scholarly journals A Retrospective Analysis of Interruptive versus Non-interruptive Clinical Decision Support for Identification of Patients Needing Contact Isolation

2013 ◽  
Vol 04 (04) ◽  
pp. 569-582 ◽  
Author(s):  
X. Li ◽  
J. Grein ◽  
D.S. Bell ◽  
P. Silka ◽  
J.M. Pevnick

SummaryBackground: In determining whether clinical decision support (CDS) should be interruptive or non-interruptive, CDS designers need more guidance to balance the potential for interruptive CDS to overburden clinicians and the potential for non-interruptive CDS to be overlooked by clinicians.Objectives: (1)To compare performance achieved by clinicians using interruptive CDS versus using similar, non-interruptive CDS. (2)To compare performance achieved using non-interruptive CDS among clinicians exposed to interruptive CDS versus clinicians not exposed to interruptive CDS.Methods: We studied 42 emergency medicine physicians working in a large hospital where an interruptive CDS to help identify patients requiring contact isolation was replaced by a similar, but non-interruptive CDS. The first primary outcome was the change in sensitivity in identifying these patients associated with the conversion from an interruptive to a non-interruptive CDS. The second primary outcome was the difference in sensitivities yielded by the non-interruptive CDS when used by providers who had and who had not been exposed to the interruptive CDS. The reference standard was an epidemiologist-designed, structured, objective assessment.Results: In identifying patients needing contact isolation, the interruptive CDS-physician dyad had sensitivity of 24% (95% CI: 17%-32%), versus sensitivity of 14% (95% CI: 9%-21%) for the non-interruptive CDS-physician dyad (p = 0.04). Users of the non-interruptive CDS with prior exposure to the interruptive CDS were more sensitive than those without exposure (14% [95% CI: 9%-21%] versus 7% [95% CI: 3%-13%], p = 0.05).Limitations: As with all observational studies, we cannot confirm that our analysis controlled for every important difference between time periods and physician groups.Conclusions: Interruptive CDS affected clinicians more than non-interruptive CDS. Designers of CDS might explicitly weigh the benefits of interruptive CDS versus its associated increased clinician burden. Further research should study longer term effects of clinician exposure to interruptive CDS, including whether it may improve clinician performance when using a similar, subsequent non-interruptive CDS.Citation: Pevnick JM, Li X, Grein J, Bell DS, Silka P. A retrospective analysis of interruptive versus non-interruptive clinical decision support for identification of patients needing contact isolation. Appl Clin Inf 2013; 4: 569–582http://dx.doi.org/10.4338/ACI-2013-04-RA-0021

Author(s):  
М.С. Застрожин ◽  
А.С. Сорокин ◽  
Т.В. Агибалова ◽  
И.А. Бедина ◽  
Е.А. Гришина ◽  
...  

