A Human(e) Factor in Clinical Decision Support Systems.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Bezemer T
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6444220 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
A Human(e) Factor in Clinical Decision Support Systems.
Bezemer Tim T de Groot Mark Ch MC Blasse Enja E Ten Berg Maarten J MJ Kappen Teus H TH Bredenoord Annelien L AL van Solinge Wouter W WW Hoefer Imo E IE Haitjema Saskia S
Journal of medical Internet research 20190319 3
The overwhelming amount, production speed, multidimensionality, and potential value of data currently available-often simplified and referred to as big data -exceed the limits of understanding of the human brain. At the same time, developments in data analytics and computational power provide the opportunity to obtain new insights and transfer data-provided added value to clinical practice in real time. What is the role of the health care professional in collaboration with the data scientist in ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundComputerized clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) are a promising knowledge translation tool, but often fail to meaningfully influence the outcomes they target. Low CDSS provider uptake is a potential contributor to this problem but has not been systematically studied. The objective of this systematic review and meta-regression was to determine reported CDSS uptake and identify which CDSS features may influence uptake.MethodsMedline, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Database of Controlled Trials were searched from January 2000 to August 2020. Randomized, non-randomized, and quasi-experimental trials reporting CDSS uptake in any patient population or setting were included. The main outcome extracted was CDSS uptake, reported as a raw proportion, and representing the number of times the CDSS was used or accessed over the total number of times it could have been interacted with. We also extracted context, content, system, and implementation features that might influence uptake, for each CDSS. Overall weighted uptake was calculated using random-effects meta-analysis and determinants of uptake were investigated using multivariable meta-regression.ResultsAmong 7995 citations screened, 55 studies involving 373,608 patients and 3607 providers met full inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis revealed that overall CDSS uptake was 34.2% (95% CI 23.2 to 47.1%). Uptake was only reported in 12.4% of studies that otherwise met inclusion criteria. Multivariable meta-regression revealed the following factors significantly associated with uptake: (1) formally evaluating the availability and quality of the patient data needed to inform CDSS advice; and (2) identifying and addressing other barriers to the behaviour change targeted by the CDSS.Conclusions and relevanceSystem uptake was seldom reported in CDSS trials. When reported, uptake was low. This represents a major and potentially modifiable barrier to overall CDSS effectiveness. We found that features relating to CDSS context and implementation strategy best predicted uptake. Future studies should measure the impact of addressing these features as part of the CDSS implementation strategy. Uptake reporting must also become standard in future studies reporting CDSS intervention effects.RegistrationPre-registered on PROSPERO, CRD42018092337.
| S-EPMC8908582 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer in women, with more than 2.1 million new diagnoses worldwide every year. Personalised treatment is critical to optimising outcomes for patients with breast cancer. A major advance in medical practice is the incorporation of Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSSs) to assist and support healthcare staff in clinical decision-making, thus improving the quality of decisions and overall patient care whilst minimising costs. The usage and availability of CDSSs in breast cancer care in healthcare settings is increasing. However, there may be differences in how particular CDSSs are developed, the information they include, the decisions they recommend, and how they are used in practice. This systematic review examines various CDSSs to determine their availability, intended use, medical characteristics, and expected outputs concerning breast cancer therapeutic decisions, an area that is known to have varying degrees of subjectivity in clinical practice. Utilising the methodology of Kitchenham and Charter, a systematic search of the literature was performed in Springer, Science Direct, Google Scholar, PubMed, ACM, IEEE, and Scopus. An overview of CDSS which supports decision-making in breast cancer treatment is provided along with a critical appraisal of their benefits, limitations, and opportunities for improvement.
