as helpful. RESULTS: The final dataset included 2 991 823 firings with 2689 features. Among the 5 machine learning models, the LightGBM model achieved the highest Area under the ROC Curve: 0.919 [0.918, 0.920]. We identified 96 helpful suggestions. A total of 278 807 firings (9.3%) could have been eliminated. Some of the suggestions also revealed workflow and education issues. CONCLUSION: We developed a data-driven process to generate suggestions for improving alert criteria using XAI techniques. Our approach could identify improvements regarding clinical decision support (CDS) that might be overlooked or delayed in manual reviews. It also unveils a secondary purpose for the XAI: to improve quality by discovering scenarios where CDS alerts are not accepted due to workflow, education, or staffing issues.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the capability of using generative artificial intelligence (AI) in summarizing alert comments and to determine if the AI-generated summary could be used to improve clinical decision support (CDS) alerts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We extracted user comments to alerts generated from September 1, 2022 to September 1, 2023 at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. For a subset of 8 alerts, comment summaries were generated independently by 2 physicians and then separately by GPT-4. We surveyed 5 CDS experts to rate the human-generated and AI-generated summaries on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) for the 4 metrics: clarity, completeness, accuracy, and usefulness. RESULTS: Five CDS experts participated in the survey. A total of 16 human-generated summaries and 8 AI-generated summaries were assessed. Among the top 8 rated summaries, five were generated by GPT-4. AI-generated summaries demonstrated high levels of clarity, accuracy, and usefulness, similar to the human-generated summaries. Moreover, AI-generated summaries exhibited significantly higher completeness and usefulness compared to the human-generated summaries (AI: 3.4 ± 1.2, human: 2.7 ± 1.2, P = .001). CONCLUSION: End-user comments provide clinicians' immediate feedback to CDS alerts and can serve as a direct and valuable data resource for improving CDS delivery. Traditionally, these comments may not be considered in the CDS review process due to their unstructured nature, large volume, and the presence of redundant or irrelevant content. Our study demonstrates that GPT-4 is capable of distilling these comments into summaries characterized by high clarity, accuracy, and completeness. AI-generated summaries are equivalent and potentially better than human-generated summaries. These AI-generated summaries could provide CDS experts with a novel means of reviewing user comments to rapidly optimize CDS alerts both online and offline.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if ChatGPT can generate useful suggestions for improving clinical decision support (CDS) logic and to assess noninferiority compared to human-generated suggestions. METHODS: We supplied summaries of CDS logic to ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence (AI) tool for question answering that uses a large language model, and asked it to generate suggestions. We asked human clinician reviewers to review the AI-generated suggestions as well as human-generated suggestions for improving the same CDS alerts, and rate the suggestions for their usefulness, acceptance, relevance, understanding, workflow, bias, inversion, and redundancy. RESULTS: Five clinicians analyzed 36 AI-generated suggestions and 29 human-generated suggestions for 7 alerts. Of the 20 suggestions that scored highest in the survey, 9 were generated by ChatGPT. The suggestions generated by AI were found to offer unique perspectives and were evaluated as highly understandable and relevant, with moderate usefulness, low acceptance, bias, inversion, redundancy. CONCLUSION: AI-generated suggestions could be an important complementary part of optimizing CDS alerts, can identify potential improvements to alert logic and support their implementation, and may even be able to assist experts in formulating their own suggestions for CDS improvement. ChatGPT shows great potential for using large language models and reinforcement learning from human feedback to improve CDS alert logic and potentially other medical areas involving complex, clinical logic, a key step in the development of an advanced learning health system.

OBJECTIVE: We describe the Clickbusters initiative implemented at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC), which was designed to improve safety and quality and reduce burnout through the optimization of clinical decision support (CDS) alerts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a 10-step Clickbusting process and implemented a program that included a curriculum, CDS alert inventory, oversight process, and gamification. We carried out two 3-month rounds of the Clickbusters program at VUMC. We completed descriptive analyses of the changes made to alerts during the process, and of alert firing rates before and after the program. RESULTS: Prior to Clickbusters, VUMC had 419 CDS alerts in production, with 488 425 firings (42 982 interruptive) each week. After 2 rounds, the Clickbusters program resulted in detailed, comprehensive reviews of 84 CDS alerts and reduced the number of weekly alert firings by more than 70 000 (15.43%). In addition to the direct improvements in CDS, the initiative also increased user engagement and involvement in CDS. CONCLUSIONS: At VUMC, the Clickbusters program was successful in optimizing CDS alerts by reducing alert firings and resulting clicks. The program also involved more users in the process of evaluating and improving CDS and helped build a culture of continuous evaluation and improvement of clinical content in the electronic health record.

OBJECTIVE: To identify common medication route-related causes of clinical decision support (CDS) malfunctions and best practices for avoiding them. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Case series of medication route-related CDS malfunctions from diverse healthcare provider organizations. RESULTS: Nine cases were identified and described, including both false-positive and false-negative alert scenarios. A common cause was the inclusion of nonsystemically available medication routes in value sets (eg, eye drops, ear drops, or topical preparations) when only systemically available routes were appropriate. DISCUSSION: These value set errors are common, occur across healthcare provider organizations and electronic health record (EHR) systems, affect many different types of medications, and can impact the accuracy of CDS interventions. New knowledge management tools and processes for auditing existing value sets and supporting the creation of new value sets can mitigate many of these issues. Furthermore, value set issues can adversely affect other aspects of the EHR, such as quality reporting and population health management. CONCLUSION: Value set issues related to medication routes are widespread and can lead to CDS malfunctions. Organizations should make appropriate investments in knowledge management tools and strategies, such as those outlined in our recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: We developed and evaluated Drug-Drug Interaction Wide Association Study (DDIWAS). This novel method detects potential drug-drug interactions (DDIs) by leveraging data from the electronic health record (EHR) allergy list. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To identify potential DDIs, DDIWAS scans for drug pairs that are frequently documented together on the allergy list. Using deidentified medical records, we tested 616 drugs for potential DDIs with simvastatin (a common lipid-lowering drug) and amlodipine (a common blood-pressure lowering drug). We evaluated the performance to rediscover known DDIs using existing knowledge bases and domain expert review. To validate potential novel DDIs, we manually reviewed patient charts and searched the literature. RESULTS: DDIWAS replicated 34 known DDIs. The positive predictive value to detect known DDIs was 0.85 and 0.86 for simvastatin and amlodipine, respectively. DDIWAS also discovered potential novel interactions between simvastatin-hydrochlorothiazide, amlodipine-omeprazole, and amlodipine-valacyclovir. A software package to conduct DDIWAS is publicly available. CONCLUSIONS: In this proof-of-concept study, we demonstrate the value of incorporating information mined from existing allergy lists to detect DDIs in a real-world clinical setting. Since allergy lists are routinely collected in EHRs, DDIWAS has the potential to detect and validate DDI signals across institutions.

The adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) across the United States has impacted the methods by which health care professionals care for their patients. It is not always recognized, however, that pharmacists also actively use advanced functionality within the EHR. As critical members of the health care team, pharmacists utilize many different features of the EHR. The literature focuses on 3 main roles: documentation, medication reconciliation, and patient evaluation and monitoring. As health information technology proliferates, it is imperative that pharmacists' workflow and information needs are met within the EHR to optimize medication therapy quality, team communication, and patient outcomes.