scholarly journals Guiding principles for the use of knowledge bases and real-world data in clinical decision support systems: report by an international expert workshop at Karolinska Institutet

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (9) ◽  
pp. 925-934
Author(s):  
Mikael Hoffmann ◽  
Robert Vander Stichele ◽  
David W Bates ◽  
Johanna Björklund ◽  
Steve Alexander ◽  
...  
2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e206-e211 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Paul Yu

This article describes three unique sources of health data that underlie fundamentally different types of knowledge bases which feed into clinical decision support systems.


2007 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 1274-1286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yves A. Lussier ◽  
Rose Williams ◽  
Jianrong Li ◽  
Srikant Jalan ◽  
Tara Borlawsky ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 144 (07) ◽  
pp. 430-434 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Wagner ◽  
Hubert Serve

Was ist neu? Stand der Dinge In der Onkologie kam es zuletzt zu einem rasanten Wissenszuwachs. Neue Entwicklungen in Diagnostik und Therapie von Tumorerkrankungen haben die Grundlagen für individualisierte Therapiekonzepte geschaffen. Aktuell werden innovative Onkologie-spezifische IT-Lösungen entwickelt mit dem Ziel, die Heilungschancen für Patienten mit Tumorerkrankungen langfristig zu verbessern. Clinical Decision Support Die Komplexität onkologischer Therapieentscheidungen hat durch Einführung neuer Biomarker und zielgerichteter Therapeutika stark zugenommen. Erste „intelligente“ Systeme, die aktiv Therapieoptionen auf Basis von vorhandenen Daten vorschlagen, sind verfügbar, aber noch nicht weit verbreitet und unzureichend klinisch validiert. Real-World Data und Real-World Evidence Durch die zunehmende Verbreitung von elektronischen Gesundheitsakten wird eine strukturierte Sammlung und Auswertung von Daten aus der onkologischen Routineversorgung möglich. Real World Data werden eingesetzt, um die Sicherheit und Nebenwirkungen von onkologischen Medikamenten zu überwachen und können helfen, onkologische Therapieleitlinien zu entwickeln. Patient Involvement und Patient Reported Outcomes Die frühe Meldung von Symptomen und Nebenwirkungen (Patient Reported Outcomes) verspricht eine verbesserte Behandlung und eine gesteigerte Therapieadhärenz. Patient Reported Outcomes können auch im Rahmen von klinischen Studien und zur Qualitätssicherung eingesetzt werden. Erste Studien zeigen, dass eine IT-gestützte Erfassung von Patient Reported Outcomes Symptome und Überleben von Patienten mit Tumorerkrankungen positiv beeinflussen kann.


1993 ◽  
Vol 32 (01) ◽  
pp. 12-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. A. Musen

Abstract:Response to Heathfield HA, Wyatt J. Philosophies for the design and development of clinical decision-support systems. Meth Inform Med 1993; 32: 1-8.


2006 ◽  
Vol 45 (05) ◽  
pp. 523-527 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Abu-Hanna ◽  
B. Nannings

Summary Objectives: Decision Support Telemedicine Systems (DSTS) are at the intersection of two disciplines: telemedicine and clinical decision support systems (CDSS). The objective of this paper is to provide a set of characterizing properties for DSTSs. This characterizing property set (CPS) can be used for typing, classifying and clustering DSTSs. Methods: We performed a systematic keyword-based literature search to identify candidate-characterizing properties. We selected a subset of candidates and refined them by assessing their potential in order to obtain the CPS. Results: The CPS consists of 14 properties, which can be used for the uniform description and typing of applications of DSTSs. The properties are grouped in three categories that we refer to as the problem dimension, process dimension, and system dimension. We provide CPS instantiations for three prototypical applications. Conclusions: The CPS includes important properties for typing DSTSs, focusing on aspects of communication for the telemedicine part and on aspects of decisionmaking for the CDSS part. The CPS provides users with tools for uniformly describing DSTSs.


2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
S M Jansen-Kosterink ◽  
M Cabrita ◽  
I Flierman

Abstract Background Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSSs) are computerized systems using case-based reasoning to assist clinicians in making clinical decisions. Despite the proven added value to public health, the implementation of CDSS clinical practice is scarce. Particularly, little is known about the acceptance of CDSS among clinicians. Within the Back-UP project (Project Number: H2020-SC1-2017-CNECT-2-777090) a CDSS is developed with prognostic models to improve the management of Neck and/or Low Back Pain (NLBP). Therefore, the aim of this study is to present the factors involved in the acceptance of CDSSs among clinicians. Methods To assess the acceptance of CDSSs among clinicians we conducted a mixed method analysis of questionnaires and focus groups. An online questionnaire with a low-fidelity prototype of a CDSS (TRL3) was sent to Dutch clinicians aimed to identify the factors influencing the acceptance of CDSSs (intention to use, perceived threat to professional autonomy, trusting believes and perceived usefulness). Next to this, two focus groups were conducted with clinicians addressing the general attitudes towards CDSSs, the factors determining the level of acceptance, and the conditions to facilitate use of CDSSs. Results A pilot-study of the online questionnaire is completed and the results of the large evaluation are expected spring 2020. Eight clinicians participated in two focus groups. After being introduced to various types of CDSSs, participants were positive about the value of CDSS in the care of NLBP. The clinicians agreed that the human touch in NLBP care must be preserved and that CDSSs must remain a supporting tool, and not a replacement of their role as professionals. Conclusions By identifying the factors hindering the acceptance of CDSSs we can draw implications for implementation of CDSSs in the treatment of NLBP.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. 2880
Author(s):  
Miguel Pereira ◽  
Patricia Concheiro-Moscoso ◽  
Alexo López-Álvarez ◽  
Gerardo Baños ◽  
Alejandro Pazos ◽  
...  