| S-EPMC7072392 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWorldwide, the burden of allergies-in particular, drug allergies-is growing. In the process of prescribing, dispensing, or administering a drug, a medication error may occur and can have adverse consequences; for example, a drug may be given to a patient with a documented allergy to that particular drug. Computerized physician order entry (CPOE) systems with built-in clinical decision support systems (CDSS) have the potential to prevent such medication errors and adverse events.ObjectiveThe aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive overview regarding all aspects of CDSS for drug allergy, including documenting, coding, rule bases, alerts and alert fatigue, and outcome evaluation.MethodsThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed as much as possible and searches were conducted in 5 databases using CPOE, CDSS, alerts, and allergic or allergy as keywords. Bias could not be evaluated according to PRISMA guidelines due to the heterogeneity of study types included in the review.ResultsOf the 3160 articles considered, 60 met the inclusion criteria. A further 9 articles were added based on expert opinion, resulting in a total of 69 articles. An interrater agreement of 90.9% with a reliability ?=.787 (95% CI 0.686-0.888) was reached. Large heterogeneity across study objectives, study designs, study populations, and reported results was found. Several key findings were identified. Evidence of the usefulness of clinical decision support for drug allergies has been documented. Nevertheless, there are some important problems associated with their use. Accurate and structured documenting of information on drug allergies in electronic health records (EHRs) is difficult, as it is often not clear to healthcare providers how and where to document drug allergies. Besides the underreporting of drug allergies, outdated or inaccurate drug allergy information in EHRs poses an important problem. Research on the use of coding terminologies for documenting drug allergies is sparse. There is no generally accepted standard terminology for structured documentation of allergy information. The final key finding is the consistently reported low specificity of drug allergy alerts. Current systems have high alert override rates of up to 90%, leading to alert fatigue. Important challenges remain for increasing the specificity of drug allergy alerts. We found only one study specifically reporting outcomes related to CDSS for drug allergies. It showed that adverse drug events resulting from overridden drug allergy alerts do not occur frequently.ConclusionsAccurate and comprehensive recording of drug allergies is required for good use of CDSS for drug allergy screening. We found considerable variation in the way drug allergy are recorded in EHRs. It remains difficult to reduce drug allergy alert overload while maintaining patient safety as the highest priority. Future research should focus on improving alert specificity, thereby reducing override rates and alert fatigue. Also, the effect on patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness should be evaluated.
| S-EPMC6231757 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe clinical decision-making process in pressure ulcer management is complex, and its quality depends on both the nurse's experience and the availability of scientific knowledge. This process should follow evidence-based practices incorporating health information technologies to assist health care professionals, such as the use of clinical decision support systems. These systems, in addition to increasing the quality of care provided, can reduce errors and costs in health care. However, the widespread use of clinical decision support systems still has limited evidence, indicating the need to identify and evaluate its effects on nursing clinical practice.ObjectiveThe goal of the review was to identify the effects of nurses using clinical decision support systems on clinical decision making for pressure ulcer management.MethodsThe systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) recommendations. The search was conducted in April 2019 on 5 electronic databases: MEDLINE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Cochrane, and CINAHL, without publication date or study design restrictions. Articles that addressed the use of computerized clinical decision support systems in pressure ulcer care applied in clinical practice were included. The reference lists of eligible articles were searched manually. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies.ResultsThe search strategy resulted in 998 articles, 16 of which were included. The year of publication ranged from 1995 to 2017, with 45% of studies conducted in the United States. Most addressed the use of clinical decision support systems by nurses in pressure ulcers prevention in inpatient units. All studies described knowledge-based systems that assessed the effects on clinical decision making, clinical effects secondary to clinical decision support system use, or factors that influenced the use or intention to use clinical decision support systems by health professionals and the success of their implementation in nursing practice.ConclusionsThe evidence in the available literature about the effects of clinical decision support systems (used by nurses) on decision making for pressure ulcer prevention and treatment is still insufficient. No significant effects were found on nurses' knowledge following the integration of clinical decision support systems into the workflow, with assessments made for a brief period of up to 6 months. Clinical effects, such as outcomes in the incidence and prevalence of pressure ulcers, remain limited in the studies, and most found clinically but nonstatistically significant results in decreasing pressure ulcers. It is necessary to carry out studies that prioritize better adoption and interaction of nurses with clinical decision support systems, as well as studies with a representative sample of health care professionals, randomized study designs, and application of assessment instruments appropriate to the professional and institutional profile. In addition, long-term follow-up is necessary to assess the effects of clinical decision support systems that can demonstrate a more real, measurable, and significant effect on clinical decision making.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42019127663; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=127663.
