Effect of genetics clinical decision support tools on health-care providers’ decision making: a mixed-methods systematic review

ObjectivesTo analyse to what extent clinical practice guidelines on drug treatment of depression in children and adolescents mention the risk of adverse effects, to characterise the citations in the guidelines and to assess to what extent data from a major study (Treatment for Adolescents With Depression Study, TADS) was used as basis for information about adverse effects.DesignSystematic review of clinical guidelines and clinical decision support tools.Data sourcesPubMed, EMBASE, guideline collections, Health libraries.Eligibility criteriaWe included national guidelines on depression in children and adolescents from European and/or English-speaking countries, published in English, German, French or any Scandinavian language since 2008. We also included well-known, international clinical decision support tools.Data extraction and synthesisGuidelines were examined by all authors to identify and classify information on adverse effects. Citations for statements on adverse effects were extracted and classified by category. The extent of citations about suicidality risk versus other adverse effects was assessed.Results19 guidelines were assessed. All guidelines discussed risk of suicidal behaviour connected with use of antidepressants. Most guidelines mentioned some other psychiatric adverse effects. Several guidelines did not include information on well-known and common somatic adverse effects. Most references concerned risk of suicidality. Adverse effects identified in underlying studies were not always presented. The TADS study was referred to, directly or indirectly, by 18/19 guidelines, but some only referred to TADS with regard to suicidality without citing the study’s findings of somatic adverse effects. No guideline commented on the lack of long-term adverse effects data from TADS.ConclusionsGuidelines for treatment of depression in children and adolescents vary widely regarding information on adverse effects. Many guidelines do not provide information on common somatic adverse effects. There is no consensus as to what extent risks of adverse effects connected with use of antidepressants should be described in guidelines.

Download Full-text

Decision support tools to improve cancer diagnostic decision making in primary care: a systematic review

British Journal of General Practice ◽

10.3399/bjgp19x706745 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 69 (689) ◽

pp. e809-e818 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Sophie Chima ◽

Jeanette C Reece ◽

Kristi Milley ◽

Shakira Milton ◽

Jennifer G McIntosh ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Primary Care ◽

Decision Making ◽

Decision Support ◽

Cost Effectiveness ◽

Cancer Diagnosis ◽

Decision Support Tools ◽

Diagnostic Decision ◽

Support Tools ◽

Diagnostic Decision Making

BackgroundThe diagnosis of cancer in primary care is complex and challenging. Electronic clinical decision support tools (eCDSTs) have been proposed as an approach to improve GP decision making, but no systematic review has examined their role in cancer diagnosis.AimTo investigate whether eCDSTs improve diagnostic decision making for cancer in primary care and to determine which elements influence successful implementation.Design and settingA systematic review of relevant studies conducted worldwide and published in English between 1 January 1998 and 31 December 2018.MethodPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched, and a consultation of reference lists and citation tracking was carried out. Exclusion criteria included the absence of eCDSTs used in asymptomatic populations, and studies that did not involve support delivered to the GP. The most relevant Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklists were applied according to study design of the included paper.ResultsOf the nine studies included, three showed improvements in decision making for cancer diagnosis, three demonstrated positive effects on secondary clinical or health service outcomes such as prescribing, quality of referrals, or cost-effectiveness, and one study found a reduction in time to cancer diagnosis. Barriers to implementation included trust, the compatibility of eCDST recommendations with the GP’s role as a gatekeeper, and impact on workflow.ConclusioneCDSTs have the capacity to improve decision making for a cancer diagnosis, but the optimal mode of delivery remains unclear. Although such tools could assist GPs in the future, further well-designed trials of all eCDSTs are needed to determine their cost-effectiveness and the most appropriate implementation methods.

Download Full-text

72. Improving Antibiotic Prescribing in Interventional Radiology Using Clinical Decision Support Tools to Assess Penicillin Allergies

Open Forum Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/ofid/ofaa439.117 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. S54-S54

Author(s):

Vidya Atluri ◽

Paula Marsland ◽

Luke M Johnson ◽

Rupali Jain ◽

Paul Pottinger ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Interventional Radiology ◽

Decision Support ◽

Clinical Decision Support ◽

Clinical Decision ◽

Prophylactic Antibiotics ◽

Decision Support Tools ◽

First Line ◽

Support Tools ◽

History Of ◽

Clinical Decision Support Tools

Abstract Background Patients labeled with penicillin allergies often receive alternative antibiotics, leading to increased cost, higher risk of adverse events, and decreased efficacy of procedural prophylaxis. However, most of those patients can tolerate a cephalosporin. University of Washington Medical Center – Montlake (UWMC-ML) Interventional Radiology (IR) frequently administer a pre-procedure prophylactic cephalosporin. We worked with the clinicians in IR to develop tools to allow them to better assess penicillin allergies, make the most appropriate antibiotic choice, and update the patient’s allergy documentation. Methods We identified all patients who underwent procedures in IR between 2017–2019. Chart review was done to determine the procedures performed, patient demographic information, allergies, allergy documentation, and prophylactic antibiotics received. In May 2020 we implemented new Clinical Decision Support tools, including an online assessment app (https://tinyurl.com/IRPCNAllAssess) and handouts to guide antibiotic decision making to clinicians in IR. Results From 2017 to 2019, 381 patients underwent 958 procedures in IR. Of those, 379 patients underwent 496 procedures for which the recommended first line choice for antibiotic prophylaxis is a cephalosporin. Of patients who received pre-procedure prophylactic antibiotics for those procedures, 15.9% [n=11] of patients with penicillin allergies received the first line antibiotic, compared to 89.9% [n=319] of patients without a reported penicillin allergy. Since implementation, the online app has been used to evaluate 9 patients, of whom 8 had penicillin allergies. All 8 patients safely received the first line antibiotic (3 were delabeled, 4 reported a history of mild reactions, and 1 reported a history of an immediate IgE mediated response to penicillin but safely received cefazolin). Conclusion IR evaluates hundreds of patients who may receive prophylactic antibiotics each year. By providing tools to assess penicillin allergies, we were able to improve both their prescribing and de-label patients which will provide a much broader impact on their care than on just their current procedure. Our free tool can be accessed at the website above, and we will demonstrate in person. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Download Full-text