Введение: Имплементация систем поддержки принятия решений, способных формировать рекомендации по выбору лекарствен- ного средства и его дозы в соответствии с результатами фармакогенетического тестирования, является актуальной задачей, так как решение ее позволит повысить эффективность терапии и снизить риск развития нежелательных лекарственных реакций.Материалы и методы: В исследовании принимал участие 51 пациент (21 - основная группа, получавшая назначения в соответ- ствии с рекомендациями, основанными на результатах фармакогенетического тестирования, а 30 - группа сравнения, получавшая назначения без них) мужского пола с синдромом отмены алкоголя. Для оценки эффективности и безопасности терапии синдрома отмены алкоголя, которую осуществляли с использованием бензодиазепинового транквилизатора феназепама (бромдигидрохлор- фенилбензодиазепина), а также стандартной дезинтоксикационной и витаминотерапии, применялись международные психоме- трические шкалы и шкалы оценки выраженности нежелательных реакций. Определение полиморфизмов генов CYP2D6*4 (1846G>A, rs3892097), CYP2C19*2 (681G>A, rs4244285), CYP2C19*3 (636G>A, rs4986893), CYP2C19*17 (-806C>T, rs12248560), CYP3A5*3 (6986A>G, rs776746) и ABCB1*6 (3435C>T, rs1045642) осуществлялось методом полимеразной цепной реакции в реальном времени с аллель-специфиче- ской гибридизацией. Интерпретацию результатов фармакогенетического тестирования осуществляли с использованием свободно распространяемого программного обеспечения PharmacoGenomeX2 (www.pgx2.com).Результаты: Получены статистически значимые различия в количестве баллов по всем психометрическим шкалам у пациентов основной группы и группы сравнения. Например, по шкале оценки тяжести синдрома отмены алкоголя к 3-му дню исследования количество баллов в основной группе составляло 13,5 [11,2; 16,0], а в группе контроля - 18,0 [17,0; 22,0] (p < 0,001); к 5-му в основ- ной группе - 6,5 [4,2; 8,0], в группе контроля - 15,0 [14,0; 16,0] (p < 0,001). По шкале безопасности UKU также была получена стати- стически значимая разница. К 3-му дню исследования количество баллов по шкале UKU в основной группе составило 6,0 [5,0; 7,0], а в группе контроля - 7,0 [6,0; 8,0] (p = 0,030); к 5-му дню разница возрастала. В основной группе - 5,5 [3,0; 9,0], в группе контроля - 14,0 [12,0; 19,0] (p < 0,001). Группы были репрезентативны (при включении в исследование разница в количестве баллов отсутствовала). Выводы: Персонализация дозы лекарств в соответствии с фармакогенетическими алгоритмами у пациентов с синдромом отмены алкоголя, способна снизить риск развития нежелательных реакций и фармакорезистентности, что позволяет рекомендовать исполь- зование фармакогенетических систем поддержки принятия решений для подбора дозы лекарств. Introduction: Implementation of the clinical decision support systems capable of forming the recommendations on drug and dose selec- tion according to the results of pharmacogenetic testing is an urgent task. Fulfillment of this task will allow increasing the efficacy of ther- apy and decreasing the risk of undesirable side effects.Materials and methods: The study involved 51 patients (21 - the main group receiving appointments in accordance with the recommenda- tions based on the results of pharamogenetic testing, and 30 - the comparison control group receiving appointments without them) male with alcohol withdrawal syndrome. In order to assess the effectiveness and safety of alcohol withdrawal syndrome, which was performed with the benzodiazepine tranquilizer of phenazepam (bromodihydrochlorophenylbenzodiazepine), as well as standard detoxification and vitamin therapy, international psychometric scales and scales of assessment in expressions of adverse reactions. Genotyping Determination of genetic polymorphisms CYP2D6*4 (1846G>A, rs3892097), CYP2C19*2 (681G>A, rs4244285), CYP2C19*3 (636G>A, rs4986893), CYP2C19*17 (-806C>T, rs12248560), CYP3A5*3 (6986A>G, rs776746) and ABCB1*6 (3435C>T, rs1045642) were realized using real-time polymerase chain reaction with allele specific hybridization. Interpretation of the results of pharmacogenetic testing was carried out with the help of free soft- ware PharmacoGenomeX2 (www.pgx2.com)Results: Statistically significant differences in the number of scores for all psychometric scales in the patients of the main group and the comparison group were obtained. For example, on the scale of assessing the severity of alcohol withdrawal syndrome by the 3rd day of the study, the score in the main group was 13.5 [11.2; 16,0], and in the control group - 18,0 [17,0; 22.0] (p <0.001); to the 5th in the main group - 6.5 [4.2; 8.0], in the control group - 15.0 [14.0; 16.0] (p <0.001). On the UKU security scale, a statistically significant difference was also obtained. By the 3rd day of the study, the UKU score in the main group was 6.0 [5.0; 7,0], and in the control group - 7,0 [6,0; 8.0] (p = 0.030); by the 5th day the difference increased. In the main group, 5.5 [3.0; 9.0], in the control group - 14.0 [12.0; 19.0] (p <0.001). The groups were representative (when included in the study, the difference in the number of points was absent).Conclusion: Personalization of the dose of drugs in accordance with pharmacogenetic algorithms in patients with alcohol withdrawal syn- drome, can reduce the risk of unwanted reactions and pharmacoresistance, which allows to recommend the use of pharmacogenetic deci- sion support systems for drug dosage selection.


2019 ◽  
Vol 153 (3) ◽  
pp. 396-406
Author(s):  
Sacha N Uljon ◽  
Daimon P Simmons ◽  
Joseph W Rudolf ◽  
Jason M Baron ◽  
Sayon Dutta ◽  
...  

Abstract Objectives To evaluate the use of a provider ordering alert to improve laboratory efficiency and reduce costs. Methods We conducted a retrospective study to assess the use of an institutional reflex panel for monoclonal gammopathy evaluation. We then created a clinical decision support (CDS) alert to educate and encourage providers to change their less-efficient orders to the reflex panel. Results Our retrospective analysis demonstrated that an institutional reflex panel could be safely substituted for a less-efficient and higher-cost panel. The implemented CDS alert resulted in 79% of providers changing their high-cost order panel to an order panel based on the reflex algorithm. Conclusions The validated decision support alert demonstrated high levels of provider acceptance and directly led to operational and cost savings within the laboratory. Furthermore, these studies highlight the value of laboratory involvement with CDS efforts to provide agile and targeted provider ordering assistance.


BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (12) ◽  
pp. e019087 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maya Elizabeth Kessler ◽  
Rickey E Carter ◽  
David A Cook ◽  
Daryl Jon Kor ◽  
Paul M McKie ◽  
...  

IntroductionClinical practice guidelines facilitate optimal clinical practice. Point of care access, interpretation and application of such guidelines, however, is inconsistent. Informatics-based tools may help clinicians apply guidelines more consistently. We have developed a novel clinical decision support tool that presents guideline-relevant information and actionable items to clinicians at the point of care. We aim to test whether this tool improves the management of hyperlipidaemia, atrial fibrillation and heart failure by primary care clinicians.Methods/analysisClinician care teams were cluster randomised to receive access to the clinical decision support tool or passive access to institutional guidelines on 16 May 2016. The trial began on 1 June 2016 when access to the tool was granted to the intervention clinicians. The trial will be run for 6 months to ensure a sufficient number of patient encounters to achieve 80% power to detect a twofold increase in the primary outcome at the 0.05 level of significance. The primary outcome measure will be the percentage of guideline-based recommendations acted on by clinicians for hyperlipidaemia, atrial fibrillation and heart failure. We hypothesise care teams with access to the clinical decision support tool will act on recommendations at a higher rate than care teams in the standard of care arm.Ethics and disseminationThe Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board approved all study procedures. Informed consent was obtained from clinicians. A waiver of informed consent and of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) authorisation for patients managed by clinicians in the study was granted. In addition to publication, results will be disseminated via meetings and newsletters.Trial registration numberNCT02742545.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clarissa Judith Gardner ◽  
Jack Halligan ◽  
Gianluca Fontana ◽  
Roberto Fernandez Crespo ◽  
Matthew Stewart Prime ◽  
...  

Simulation-based research (SBR) methods have been proposed as an alternative methodology for evaluating digital health solutions; however, applicability remains to be established. This study used SBR to evaluate a clinical decision support (CDS) tool used for matching cancer patients to clinical trials. 25 clinicians and research staff were recruited to match 10 synthetic patient cases to clinical trials using both the CDS tool and publicly available online trial databases. Participants were significantly more likely to report having sufficient time (p = 0.020) and to require less mental effort (p = 0.001) to complete trial matching with the CDS tool. Participants required less time for trial matching using the CDS tool, but the difference was not significant (p = 0.093). Most participants reported that they had sufficient guidance to participate in the simulations (96%). This study demonstrates the use of SBR methods is a feasible approach to evaluating digital health solutions.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xueying Ru ◽  
Yunhui Ma ◽  
Tianhao Wang ◽  
Zhigang Pan

BACKGROUND Atrial fibrillation (AF) is one of the most common arrhythmogenic diseases with high risk of disability and mortality, thereby greatly reducing the quality of life. Thromboembolic prophylaxis plays an essential role in AF therapy. Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) is available for management of AF patients with regard to antithrombotic treatment. OBJECTIVE To systematically review the association between clinical decision support systems (CDSS) and the antithrombotic treatment for the management of atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. METHODS We searched the electronic databases PubMed, MEDLINE., Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Biosis Preview for published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the relationship between CDSS and the management of AF patients from inception to April 2021. Two researchers screened these studies independently, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and evaluated the CDSS features. The primary outcome was the proportion of antithrombotic treatment prescriptions in agreement with recommendations in the guidelines, and the secondary outcome was stroke morbidity and the incidence of adverse events. Meta-analysis was done using Revman5.4.1 and Stata16.1. RESULTS We included six RCTs, involving 20,562 subjects (11,334 in the intervention group and 9,228 in the control group). The 14.265 subjects had a primary outcome (7,930 in the intervention group and 6,335 in the control group). The proportion of antithrombotic treatment prescriptions in agreement with recommendations in the guidelines in the intervention group was slightly higher than that in the control group (RR=1.03, 95% CI: 1.01–1.05, P<.001). Stroke morbidity was not significantly different (RR=1.07, 95% CI: 0.94–1.22, P=.33), but adverse events were lower in the intervention group than that in control group (RR=0.79, 95% CI :0.64–0.98, P=.03). We detected no publication bias for the primary outcome in the meta-analysis (P=.89 for the Egger test and P=.81 for Begg’s test). CONCLUSIONS The use of CDSS improved physicians’ compliance with AF guidelines for antithrombotic treatment and decreased adverse events, but did not lower the stroke morbidity.


2013 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 52
Author(s):  
CHRISTOPHER NOTTE ◽  
NEIL SKOLNIK

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document