scholarly journals Cost and economic benefit of clinical decision support systems for cardiovascular disease prevention: a community guide systematic review

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 669-676 ◽  
Author(s):  
Verughese Jacob ◽  
Anilkrishna B Thota ◽  
Sajal K Chattopadhyay ◽  
Gibril J Njie ◽  
Krista K Proia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiovascular Disease ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Decision Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision Support ◽  
Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
The Cost

Objective: This review evaluates costs and benefits associated with acquiring, implementing, and operating clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) to prevent cardiovascular disease (CVD). Materials and Methods: Methods developed for the Community Guide were used to review CDSS literature covering the period from January 1976 to October 2015. Twenty-one studies were identified for inclusion. Results: It was difficult to draw a meaningful estimate for the cost of acquiring and operating CDSSs to prevent CVD from the available studies (n = 12) due to considerable heterogeneity. Several studies (n = 11) indicated that health care costs were averted by using CDSSs but many were partial assessments that did not consider all components of health care. Four cost-benefit studies reached conflicting conclusions about the net benefit of CDSSs based on incomplete assessments of costs and benefits. Three cost-utility studies indicated inconsistent conclusions regarding cost-effectiveness based on a conservative $50,000 threshold. Discussion: Intervention costs were not negligible, but specific estimates were not derived because of the heterogeneity of implementation and reporting metrics. Expected economic benefits from averted health care cost could not be determined with confidence because many studies did not fully account for all components of health care. Conclusion: We were unable to conclude whether CDSSs for CVD prevention is either cost-beneficial or cost-effective. Several evidence gaps are identified, most prominently a lack of information about major drivers of cost and benefit, a lack of standard metrics for the cost of CDSSs, and not allowing for useful life of a CDSS that generally extends beyond one accounting period.

scholarly journals Evaluation of User-Interface Alert Displays for Clinical Decision Support Systems for Sepsis

2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 46-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Devida Long ◽  
Muge Capan ◽  
Susan Mascioli ◽  
Danielle Weldon ◽  
Ryan Arnold ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
User Interface ◽  
Decision Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision Support ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Care Providers

BACKGROUND Hospitals are increasingly turning to clinical decision support systems for sepsis, a life-threatening illness, to provide patient-specific assessments and recommendations to aid in evidence-based clinical decision-making. Lack of guidelines on how to present alerts has impeded optimization of alerts, specifically, effective ways to differentiate alerts while highlighting important pieces of information to create a universal standard for health care providers. OBJECTIVE To gain insight into clinical decision support systems–based alerts, specifically targeting nursing interventions for sepsis, with a focus on behaviors associated with and perceptions of alerts, as well as visual preferences. METHODS An interactive survey to display a novel user interface for clinical decision support systems for sepsis was developed and then administered to members of the nursing staff. RESULTS A total of 43 nurses participated in 2 interactive survey sessions. Participants preferred alerts that were based on an established treatment protocol, were presented in a pop-up format, and addressed the patient’s clinical condition rather than regulatory guidelines. CONCLUSIONS The results can be used in future research to optimize electronic medical record alerting and clinical practice workflow to support the efficient, effective, and timely delivery of high-quality care to patients with sepsis. The research also may advance the knowledge base of what information health care providers want and need to improve the health and safety of their patients.

scholarly journals Clinical Decision Support Systems for Pressure Ulcer Management: Systematic Review

10.2196/21621 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. e21621
Author(s):  
Sabrina Magalhaes Araujo ◽  
Paulino Sousa ◽  
Inês Dutra
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Decision Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision Support ◽  
Pressure Ulcer ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision

Background The clinical decision-making process in pressure ulcer management is complex, and its quality depends on both the nurse's experience and the availability of scientific knowledge. This process should follow evidence-based practices incorporating health information technologies to assist health care professionals, such as the use of clinical decision support systems. These systems, in addition to increasing the quality of care provided, can reduce errors and costs in health care. However, the widespread use of clinical decision support systems still has limited evidence, indicating the need to identify and evaluate its effects on nursing clinical practice. Objective The goal of the review was to identify the effects of nurses using clinical decision support systems on clinical decision making for pressure ulcer management. Methods The systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) recommendations. The search was conducted in April 2019 on 5 electronic databases: MEDLINE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Cochrane, and CINAHL, without publication date or study design restrictions. Articles that addressed the use of computerized clinical decision support systems in pressure ulcer care applied in clinical practice were included. The reference lists of eligible articles were searched manually. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies. Results The search strategy resulted in 998 articles, 16 of which were included. The year of publication ranged from 1995 to 2017, with 45% of studies conducted in the United States. Most addressed the use of clinical decision support systems by nurses in pressure ulcers prevention in inpatient units. All studies described knowledge-based systems that assessed the effects on clinical decision making, clinical effects secondary to clinical decision support system use, or factors that influenced the use or intention to use clinical decision support systems by health professionals and the success of their implementation in nursing practice. Conclusions The evidence in the available literature about the effects of clinical decision support systems (used by nurses) on decision making for pressure ulcer prevention and treatment is still insufficient. No significant effects were found on nurses' knowledge following the integration of clinical decision support systems into the workflow, with assessments made for a brief period of up to 6 months. Clinical effects, such as outcomes in the incidence and prevalence of pressure ulcers, remain limited in the studies, and most found clinically but nonstatistically significant results in decreasing pressure ulcers. It is necessary to carry out studies that prioritize better adoption and interaction of nurses with clinical decision support systems, as well as studies with a representative sample of health care professionals, randomized study designs, and application of assessment instruments appropriate to the professional and institutional profile. In addition, long-term follow-up is necessary to assess the effects of clinical decision support systems that can demonstrate a more real, measurable, and significant effect on clinical decision making. Trial Registration PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42019127663; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=127663

scholarly journals Clinical Decision Support Systems for Pressure Ulcer Management: Systematic Review (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabrina Magalhaes Araujo ◽  
Paulino Sousa ◽  
Inês Dutra
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Decision Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision Support ◽  
Pressure Ulcer ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision

BACKGROUND The clinical decision-making process in pressure ulcer management is complex, and its quality depends on both the nurse's experience and the availability of scientific knowledge. This process should follow evidence-based practices incorporating health information technologies to assist health care professionals, such as the use of clinical decision support systems. These systems, in addition to increasing the quality of care provided, can reduce errors and costs in health care. However, the widespread use of clinical decision support systems still has limited evidence, indicating the need to identify and evaluate its effects on nursing clinical practice. OBJECTIVE The goal of the review was to identify the effects of nurses using clinical decision support systems on clinical decision making for pressure ulcer management. METHODS The systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) recommendations. The search was conducted in April 2019 on 5 electronic databases: MEDLINE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Cochrane, and CINAHL, without publication date or study design restrictions. Articles that addressed the use of computerized clinical decision support systems in pressure ulcer care applied in clinical practice were included. The reference lists of eligible articles were searched manually. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies. RESULTS The search strategy resulted in 998 articles, 16 of which were included. The year of publication ranged from 1995 to 2017, with 45% of studies conducted in the United States. Most addressed the use of clinical decision support systems by nurses in pressure ulcers prevention in inpatient units. All studies described knowledge-based systems that assessed the effects on clinical decision making, clinical effects secondary to clinical decision support system use, or factors that influenced the use or intention to use clinical decision support systems by health professionals and the success of their implementation in nursing practice. CONCLUSIONS The evidence in the available literature about the effects of clinical decision support systems (used by nurses) on decision making for pressure ulcer prevention and treatment is still insufficient. No significant effects were found on nurses' knowledge following the integration of clinical decision support systems into the workflow, with assessments made for a brief period of up to 6 months. Clinical effects, such as outcomes in the incidence and prevalence of pressure ulcers, remain limited in the studies, and most found clinically but nonstatistically significant results in decreasing pressure ulcers. It is necessary to carry out studies that prioritize better adoption and interaction of nurses with clinical decision support systems, as well as studies with a representative sample of health care professionals, randomized study designs, and application of assessment instruments appropriate to the professional and institutional profile. In addition, long-term follow-up is necessary to assess the effects of clinical decision support systems that can demonstrate a more real, measurable, and significant effect on clinical decision making. CLINICALTRIAL PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42019127663; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=127663

Architectures for Architects

1993 ◽  
Vol 32 (01) ◽  
pp. 12-13 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. A. Musen
Keyword(s):  
Decision Support ◽  
Decision Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision Support ◽  
Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Design And Development

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.

Characterizing Decision Support Telemedicine Systems

2006 ◽  
Vol 45 (05) ◽  
pp. 523-527 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Abu-Hanna ◽  
B. Nannings
Keyword(s):  
Decision Support ◽  
Decision Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision Support ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Problem Dimension ◽  
Process Dimension

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.

scholarly journals The acceptance of clinical decision support systems among clinicians in the treatment of neck and/or back pain

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
S M Jansen-Kosterink ◽  
M Cabrita ◽  
I Flierman
Keyword(s):  
Back Pain ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Decision Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision Support ◽  
Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Case Based Reasoning ◽  
Online Questionnaire

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document