| S-EPMC7600011 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Machine learning tools are increasingly used to improve the quality of care and the soundness of a treatment plan. Explainable AI (XAI) helps users in understanding the inner mechanisms of opaque machine learning models and is a driver of trust and adoption. Explanation methods for black-box models exist, but there is a lack of user studies on the interpretability of the provided explanations. We used a Think Aloud Protocol (TAP) to explore oncologists' assessment of a lung cancer relapse prediction system with the aim of refining the purpose-built explanation model for better credibility and utility. Novel to this context, TAP is used as a neutral methodology to elicit experts' thought processes and judgements of the AI system, without explicit prompts. TAP aims to elicit the factors which influenced clinicians' perception of credibility and usefulness of the system. Ten oncologists took part in the study. We conducted a thematic analysis of their verbalized responses, generating five themes that help us to understand the context within which oncologists' may (or may not) integrate an explainable AI system into their working day.
| S-EPMC10501571 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundElectronic health records are central to cancer care delivery. Electronic clinical decision support (CDS) systems can potentially improve cancer care quality and safety. However, little is known regarding the use of CDS systems in clinical oncology and their impact on patient outcomes.MethodsA systematic review of peer-reviewed studies was performed to evaluate clinically relevant outcomes related to the use of CDS tools for the diagnosis, treatment, and supportive care of patients with cancer. Peer-reviewed studies published from 1995 through 2016 were included if they assessed clinical outcomes, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), costs, or care delivery process measures.ResultsElectronic database searches yielded 2,439 potentially eligible papers, with 24 studies included after final review. Most studies used an uncontrolled, pre-post intervention design. A total of 23 studies reported improvement in key study outcomes with use of oncology CDS systems, and 12 studies assessing the systems for computerized chemotherapy order entry demonstrated reductions in prescribing error rates, medication-related safety events, and workflow interruptions. The remaining studies examined oncology clinical pathways, guideline adherence, systems for collection and communication of PROs, and prescriber alerts.ConclusionsThere is a paucity of data evaluating clinically relevant outcomes of CDS system implementation in oncology care. Currently available data suggest that these systems can have a positive impact on the quality of cancer care delivery. However, there is a critical need to rigorously evaluate CDS systems in oncology to better understand how they can be implemented to improve patient outcomes.
| S-EPMC6563614 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The aim of this scoping review is to summarize approaches and outcomes of clinical validation studies of clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) to support (part of) a medication review. A literature search was conducted in Embase and Medline. In total, 30 articles validating a CDSS were ultimately included. Most of the studies focused on detection of adverse drug events, potentially inappropriate medications and drug-related problems. We categorized the included articles in three groups: studies subjectively reviewing the clinical relevance of CDSS's output (21/30 studies) resulting in a positive predictive value (PPV) for clinical relevance of 4-80%; studies determining the relationship between alerts and actual events (10/30 studies) resulting in a PPV for actual events of 5-80%; and studies comparing output of CDSSs to chart/medication reviews in the whole study population (10/30 studies) resulting in a sensitivity of 28-85% and specificity of 42-75%. We found heterogeneity in the methods used and in the outcome measures. The validation studies did not report the use of a published CDSS validation strategy. To improve the effectiveness and uptake of CDSSs supporting a medication review, future research would benefit from a more systematic and comprehensive validation strategy.
| S-EPMC9299995 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEffective clinical decision support systems require accurate translation of practice recommendations into machine-readable artifacts; developing code sets that represent clinical concepts are an important step in this process. Many clinical coding systems are currently used in electronic health records, and it is unclear whether all of these systems are capable of efficiently representing the clinical concepts required in executing clinical decision support systems.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate which clinical coding systems are capable of efficiently representing clinical concepts that are necessary for translating artifacts into executable code for clinical decision support systems.MethodsTwo methods were used to evaluate a set of clinical coding systems. In a theoretical approach, we extracted all the clinical concepts from 3 preventive care recommendations and constructed a series of code sets containing codes from a single clinical coding system. In a practical approach using data from a real-world setting, we studied the content of 1890 code sets used in an internationally available clinical decision support system and compared the usage of various clinical coding systems.ResultsSNOMED CT and ICD-10 (International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision) proved to be the most accurate clinical coding systems for most concepts in our theoretical evaluation. In our practical evaluation, we found that International Classification of Diseases (Tenth Revision) was most often used to construct code sets. Some coding systems were very accurate in representing specific types of clinical concepts, for example, LOINC (Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes) for investigation results and ATC (Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification) for drugs.ConclusionsNo single coding system seems to fulfill all the needs for representing clinical concepts for clinical decision support systems. Comprehensiveness of the coding systems seems to be offset by complexity and forms a barrier to usability for code set construction. Clinical vocabularies mapped to multiple clinical coding systems could facilitate clinical code set construction.
