Objective

To quantify and contextualize the risk for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related hospitalization and illness severity in type 1 diabetes.

Research design and methods

We conducted a prospective cohort study to identify case subjects with COVID-19 across a regional health care network of 137 service locations. Using an electronic health record query, chart review, and patient contact, we identified clinical factors influencing illness severity.

Results

We identified COVID-19 in 6,138, 40, and 273 patients without diabetes and with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, respectively. Compared with not having diabetes, people with type 1 diabetes had adjusted odds ratios of 3.90 (95% CI 1.75-8.69) for hospitalization and 3.35 (95% CI 1.53-7.33) for greater illness severity, which was similar to risk in type 2 diabetes. Among patients with type 1 diabetes, glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA_1c), hypertension, race, recent diabetic ketoacidosis, health insurance status, and less diabetes technology use were significantly associated with illness severity.

Conclusions

Diabetes status, both type 1 and type 2, independently increases the adverse impacts of COVID-19. Potentially modifiable factors (e.g., HbA_1c) had significant but modest impact compared with comparatively static factors (e.g., race and insurance) in type 1 diabetes, indicating an urgent and continued need to mitigate severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection risk in this community.

OBJECTIVE: The study sought to determine availability and use of structured override reasons for drug-drug interaction (DDI) alerts in electronic health records. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We collected data on DDI alerts and override reasons from 10 clinical sites across the United States using a variety of electronic health records. We used a multistage iterative card sort method to categorize the override reasons from all sites and identified best practices. RESULTS: Our methodology established 177 unique override reasons across the 10 sites. The number of coded override reasons at each site ranged from 3 to 100. Many sites offered override reasons not relevant to DDIs. Twelve categories of override reasons were identified. Three categories accounted for 78% of all overrides: will monitor or take precautions, not clinically significant, and benefit outweighs risk. DISCUSSION: We found wide variability in override reasons between sites and many opportunities to improve alerts. Some override reasons were irrelevant to DDIs. Many override reasons attested to a future action (eg, decreasing a dose or ordering monitoring tests), which requires an additional step after the alert is overridden, unless the alert is made actionable. Some override reasons deferred to another party, although override reasons often are not visible to other users. Many override reasons stated that the alert was inaccurate, suggesting that specificity of alerts could be improved. CONCLUSIONS: Organizations should improve the options available to providers who choose to override DDI alerts. DDI alerting systems should be actionable and alerts should be tailored to the patient and drug pairs.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical decision support (CDS) can contribute to quality and safety. Prior work has shown that errors in CDS systems are common and can lead to unintended consequences. Many CDS systems use Boolean logic, which can be difficult for CDS analysts to specify accurately. We set out to determine the prevalence of certain types of Boolean logic errors in CDS statements. METHODS: Nine health care organizations extracted Boolean logic statements from their Epic electronic health record (EHR). We developed an open-source software tool, which implemented the Espresso logic minimization algorithm, to identify three classes of logic errors. RESULTS: Participating organizations submitted 260,698 logic statements, of which 44,890 were minimized by Espresso. We found errors in 209 of them. Every participating organization had at least two errors, and all organizations reported that they would act on the feedback. DISCUSSION: An automated algorithm can readily detect specific categories of Boolean CDS logic errors. These errors represent a minority of CDS errors, but very likely require correction to avoid patient safety issues. This process found only a few errors at each site, but the problem appears to be widespread, affecting all participating organizations. CONCLUSION: Both CDS implementers and EHR vendors should consider implementing similar algorithms as part of the CDS authoring process to reduce the number of errors in their CDS interventions.