Abstract P263: Computer-Assisted Decision Support in the Treatment of Acute Coronary Syndromes and Impact on Cardiovascular Outcomes

2011 ◽  
Vol 4 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard V Milani ◽  
Carl J Lavie ◽  
Daniel P Morin ◽  
Andres Rubiano
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Baseline Risk ◽  
Risk Scores ◽  
Computer Assisted ◽  
Improve Quality ◽  
Consensus Guidelines ◽  
Mortality And Morbidity ◽  
Coronary Syndrome

Background: Evidence from clinical trials and consensus guidelines suggest that in-hospital initiation of key therapeutics can reduce mortality and morbidity in patients admitted with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). As a result, the AHA and ACC have co-developed guideline-based “performance measures” for ACS patients, such that when every measure has been performed, the patient is considered to have achieved optimal or “perfect” care (PC). Computer-assisted decision support (CADS) is a tool that can improve quality of care and is well suited for complex algorithms governing treatment decisions. We sought to determine if CADS tailored to ACS would enhance the likelihood of achieving PC, and whether achievement of PC would translate into reduced mortality. Methods: 452 consecutive patients (mean age 68±13 years) admitted with ACS in 2009 were evaluated (unstable angina 29%, NSTEMI 61%, STEMI 10%). Physicians had the option of using either pre-printed ACS orders (standard orders) versus CADS generated orders. The CADS system utilized patient clinical data including risk scoring, to suggest specific therapeutics and drug dosing based on consensus guidelines. Endpoints were attainment of PC and 30-day mortality. Results: The 77 patients admitted using CADS generated orders were statistically similar (age, gender, ACS diagnosis, TIMI risk) to the 375 patients admitted with the standard order set. Attainment of PC was almost twice as likely when using CADS versus standard orders (84% vs. 44%, p<0.05). PC patients trended towards higher TIMI risk scores (3.2 ±1.7 vs 2.9 ±1.6, p = 0.09) but had half the 30-day mortality (2% vs 4%, p=0.05) compared to patients not achieving PC. Conclusions: Use of CADS in the setting of ACS is feasible and doubles the likelihood of attaining PC. Although patients achieving PC had higher baseline risk, their mortality was reduced by 50% compared to those not achieving PC. These data support the use of CADS in the setting of ACS to improve quality of care and subsequent outcomes.

Decision Support Tools: Realizing the Potential to Improve Quality of Care

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (7) ◽  
pp. 821-826 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle M. Graham ◽  
Matthew T. James ◽  
John A. Spertus
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Decision Support Tools ◽  
Improve Quality ◽  
Support Tools

scholarly journals Decision-support tools via mobile devices to improve quality of care in primary healthcare settings

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (7) ◽  
Author(s):  
Smisha Agarwal ◽  
Claire Glenton ◽  
Tigest Tamrat ◽  
Nicholas Henschke ◽  
Nicola Maayan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Mobile Devices ◽  
Primary Healthcare ◽  
Decision Support Tools ◽  
Improve Quality ◽  
Healthcare Settings ◽  
Support Tools

scholarly journals A Narrative Review of Clinical Decision Support for Inpatient Clinical Pharmacists

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (02) ◽  
pp. 199-207
Author(s):  
Liang Yan ◽  
Thomas Reese ◽  
Scott D. Nelson
Keyword(s):  
Patient Safety ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Clinical Decision Support ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Clinical Pharmacists ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Objective Increasingly, pharmacists provide team-based care that impacts patient care; however, the extent of recent clinical decision support (CDS), targeted to support the evolving roles of pharmacists, is unknown. Our objective was to evaluate the literature to understand the impact of clinical pharmacists using CDS. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central for randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized trials, and quasi-experimental studies which evaluated CDS tools that were developed for inpatient pharmacists as a target user. The primary outcome of our analysis was the impact of CDS on patient safety, quality use of medication, and quality of care. Outcomes were scored as positive, negative, or neutral. The secondary outcome was the proportion of CDS developed for tasks other than medication order verification. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Results Of 4,365 potentially relevant articles, 15 were included. Five studies were randomized controlled trials. All included studies were rated as good quality. Of the studies evaluating inpatient pharmacists using a CDS tool, four showed significantly improved quality use of medications, four showed significantly improved patient safety, and three showed significantly improved quality of care. Six studies (40%) supported expanded roles of clinical pharmacists. Conclusion These results suggest that CDS can support clinical inpatient pharmacists in preventing medication errors and optimizing pharmacotherapy. Moreover, an increasing number of CDS tools have been developed for pharmacists' roles outside of order verification, whereby further supporting and establishing pharmacists as leaders in safe and effective pharmacotherapy.