| S-EPMC7641774 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe clinical decision support system(CDSS) has potential to improving medication safety. However, the effects of the intervention were conflicting and uncertain. Meanwhile, the reporting and methodological quality of this field were unknown.ObjectiveThe aim of this overview is to evaluate the effects of CDSS on medication safety and to examine the methodological and reporting quality.MethodsPubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched to August 2015. Systematic reviews (SRs) investigating the effects of CDSS on medication safety were included. Outcomes were determined in advance and assessed separately for process of care and patient outcomes. The methodological quality was assessed by Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and the reporting quality was examined by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).ResultsTwenty systematic reviews, consisting of 237 unique randomized controlled trials(RCTs) and 176 non-RCTs were included. Evidence that CDSS significantly impacted process of care was found in 108 out of 143 unique studies of the 16 SRs examining this effect (75%). Only 18 out of 90 unique studies of the 13 SRs reported significantly evidence that CDSS positively impacted patient outcomes (20%). Ratings for the overall scores of AMSTAR resulted in a mean score of 8.3 with a range of scores from 7.5 to 10.5. The reporting quality was varied. Some contents were particularly strong. However, some contents were poor.ConclusionsCDSS reduces medication error by obviously improving process of care and inconsistently improving patient outcomes. Larger samples and longer-term studies are required to ensure more reliable evidence base on the effects of CDSS on patient outcomes. The methodological and reporting quality were varied and some realms need to be improved.
| S-EPMC5157990 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRare Diseases (RDs), which are defined as diseases affecting no more than 5 out of 10,000 people, are often severe, chronic and life-threatening. A main problem is the delay in diagnosing RDs. Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) for RDs are software systems to support clinicians in the diagnosis of patients with RDs. Due to their clinical importance, we conducted a scoping review to determine which CDSSs are available to support the diagnosis of RDs patients, whether the CDSSs are available to be used by clinicians and which functionalities and data are used to provide decision support.MethodsWe searched PubMed for CDSSs in RDs published between December 16, 2008 and December 16, 2018. Only English articles, original peer reviewed journals and conference papers describing a clinical prototype or a routine use of CDSSs were included. For data charting, we used the data items "Objective and background of the publication/project", "System or project name", "Functionality", "Type of clinical data", "Rare Diseases covered", "Development status", "System availability", "Data entry and integration", "Last software update" and "Clinical usage".ResultsThe search identified 636 articles. After title and abstracting screening, as well as assessing the eligibility criteria for full-text screening, 22 articles describing 19 different CDSSs were identified. Three types of CDSSs were classified: "Analysis or comparison of genetic and phenotypic data," "machine learning" and "information retrieval". Twelve of nineteen CDSSs use phenotypic and genetic data, followed by clinical data, literature databases and patient questionnaires. Fourteen of nineteen CDSSs are fully developed systems and therefore publicly available. Data can be entered or uploaded manually in six CDSSs, whereas for four CDSSs no information for data integration was available. Only seven CDSSs allow further ways of data integration. thirteen CDSS do not provide information about clinical usage.ConclusionsDifferent CDSS for various purposes are available, yet clinicians have to determine which is best for their patient. To allow a more precise usage, future research has to focus on CDSSs RDs data integration, clinical usage and updating clinical knowledge. It remains interesting which of the CDSSs will be used and maintained in the future.
| S-EPMC7513302 | biostudies-literature