AHRQ White Paper: Use of Clinical Decision Rules for Point-of-Care Decision Support

2010 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 712-721 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Ebell

Translation of research into clinical practice remains a barrier, with inconsistent adoption of effective treatments and useful tests. Clinical decision rules (CDRs) integrate information from several clinical or laboratory findings to provide quantitative estimates of risk for a diagnosis or clinical outcome. They are increasingly reported in the literature and have the potential to provide a bridge that helps translate findings from original research studies into clinical practice. Unlike formal aids for shared decision making, they are pragmatic solutions that provide discrete quantitative data to aid clinicians and patients in decision making. These quantitative data can help inform the informal episodes of shared decision making that frequently take place at the point of care. Methods used to develop CDRs include expert opinion, multivariate models, point scores, and classification and regression trees Desirable CDRs are valid (make accurate predictions of risk), relevant (have been shown to improve patient-oriented outcomes), are easy to use at the point of care, are acceptable (with good face validity and transparency of recommendations), and are situated in the clinical context. The latter means that the rule places patients in risk groups that are clinically useful (i.e., below the test threshold or above the treatment threshold) and does so in adequate numbers to make use of the CDR a worthwhile investment in time. CDRs meeting these criteria should be integrated with electronic health records, populating the point score or decision tree with individual patient data and performing calculations automatically to streamline decision making.

CJEM ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (S1) ◽  
pp. S122-S123
Author(s):  
D.E. Trumble

Introduction: Clinical decision rules for computed tomography (CT) ordering in pulmonary embolism and mild traumatic brain injury have been shown to be under-used in clinical practice. Current literature does not explain why these validated decision rules continue to be under-used despite evidence of inappropriate use and increased costs. To better evaluate potential barriers to their use, qualitative methods involving focused interviews were conducted amongst emergency department (ED) physicians. Methods: Physicians were recruited via a brief presentation at Calgary Zone ED rounds. Ten attending and resident physicians (4 female, 6 male) were interviewed. Questions were designed to evaluate potential barriers to the integration of decision rules into the computerized order entry system. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed manually. A high-level thematic analysis was conducted to draw primary themes from open-ended questions, and responses were totaled for closed-ended questions. Results: Emerging themes suggest concerns surrounding timing of rule application in relation to test ordering, patient influences on ordering, and overuse reporting. All 10 physicians believed decision rules for CT ordering play a large role in the ED, and 8 were in favor of integration into the order entry system. However, over half expressed concern, noting that their thought process begins before order entry. A majority prioritized shared decision-making with patients. However, 8 indicated that patient expectations influence their ordering. A majority agreed that there is CT overuse in the ED, but many were hesitant in concluding that overuse was primarily physician dependent. Conclusion: Primary barriers to decision rule integration are timing of application, hesitation surrounding patient input, and uncertainty over data. Physicians often make decisions prior to order entry. Mobile copies of decision rules should be available to better facilitate compliance. Concerns over patient influence on ordering are common. Patient-friendly materials on clinical decision rules should be available to better facilitate shared decision making while still promoting decision rules. While overuse is agreed upon, many prefer to see and track their own ordering data before supporting a physician-targeted intervention. Data reports to physicians may help affirm physician-associated overuse, and reinforce their role in responsible resource utilization.


2021 ◽  
Vol 02 (01) ◽  
pp. 111-117
Author(s):  
Wei Wang

Shared decision making (SDM) is a process by which physicians and patients jointly participate in choosing to pursue one of several alternatives in a clinical decision. It is most relevant for decisions that involve significant potential harms and benefits with tradeoffs and uncertainty. This paper provides a state-of-the-art review about SDM covering its concept, value, implementation and application in emergency management and communication. SDM is valuable in the process of making decisions which patients may benefit most from, thus resulting in satisfying patient-centered outcomes. Although SDM can be challenging to incorporate into clinical practice, it is likely to become a useful tool of communication in future.


2010 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 133-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Janet G Bauer ◽  
Francesco Chiappelli

Currently, best evidence is a concentrated effort by researchers. Researchers produce information and expect that clinicians will implement their advances in improving patient care. However, difficulties exist in maximizing cooperation and coordination between the producers, facilitators, and users (patients) of best evidence outcomes. The Translational Evidence Mechanism is introduced to overcome these difficulties by forming a compact between researcher, clinician and patient. With this compact, best evidence may become an integral part of private practice when uncertainties arise in patient health status, treatments, and therapies. The mechanism is composed of an organization, central database, and decision algorithm. Communication between the translational evidence organization, clinicians and patients is through the electronic chart. Through the chart, clinical inquiries are made, patient data from provider assessments and practice cost schedules are collected and encrypted (HIPAA standards), then inputted into the central database. Outputs are made within a timeframe suitable to private practice and patient flow. The output consists of a clinical practice guideline that responds to the clinical inquiry with decision, utility and cost data (based on the “average patient”) for shared decision-making within informed consent. This shared decision-making allows for patients to “game” treatment scenarios using personal choice inputs. Accompanying the clinical practice guideline is a decision analysis that explains the optimized clinical decision. The resultant clinical decision is returned to the central database using the clinical practice guideline. The result is subsequently used to update current best evidence, indicate the need for new evidence, and analyze the changes made in best evidence implementation. When updates in knowledge occur, these are transmitted to the provider as alerts or flags through patient charts and other communication modalities.


2019 ◽  
Vol 102 (10) ◽  
pp. 1774-1785 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalie Joseph-Williams ◽  
Denitza Williams ◽  
Fiona Wood ◽  
Amy Lloyd ◽  
Katherine Brain ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Anke J.M. Oerlemans ◽  
Marjan L. Knippenberg ◽  
Gert J. Olthuis

2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (12) ◽  
pp. 1368-1379 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hemal K. Kanzaria ◽  
Juanita Booker-Vaughns ◽  
Kaoru Itakura ◽  
Kabir Yadav ◽  
Bryan G. Kane ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document