The advances achieved in recent decades regarding cardiac surgery have led to a new risk that goes beyond surgeons' dexterity; postoperative hours are crucial for cardiac surgery patients and are usually spent in intensive care units (ICUs), where the patients need to be continuously monitored to adjust their treatment. Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) have been developed to take this real-time information and provide clinical suggestions to physicians in order to reduce medical errors and to improve patient recovery. In this review, an initial total of 499 papers were considered after identification using PubMed, Web of Science, and CINAHL. Twenty-two studies were included after filtering, which included the deletion of duplications and the exclusion of titles or abstracts that were not of real interest. A review of these papers concluded the applicability and advances that CDSSs offer for both doctors and patients. Better prognosis and recovery rates are achieved by using this technology, which has also received high acceptance among most physicians. However, despite the evidence that well-designed CDSSs are effective, they still need to be refined to offer the best assistance possible, which may still take time, despite the promising models that have already been applied in real ICUs.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Ford ◽  
Natalie Edelman ◽  
Laura Somers ◽  
Duncan Shrewsbury ◽  
Marcela Lopez Levy ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Well-established electronic data capture in UK general practice means that algorithms, developed on patient data, can be used for automated clinical decision support systems (CDSSs). These can predict patient risk, help with prescribing safety, improve diagnosis and prompt clinicians to record extra data. However, there is persistent evidence of low uptake of CDSSs in the clinic. We interviewed UK General Practitioners (GPs) to understand what features of CDSSs, and the contexts of their use, facilitate or present barriers to their use. Methods We interviewed 11 practicing GPs in London and South England using a semi-structured interview schedule and discussed a hypothetical CDSS that could detect early signs of dementia. We applied thematic analysis to the anonymised interview transcripts. Results We identified three overarching themes: trust in individual CDSSs; usability of individual CDSSs; and usability of CDSSs in the broader practice context, to which nine subthemes contributed. Trust was affected by CDSS provenance, perceived threat to autonomy and clear management guidance. Usability was influenced by sensitivity to the patient context, CDSS flexibility, ease of control, and non-intrusiveness. CDSSs were more likely to be used by GPs if they did not contribute to alert proliferation and subsequent fatigue, or if GPs were provided with training in their use. Conclusions Building on these findings we make a number of recommendations for CDSS developers to consider when bringing a new CDSS into GP patient records systems. These include co-producing CDSS with GPs to improve fit within clinic workflow and wider practice systems, ensuring a high level of accuracy and a clear clinical pathway, and providing CDSS training for practice staff. These recommendations may reduce the proliferation of unhelpful alerts that can result in important decision-support being ignored.


2021 ◽  
pp. 0310057X2097403
Author(s):  
Brenton J Sanderson ◽  
Jeremy D Field ◽  
Lise J Estcourt ◽  
Erica M Wood ◽  
Enrico W Coiera

Massive transfusions guided by massive transfusion protocols are commonly used to manage critical bleeding, when the patient is at significant risk of morbidity and mortality, and multiple timely decisions must be made by clinicians. Clinical decision support systems are increasingly used to provide patient-specific recommendations by comparing patient information to a knowledge base, and have been shown to improve patient outcomes. To investigate current massive transfusion practice and the experiences and attitudes of anaesthetists towards massive transfusion and clinical decision support systems, we anonymously surveyed 1000 anaesthetists and anaesthesia trainees across Australia and New Zealand. A total of 228 surveys (23.6%) were successfully completed and 227 were analysed for a 23.3% response rate. Most respondents were involved in massive transfusions infrequently (88.1% managed five or fewer massive transfusion protocols per year) and worked at hospitals which have massive transfusion protocols (89.4%). Massive transfusion management was predominantly limited by timely access to point-of-care coagulation assessment and by competition with other tasks, with trainees reporting more significant limitations compared to specialists. The majority of respondents reported that they were likely, or very likely, both to use (73.1%) and to trust (85%) a clinical decision support system for massive transfusions, with no significant difference between anaesthesia trainees and specialists ( P = 0.375 and P = 0.73, respectively). While the response rate to our survey was poor, there was still a wide range of massive transfusion experience among respondents, with multiple subjective factors identified limiting massive transfusion practice. We identified several potential design features and barriers to implementation to assist with the future development of a clinical decision support system for massive transfusion, and overall wide support for a clinical decision support system for massive transfusion among respondents.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document