Clinical Decision Support
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

3604
(FIVE YEARS 2175)

H-INDEX

67
(FIVE YEARS 31)

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 327-327
Author(s):  
Valerie Pracilio Csik ◽  
Michael J. Ramirez ◽  
Adam F Binder ◽  
Nathan Handley

327 Background: Oncology care represents a significant portion of US healthcare spending. Cost of Part B drugs has increased at a rate 5.7x that of overall Medicare spending. As a participant in the Oncology Care Model, drug costs represent a majority of our total costs. Pathways are a clinical decision-support tool that use evidence-based care maps accounting for efficacy, toxicity and cost. Our NCI-designated cancer center implemented pathways in July 2018 to reduce care variation and decrease costs. Methods: We reviewed costs related to pathway utilization over a two year period, analyzing differences in total annual drug cost for patients in three categories: On-Pathway (aligned with pathway recommendation), Off-Pathway (not aligned with recommendation), and No Pathway (not used). Per Member Per Month (PMPM) costs were calculated and a weighted average applied to account for changes in annual drug costs. Results: PMPM drug costs decreased -8% in year 1 (FY19) and -4% in year 2 (FY20) when pathways were used (On- and Off-Pathway). When pathways were followed (On-Pathway) in making treatment decisions, the drug costs were 11% lower than when pathways were not used. The annual impact on drug costs when pathways were used amounted to $2.45 million in year 1 and $1.77 million in year 2 (Table). Conclusions: Pathway use reduced drug costs, a significant variable in oncology value-based care models. This finding highlights the value of clinical decision support tools in reducing care variability, a known contributor to health care costs, in making treatment decisions. Further assessment is needed to determine if these results are similar at other cancer centers to fully realize the impact of pathways on drug costs.[Table: see text]


2021 ◽  
pp. medethics-2021-107513
Author(s):  
Jasper Debrabander ◽  
Heidi Mertes

Many ethical concerns have been voiced about Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSSs). Special attention has been paid to the effect of CDSSs on autonomy, responsibility, fairness and transparency. This journal has featured a discussion between Rosalind McDougall and Ezio Di Nucci that focused on the impact of IBM’s Watson for Oncology (Watson) on autonomy. The present article elaborates on this discussion in three ways. First, using Jonathan Pugh’s account of rational autonomy we show that how Watson presents its results might impact decisional autonomy, while how Watson produces knowledge might affect practical autonomy. Second, by drawing an analogy with patient decision aids we identify an empirical way of estimating Watson’s impact on autonomy (ie, value-congruence). Lastly, McDougall introduced the notion of value-flexible design as a way to account for the diverging preferences patients hold. We will clarify its relation with the established domain of value-sensitive design. In terms of the tripartite methodology of value-sensitive design, we offer a conceptual clarification using Pugh’s account of rational autonomy, an empirical tool to evaluate Watson’s impact on autonomy and situate a group of technical options to incorporate autonomy in Watson’s design.


Author(s):  
Lukas Higi ◽  
Karin Käser ◽  
Monika Wälti ◽  
Michael Grotzer ◽  
Priska Vonbach

AbstractMedication errors, especially dosing errors are a leading cause of preventable harm in paediatric patients. The paediatric patient population is particularly vulnerable to dosing errors due to immaturity of metabolising organs and developmental changes. Moreover, the lack of clinical trial data or suitable drug forms, and the need for weight-based dosing, does not simplify drug dosing in paediatric or neonatal patients. Consequently, paediatric pharmacotherapy often requires unlicensed and off-label use including manipulation of adult dosage forms. In practice, this results in the need to calculate individual dosages which in turn increases the likelihood of dosing errors. In the age of digitalisation, clinical decision support (CDS) tools can support healthcare professionals in their daily work. CDS tools are currently amongst the gold standards in reducing preventable errors. In this publication, we describe the development and core functionalities of the CDS tool PEDeDose, a Class IIa medical device software certified according to the European Medical Device Regulation. The CDS tool provides a drug dosing formulary with an integrated calculator to determine individual dosages for paediatric, neonatal, and preterm patients. Even a technical interface is part of the CDS tool to facilitate integration into primary systems. This enables the support of the paediatrician directly during the prescribing process without changing the user interface.Conclusion: PEDeDose is a state-of-the-art CDS tool for individualised paediatric drug dosing that includes a certified calculator. What is Known:• Dosing errors are the most common type of medication errors in paediatric patients.• Clinical decision support tools can reduce medication errors effectively. Integration into the practitioner’s workflow improves usability and user acceptance. What is New:• A clinical decision support tool with a certified integrated dosing calculator for paediatric drug dosing.• The tool was designed to facilitate integration into clinical information systems to directly support the prescribing process. Any clinical information system available can interoperate with the PEDeDose web service.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mehrdad Karajizadeh ◽  
Farid Zand ◽  
Roxana Sharifian ◽  
Afsaneh Vazin ◽  
Najmeh Bayati

