Cost Consequences of Implementing an Electronic Decision Support System for Ordering Laboratory Tests in Primary Care: Evidence from a Controlled Prospective Study in The Netherlands

2008 ◽  
Vol 2008 ◽  
pp. 317-318
Author(s):  
M.G. Bissell
2007 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
pp. 213-219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marten J Poley ◽  
Kyra I Edelenbos ◽  
Mees Mosseveld ◽  
Marc AM van Wijk ◽  
Dinny H de Bakker ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: The economic consequences of interventions to promote rational, evidence-based use of laboratory tests by physicians are not yet fully understood. We evaluated the cost consequences of a computer-based, guideline-driven decision-support system (CDSS) for ordering blood tests in primary care. Methods: We installed the CDSS in 118 practices [159 general practitioners (GPs)] throughout The Netherlands and calculated the costs of the intervention in this group. During a period of 6 months before and 6 months after installation of the CDSS, the test-ordering behavior of 87 (109 GPs) of these 118 study practices was studied and the results were compared with those of a nonhistorical control group that did not receive the CDSS. In addition the costs of laboratory requests were calculated for both groups. Results: Total intervention costs, comprising development costs and installation costs, amounted to €79 000 (€670 per practice). Whereas the introduction of the CDSS did not affect the number of order forms submitted to the laboratories, it did reduce the number of blood tests per order form. As a result, the CDSS yielded mean savings on the costs of laboratory requests of €847 per practice per 6 months. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that providing electronic decision support for ordering blood tests in primary care represents an economically promising concept. Savings on laboratory costs are achievable and not offset by disproportionally high intervention costs.


2011 ◽  
Vol 62 (4) ◽  
pp. 360-366 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary F. Brunette ◽  
Joelle C. Ferron ◽  
Gregory J. McHugo ◽  
Kristin E. Davis ◽  
Timothy S. Devitt ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Kouladjian O’Donnell ◽  
Mouna Sawan ◽  
Emily Reeve ◽  
Danijela Gnjidic ◽  
Timothy F. Chen ◽  
...  

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manon Guay ◽  
Karine Latulippe ◽  
Claudine Auger ◽  
Dominique Giroux ◽  
Noémie Séguin-Tremblay ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND A clinical algorithm (Algo) in paper form is used in Quebec, Canada, to allow health care workers other than occupational therapists (OTs) to make bathroom adaptation recommendations for older adults. An integrated knowledge transfer process around Algo suggested an electronic version of this decision support system (electronic decision support system [e-DSS]) to be used by older adults and their caregivers in search of information and solutions for their autonomy and safety in the bathroom. OBJECTIVE This study aims to (1) create an e-DSS for the self-selection of bathroom-assistive technology by community-dwelling older adults and their caregivers and (2) assess usability with lay users and experts to improve the design accordingly. METHODS On the basis of a user-centered design approach, the process started with content identification for the prototype through 7 semistructured interviews with key informants of various backgrounds (health care providers, assistive technology providers, and community services) and 4 focus groups (2 with older adults and 2 with caregivers). A thematic content transcript analysis was carried out and used during the creation of the prototype. The prototype was refined iteratively using think-aloud and observation methods with a clinical expert (n=1), researchers (n=3), OTs (n=3), older adults (n=3), and caregivers (n=3), who provided information on the usability of the e-DSS. RESULTS Overall, 4 themes served as the criteria for the prototype of the electronic Algo (Hygiene 2.0 [H<sub>2</sub>.0]): focus (safety, confidentiality, well-being, and autonomy), engage, facilitate (simplify, clarify, and illustrate), and access. For example, users first pay attention to the images (engage and illustrate) that can be used to depict safe postures (safety), illustrate questions embedded in the decision support tool (clarify and illustrate), and demonstrate the context of the use of assistive technology (safety and clarify). CONCLUSIONS The user-centered design of H<sub>2</sub>.0 allowed the cocreation of an e-DSS in the form of a website, in line with the needs of community-dwelling older adults and their caregivers seeking bathroom-assistive technology that enables personal hygiene. Each iteration improved usability and brought more insight into the users’ realities, tailoring the e-DSS to the implementation context.


2008 ◽  
Vol 83 (7) ◽  
pp. 747-757 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven A. Smith ◽  
Nilay D. Shah ◽  
Sandra C. Bryant ◽  
Teresa J.H. Christianson ◽  
Susan S. Bjornsen ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document