Change Management Accompanying Implementation of Decision Support for Prevention of Acute Kidney Injury in Cardiac Catheterization Units: Program Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose of program:Different models exist to guide successful implementation of electronic health tools into clinical practice. The Contrast Reducing Injury Sustained by Kidneys (Contrast RISK) initiative introduced an electronic decision support tool with physician audit and feedback into all of the cardiac catheterization facilities in Alberta, Canada, with the goal of preventing contrast-associated acute kidney injury (CA-AKI) following coronary angiography and intervention. This report describes the change management approaches used by the initiative and end-user’s feedback on these processes.Sources of information and methods:The Canada Health Infoway Change Management model was used to address 6 activities relevant to project implementation: governance and leadership, stakeholder engagement, communications, workflow analysis and integration, training and education, and monitoring and evaluation. Health care providers and invasive cardiologists from all sites completed preimplementation, usability, and postimplementation surveys to assess integration and change success.Key findings:Prior to implementation, 67% of health providers were less than satisfied with processes to determine appropriate contrast dye volumes, 47% were less than satisfied with processes for administering adequate intravenous fluids, and 68% were less than satisfied with processes to ensure follow-up of high-risk patients. 48% of invasive cardiologists were less than satisfied with preprocedural identification of patients at risk of acute kidney injury (AKI). Following implementation, there were significant increases among health providers in the odds of satisfaction with processes for identifying those at high risk of AKI (odds ratio [OR] 3.01, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.36-6.66, P = .007), quantifying the appropriate level of contrast dye for each patient (OR 6.98, 95% CI 3.06-15.91, P < .001), determining the optimal amount of IV fluid for each patient (OR 1.86, 95% CI 0.88-3.91, P = .102), and following up of kidney function of high risk patients (OR 5.49, 95%CI 2.45-12.30, P < .001). There were also significant increases among physicians in the odds of satisfaction with processes for identifying those at high risk of AKI (OR 19.53, 95% CI 3.21-118.76, P = .001), quantifying the appropriate level of contrast dye for each patient (OR 26.35, 95% CI 4.28-162.27, P < .001), and for following-up kidney function of high-risk patients (OR 7.72, 95% CI 1.62-36.84.30, P = .010). Eighty-nine percent of staff perceived the initiative as being successful in changing clinical practices to reduce the risk of CA-AKI. Physicians uniformly agreed that the system was well-integrated into existing workflows, while 42% of health providers also agreed.Implications:The Canada Health Infoway Change Management model was an effective framework for guiding implementation of an electronic decision support tool and audit and feedback intervention to improve processes for AKI prevention within cardiac catheterization units.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".