scholarly journals The Relationship between Cyber Security and Decision Support Systems

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Support ◽  
Decision Support Systems ◽  
Cyber Security ◽  
Support Systems ◽  
The Relationship

scholarly journals Effects of Computerized Decision Support Systems on Practitioner Performance and Patient Outcomes: Systematic Review (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clemens Scott Kruse ◽  
Nolan Ehrbar
Keyword(s):  
Decision Support ◽  
Decision Support Systems ◽  
Patient Outcomes ◽  
Support Systems ◽  
Medical Outcomes ◽  
Computerized Decision Support ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Computerized Decision Support Systems

BACKGROUND Computerized decision support systems (CDSSs) are software programs that support the decision making of practitioners and other staff. Other reviews have analyzed the relationship between CDSSs, practitioner performance, and patient outcomes. These reviews reported positive practitioner performance in over half the articles analyzed, but very little information was found for patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this review was to analyze the relationship between CDSSs, practitioner performance, and patient medical outcomes. PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were queried. METHODS Articles were chosen based on year published (last 10 years), high quality, peer-reviewed sources, and discussion of the relationship between the use of CDSS as an intervention and links to practitioner performance or patient outcomes. Reviewers used an Excel spreadsheet (Microsoft Corporation) to collect information on the relationship between CDSSs and practitioner performance or patient outcomes. Reviewers also collected observations of participants, intervention, comparison with control group, outcomes, and study design (PICOS) along with those showing implicit bias. Articles were analyzed by multiple reviewers following the Kruse protocol for systematic reviews. Data were organized into multiple tables for analysis and reporting. RESULTS Themes were identified for both practitioner performance (n=38) and medical outcomes (n=36). A total of 66% (25/38) of articles had occurrences of positive practitioner performance, 13% (5/38) found no difference in practitioner performance, and 21% (8/38) did not report or discuss practitioner performance. Zero articles reported negative practitioner performance. A total of 61% (22/36) of articles had occurrences of positive patient medical outcomes, 8% (3/36) found no statistically significant difference in medical outcomes between intervention and control groups, and 31% (11/36) did not report or discuss medical outcomes. Zero articles found negative patient medical outcomes attributed to using CDSSs. CONCLUSIONS Results of this review are commensurate with previous reviews with similar objectives, but unlike these reviews we found a high level of reporting of positive effects on patient medical outcomes.

scholarly journals What are the Effects of Computerized Decision Support Systems on Practitioner Performance and Patient Outcomes

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clemens Scott Kruse ◽  
Nolan Ehrbar
Keyword(s):  
Decision Support ◽  
Decision Support Systems ◽  
Patient Outcomes ◽  
Support Systems ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Medical Outcomes ◽  
Computerized Decision Support ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Computerized Decision Support Systems

Abstract Background Computerized decision support systems (CDSS) are software programs that support the decision making of practitioners and other staff. Other reviews have analyzed the relationship between CDSS, practitioner performance, and patient outcomes. These reviews reported positive practitioner performance in over half the articles analyzed, but very little information was found for patient outcomes. The purpose of this review was to analyze the relationship between CDSS, practitioner performance, and patient medical outcomes. PubMed, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases were queried.Methods 27 articles were chosen based on year published (last ten years), high quality source, and discussion of the relationship between the use of CDSS as an intervention and links to practitioner performance or patient outcomes. Reviewers used an Excel spreadsheet to collect information on the relationship between CDSS and practitioner performance or patient outcomes. Reviewers also collected observations of participants, intervention, comparison with control group, and outcomes (PICO) along with those showing implicit bias. Articles were analyzed by multiple reviewers following the Kruse Protocol for systematic reviews. Data were organized into multiple tables for analysis and reporting.Results Fourteen articles (52%) discussed positive practitioner performance, three articles (11%) found no difference in practitioner performance, ten articles (37%) did not discuss practitioner performance. Zero articles reported negative practitioner performance. Fifteen articles (56%) discussed positive patient medical outcomes, two articles (7%) found no statistically significant difference in medical outcomes between intervention and control groups, and ten articles (37%) did not discuss medical outcomes. Zero articles found negative patient medical outcomes.Conclusions Results of this review are commensurate with previous reviews with similar objectives, but unlike these reviews we found significant positive reporting of a positive effect on patient medical outcomes. Our findings support adoption of decision support systems.

scholarly journals Effects of Computerized Decision Support Systems on Practitioner Performance and Patient Outcomes: Systematic Review

10.2196/17283 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (8) ◽  
pp. e17283
Author(s):  
Clemens Scott Kruse ◽  
Nolan Ehrbar
Keyword(s):  
Decision Support ◽  
Decision Support Systems ◽  
Patient Outcomes ◽  
Support Systems ◽  
Medical Outcomes ◽  
Computerized Decision Support ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Computerized Decision Support Systems

Background Computerized decision support systems (CDSSs) are software programs that support the decision making of practitioners and other staff. Other reviews have analyzed the relationship between CDSSs, practitioner performance, and patient outcomes. These reviews reported positive practitioner performance in over half the articles analyzed, but very little information was found for patient outcomes. Objective The purpose of this review was to analyze the relationship between CDSSs, practitioner performance, and patient medical outcomes. PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases were queried. Methods Articles were chosen based on year published (last 10 years), high quality, peer-reviewed sources, and discussion of the relationship between the use of CDSS as an intervention and links to practitioner performance or patient outcomes. Reviewers used an Excel spreadsheet (Microsoft Corporation) to collect information on the relationship between CDSSs and practitioner performance or patient outcomes. Reviewers also collected observations of participants, intervention, comparison with control group, outcomes, and study design (PICOS) along with those showing implicit bias. Articles were analyzed by multiple reviewers following the Kruse protocol for systematic reviews. Data were organized into multiple tables for analysis and reporting. Results Themes were identified for both practitioner performance (n=38) and medical outcomes (n=36). A total of 66% (25/38) of articles had occurrences of positive practitioner performance, 13% (5/38) found no difference in practitioner performance, and 21% (8/38) did not report or discuss practitioner performance. Zero articles reported negative practitioner performance. A total of 61% (22/36) of articles had occurrences of positive patient medical outcomes, 8% (3/36) found no statistically significant difference in medical outcomes between intervention and control groups, and 31% (11/36) did not report or discuss medical outcomes. Zero articles found negative patient medical outcomes attributed to using CDSSs. Conclusions Results of this review are commensurate with previous reviews with similar objectives, but unlike these reviews we found a high level of reporting of positive effects on patient medical outcomes.

Assigning Value to Clinical Information – A Major Limiting Factor in the Implementation of Decision-Support Systems

1996 ◽  
Vol 35 (01) ◽  
pp. 1-4 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. T. de Dombal
Keyword(s):  
Decision Support ◽  
Decision Support Systems ◽  
Support Systems ◽  
Clinical Information ◽  
Limiting Factor ◽  
Major Difficulty ◽  
Computer Aided ◽  
Computer Aided Decision

AbstractThis paper deals with a major difficulty and potential limiting factor in present-day decision support - that of assigning precise value to an item (or group of items) of clinical information. Historical determinist descriptive thinking has been challenged by current concepts of uncertainty and probability, but neither view is adequate. Four equations are proposed outlining factors which affect the value of clinical information, which explain some previously puzzling observations concerning decision support. It is suggested that without accommodation of these concepts, computer-aided decision support cannot progress further, but if they can be accommodated in future programs, the implications may be profound.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document