Abstract Background and objective: There is a gap between expert recommendations and clinical practice in (Venous Thromboembolism) VTE prophylaxis among nonsurgical patients worldwide. Rate of adherence to evidence-based practice is inadequate in the nonsurgical population. Therefore, this study aimed to determine The effect of Clinical Decision Support Systems(CDSS) on the use of the appropriate VTE Prophylaxis in Nonsurgical Patients in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU).Method: We conducted a cross-sectional study (pre and post-implementation CDSS for recommendation VTE prophylaxis order set) to analyze the effect of the CDSS within CPOE on the appropriate VTE prophylaxis in three ICUs of the Nemazee hospital (before intervention from 20 April 2020, to 21 November 2020 and post-intervention duration form 7 April 2021, to 9 July 2021). The pre-intervention and post-intervention phase samples comprised 175 and 27 patients, respectively. P-value is less than 0.05 was considered a significant level. All statistical analysis was performed by SPSS version 24.Results: Adherence to VTE prophylaxis guidelines after introduced CDSS for recommendation VTE prophylaxis within CPOE system in nonsurgical patients in ICUs increase from 48.6% to 77.8% (p-value<01). However, mortality rate (pre-intervention 13.80% vs post-intervention 14.80%(p-value=0.88)) and means of length of stay (pre-intervention 13.66 vs post intervention13.63(p-value=0.49)) in ICU have not significantly change after introduced CDSS for recommendation VTE prophylaxis order sets.Conclusion: The results indicate that the CDSS for recommendation VTE prophylaxis within CPOE improves adherence to VTE prophylaxis in nonsurgical patients at ICUs, which assist provider to select the most tailored VTE prophylaxis. Further study needs to evaluate implemented CDSS for recommendation VTE prophylaxis in nonsurgical patients at a province and national level.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca S. Overbury ◽  
Gregory J. Stoddard ◽  
Jakrapun Pupaibool ◽  
Christopher B. Hansen ◽  
Dorota Lebiedz-Odrobina

Abstract Background Retinal toxicity is a rare adverse event related to the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). To address this, in 2016, the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) issued guidelines recommending that HCQ not exceed 5 mg/kg/day. We analyzed HCQ prescribing habits at our institution, compared to these guidelines, and used surveys to determine the opinions on these guidelines. We then introduced, in a prospective and non-controlled study, a clinical decision support (CDS) tool into the electronic medical record (EMR) to study how this intervention might affect adherence with or opinions on these guidelines. Methods Data were collected pre-intervention (June 2017–January 2019) and post-intervention (March 2019–April 2020). In January 2019 we released our CDS tool. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics for demographic data and Fisher’s exact tests for comparisons of proportions between groups. Results Pre-intervention, we reviewed 1128 rheumatology charts and 282 dermatology charts. 31.0 and 39.7% respectively (32.8% combined) were prescribed HCQ > 5 .0 mg/kg/day. Post-intervention, we reviewed 1161 rheumatology charts and 110 dermatology charts. 23.0 and 25.5% respectively (23.2% combined) were prescribed HCQ > 5.0 mg/kg/day. Post-intervention, 9.6% fewer patients were prescribed HCQ > 5 mg/kg/day (P < .001). Pre-intervention, we compiled 18 rheumatology surveys and 12 dermatology surveys. Post-intervention, we compiled 16 rheumatology surveys and 12 dermatology surveys. Post-intervention, fewer rheumatologists incorrectly described the AAO weight-based guidelines. Combined, there was an overall reduction but not of statistical significance (P = .47). The majority of providers surveyed believed that the CDS tool was useful (72.2%). Conclusions At our academic institution, there remains unfamiliarity with and hesitation to comply with the 2016 AAO guidelines. Prescribed doses often exceed what is recommended in these guidelines. A CDS tool can improve adherence with these guidelines and might improve providers’ familiarity with these guidelines.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document