NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
This publication is provided for historical reference only and the information may be out of date.
Structured Abstract
Objectives:
To catalogue study designs used to assess the clinical effectiveness of clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) and knowledge management systems (KMSs), to identify features that impact the success of CDSSs/KMSs, to document the impact of CDSSs/KMSs on outcomes, and to identify knowledge types that can be integrated into CDSSs/KMSs.
Data Sources:
MEDLINE®, CINAHL®, PsycINFO®, and Web of Science®.
Review Methods:
We included studies published in English from January 1976 through December 2010. After screening titles and abstracts, full-text versions of articles were reviewed by two independent reviewers. Included articles were abstracted to evidence tables by two reviewers. Meta-analyses were performed for seven domains in which sufficient studies with common outcomes were included.
Results:
We identified 15,176 articles, from which 323 articles describing 311 unique studies including 160 reports on 148 randomized control trials (RCTs) were selected for inclusion. RCTs comprised 47.5 percent of the comparative studies on CDSSs/KMSs. Both commercially and locally developed CDSSs effectively improved health care process measures related to performing preventive services (n = 25; OR 1.42, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.27 to 1.58), ordering clinical studies (n = 20; OR 1.72, 95% CI 1.47 to 2.00), and prescribing therapies (n = 46; OR 1.57, 95% CI 1.35 to 1.82). Fourteen CDSS/KMS features were assessed for correlation with success of CDSSs/KMSs across all endpoints. Meta-analyses identified six new success features: integration with charting or order entry system, promotion of action rather than inaction, no need for additional clinician data entry, justification of decision support via research evidence, local user involvement, and provision of decision support results to patients as well as providers. Three previously identified success features were confirmed: automatic provision of decision support as part of clinician workflow, provision of decision support at time and location of decisionmaking, and provision of a recommendation, not just an assessment. Only 29 (19.6%) RCTs assessed the impact of CDSSs on clinical outcomes, 22 (14.9%) assessed costs, and 3 assessed KMSs on any outcomes. The primary source of knowledge used in CDSSs was derived from structured care protocols.
Conclusions:
Strong evidence shows that CDSSs/KMSs are effective in improving health care process measures across diverse settings using both commercially and locally developed systems. Evidence for the effectiveness of CDSSs on clinical outcomes and costs and KMSs on any outcomes is minimal. Nine features of CDSSs/KMSs that correlate with a successful impact of clinical decision support have been newly identified or confirmed.
Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Technical Expert Panel
- Peer Reviewers
- Executive Summary
- Introduction
- Methods
- Role of the Technical Expert Panel
- Topic Development and Refinement
- Analytic Framework
- Literature Search Strategy
- Process for Study Selection
- Data Extraction and Data Management
- Individual Study Quality Assessment
- Data Synthesis
- Grading the Body of Evidence for Each Key Question
- Peer Review and Public Commentary
- Results
- Summary and Discussion
- Future Research
- References
- Abbreviations
- Appendixes
- Appendix A List of Included Studies in Alphabetical Order
- Appendix B Exact Search Strings
- Appendix C Sample Data Abstraction Form (Key Questions 2–4)
- Appendix D Data Abstraction Guidance
- Appendix E Evidence Table
- Appendix F List of Excluded Studies
- Appendix G Summary Tables for Key Question 1
- Appendix H Summary Tables for Key Question 2
- Appendix I Summary Tables for Key Question 3
- Appendix J Analyses of Potential Publication Bias
- Appendix K Summary Tables for Key Question 4
Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services1, Contract No. 290-2007-10066-I, Prepared by: Duke Evidence-based Practice Center, Durham, North Carolina
Suggested citation:
Lobach D, Sanders GD, Bright TJ, Wong A, Dhurjati R, Bristow E, Bastian L, Coeytaux R, Samsa G, Hasselblad V, Williams JW, Wing L, Musty M, Kendrick AS. Enabling Health Care Decisionmaking Through Clinical Decision Support and Knowledge Management. Evidence Report No. 203. (Prepared by the Duke Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10066-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 12-E001-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. April 2012.
This report is based on research conducted by the Duke Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. 290-2007-10066-I). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. Therefore, no statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The information in this report is intended to help health care decisionmakers—patients and clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers, among others—make well-informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of health care services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for the application of clinical judgment. Anyone who makes decisions concerning the provision of clinical care should consider this report in the same way as any medical reference and in conjunction with all other pertinent information, i.e., in the context of available resources and circumstances presented by individual patients.
This report may be used, in whole or in part, as the basis for development of clinical practice guidelines and other quality enhancement tools, or as a basis for reimbursement and coverage policies. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of such derivative products may not be stated or implied.
None of the investigators has any affiliations or financial involvement that conflicts with the material presented in this report.
- 1
540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850; www
.ahrq.gov
- Review Effect of clinical decision-support systems: a systematic review.[Ann Intern Med. 2012]Review Effect of clinical decision-support systems: a systematic review.Bright TJ, Wong A, Dhurjati R, Bristow E, Bastian L, Coeytaux RR, Samsa G, Hasselblad V, Williams JW, Musty MD, et al. Ann Intern Med. 2012 Jul 3; 157(1):29-43.
- Beyond the black stump: rapid reviews of health research issues affecting regional, rural and remote Australia.[Med J Aust. 2020]Beyond the black stump: rapid reviews of health research issues affecting regional, rural and remote Australia.Osborne SR, Alston LV, Bolton KA, Whelan J, Reeve E, Wong Shee A, Browne J, Walker T, Versace VL, Allender S, et al. Med J Aust. 2020 Dec; 213 Suppl 11:S3-S32.e1.
- Review The impact of pharmacy computerised clinical decision support on prescribing, clinical and patient outcomes: a systematic review of the literature.[Int J Pharm Pract. 2010]Review The impact of pharmacy computerised clinical decision support on prescribing, clinical and patient outcomes: a systematic review of the literature.Robertson J, Walkom E, Pearson SA, Hains I, Williamsone M, Newby D. Int J Pharm Pract. 2010 Apr; 18(2):69-87.
- Review The Integration of Clinical Decision Support Systems Into Telemedicine for Patients With Multimorbidity in Primary Care Settings: Scoping Review.[J Med Internet Res. 2023]Review The Integration of Clinical Decision Support Systems Into Telemedicine for Patients With Multimorbidity in Primary Care Settings: Scoping Review.Wiwatkunupakarn N, Aramrat C, Pliannuom S, Buawangpong N, Pinyopornpanish K, Nantsupawat N, Mallinson PAC, Kinra S, Angkurawaranon C. J Med Internet Res. 2023 Jun 28; 25:e45944. Epub 2023 Jun 28.
- Review Computerised decision support systems in order communication for diagnostic, screening or monitoring test ordering: systematic reviews of the effects and cost-effectiveness of systems.[Health Technol Assess. 2010]Review Computerised decision support systems in order communication for diagnostic, screening or monitoring test ordering: systematic reviews of the effects and cost-effectiveness of systems.Main C, Moxham T, Wyatt JC, Kay J, Anderson R, Stein K. Health Technol Assess. 2010 Oct; 14(48):1-227.
- Enabling Health Care Decisionmaking Through Clinical Decision Support and Knowle...Enabling Health Care Decisionmaking Through Clinical Decision Support and Knowledge Management
- Chain F, Ragulator complex protein LAMTOR4Chain F, Ragulator complex protein LAMTOR4gi|1391851857|pdb|5VOK|FProtein
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
See more...