scholarly journals Improving nursing documentation for surgical patients in a referral hospital in Freetown, Sierra Leone: protocol for assessing feasibility of a pilot multifaceted quality improvement hybrid type project

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nataliya Brima ◽  
Nick Sevdalis ◽  
K. Daoh ◽  
B. Deen ◽  
T. B. Kamara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Sierra Leone ◽  
Referral Hospital ◽  
Audit And Feedback ◽  
Health System Strengthening ◽  
Theory Of Change ◽  
Improve Quality ◽  
Nursing Documentation

Abstract Background There is an urgent need to improve quality of care to reduce avoidable mortality and morbidity from surgical diseases in low- and middle-income countries. Currently, there is a lack of knowledge about how evidence-based health system strengthening interventions can be implemented effectively to improve quality of care in these settings. To address this gap, we have developed a multifaceted quality improvement intervention to improve nursing documentation in a low-income country hospital setting. The aim of this pilot project is to test the intervention within the surgical department of a national referral hospital in Freetown, Sierra Leone. Methods This project was co-developed and co-designed by in-country stakeholders and UK-based researchers, after a multiple-methodology assessment of needs (qualitative, quantitative), guided by a participatory ‘Theory of Change’ process. It has a mixed-method, quasi-experimental evaluation design underpinned by implementation and improvement science theoretical approaches. It consists of three distinct phases—(1) pre-implementation(project set up and review of hospital relevant policies and forms), (2) intervention implementation (awareness drive, training package, audit and feedback), and (3) evaluation of (a) the feasibility of delivering the intervention and capturing implementation and process outcomes, (b) the impact of implementation strategies on the adoption, integration, and uptake of the intervention using implementation outcomes, (c) the intervention’s effectiveness For improving nursing in this pilot setting. Discussion We seek to test whether it is possible to deliver and assess a set of theory-driven interventions to improve the quality of nursing documentation using quality improvement and implementation science methods and frameworks in a single facility in Sierra Leone. The results of this study will inform the design of a large-scale effectiveness-implementation study for improving nursing documentation practices for patients throughout hospitals in Sierra Leone. Trial registration Protocol version number 6, date: 24.12.2020, recruitment is planned to begin: January 2021, recruitment will be completed: December 2021.

scholarly journals Physician beliefs about the impact of meaningful use of the EHR

2014 ◽  
Vol 05 (03) ◽  
pp. 789-801 ◽  
Author(s):  
D.Y. Ting ◽  
M. Healey ◽  
S.R. Lipsitz ◽  
A.S. Karson ◽  
J. S. Einbinder ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Meaningful Use ◽  
The United States ◽  
Improve Quality ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Incentive Program ◽  
Physician Beliefs ◽  
The Impact

SummaryBackground: As adoption and use of electronic health records (EHRs) grows in the United States, there is a growing need in the field of applied clinical informatics to evaluate physician perceptions and beliefs about the impact of EHRs. The meaningful use of EHR incentive program provides a suitable context to examine physician beliefs about the impact of EHRs.Objective: Contribute to the sparse literature on physician beliefs about the impact of EHRs in areas such as quality of care, effectiveness of care, and delivery of care.Methods: A cross-sectional online survey of physicians at two academic medical centers (AMCs) in the northeast who were preparing to qualify for the meaningful use of EHR incentive program.Results: Of the 1,797 physicians at both AMCs who were preparing to qualify for the incentive program, 967 completed the survey for an overall response rate of 54%. Only 23% and 27% of physicians agreed or strongly agreed that meaningful use of the EHR will help them improve the care they personally deliver and improve quality of care respectively. Physician specialty was significantly associated with beliefs; e.g., 35% of primary care physicians agreed or strongly agreed that meaningful use will improve quality of care compared to 26% of medical specialists and 21% of surgical specialists (p=0.009). Satisfaction with outpatient EHR was also significantly related to all belief items.Conclusions: Only about a quarter of physicians in our study responded positively that meaningful use of the EHR will improve quality of care and the care they personally provide. These findings are similar to and extend findings from qualitative studies about negative perceptions that physicians hold about the impact of EHRs. Factors outside of the regulatory context, such as physician beliefs, need to be considered in the implementation of the meaningful use of the EHR incentive program.Citation: Emani S, Ting DY, Healey M, Lipsitz SR, Karson AS, Einbinder JS, Leinen L, Suric V, Bates DW. Physician beliefs about the impact of meaningful use of the EHR: A cross-sectional study. Appl Clin Inf 2014; 5: 789–801http://dx.doi.org/10.4338/ACI-2014-05-RA-0050

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document