Dataset Information

Computerised clinical decision support systems and absolute improvements in care: meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To report the improvements achieved with clinical decision support systems and examine the heterogeneity from pooling effects across diverse clinical settings and intervention targets. DESIGN:Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES:Medline up to August 2019. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES AND METHODS:Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials reporting absolute improvements in the percentage of patients receiving care recommended by clinical decision support systems. Multilevel meta-analysis accounted for within study clustering. Meta-regression was used to assess the degree to which the features of clinical decision support systems and study characteristics reduced heterogeneity in effect sizes. Where reported, clinical endpoints were also captured. RESULTS:In 108 studies (94 randomised, 14 quasi-randomised), reporting 122 trials that provided analysable data from 1?203?053 patients and 10?790 providers, clinical decision support systems increased the proportion of patients receiving desired care by 5.8% (95% confidence interval 4.0% to 7.6%). This pooled effect exhibited substantial heterogeneity (I2=76%), with the top quartile of reported improvements ranging from 10% to 62%. In 30 trials reporting clinical endpoints, clinical decision support systems increased the proportion of patients achieving guideline based targets (eg, blood pressure or lipid control) by a median of 0.3% (interquartile range -0.7% to 1.9%). Two study characteristics (low baseline adherence and paediatric settings) were associated with significantly larger effects. Inclusion of these covariates in the multivariable meta-regression, however, did not reduce heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS:Most interventions with clinical decision support systems appear to achieve small to moderate improvements in targeted processes of care, a finding confirmed by the small changes in clinical endpoints found in studies that reported them. A minority of studies achieved substantial increases in the delivery of recommended care, but predictors of these more meaningful improvements remain undefined.

SUBMITTER: Kwan JL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7495041 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Computerised clinical decision support systems and absolute improvements in care: meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials.

Kwan Janice L JL Lo Lisha L Ferguson Jacob J Goldberg Hanna H Diaz-Martinez Juan Pablo JP Tomlinson George G Grimshaw Jeremy M JM Shojania Kaveh G KG

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20200917

<h4>Objective</h4>To report the improvements achieved with clinical decision support systems and examine the heterogeneity from pooling effects across diverse clinical settings and intervention targets.<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review and meta-analysis.<h4>Data sources</h4>Medline up to August 2019.<h4>Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methods</h4>Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials reporting absolute improvements in the percentage of patients receiving care recommended ...[more]

PMID: 32943437

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Computerised clinical decision support (CDS) can potentially better inform decisions, and it can help with the management of information overload. It is perceived to be a key component of a learning health care system. Despite its increasing implementation worldwide, it remains uncertain why the effect of CDS varies and which factors make CDS more effective. OBJECTIVE:To examine which factors make CDS strategies more effective on a number of outcomes, including adherence to recommended practice, patient outcome measures, economic measures, provider or patient satisfaction, and medical decision quality. METHODS:We identified randomised controlled trials, non-randomised trials, and controlled before-and-after studies that directly compared CDS implementation with a given factor to CDS without that factor by searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL and checking reference lists of relevant studies. We considered CDS with any objective for any condition in any healthcare setting. We included CDS interventions that were either displayed on screen or provided on paper and that were directed at healthcare professionals or targeted at both professionals and patients. The reviewers screened the potentially relevant studies in duplicate. They extracted data and assessed risk of bias in independent pairs or individually followed by a double check by another reviewer. We summarised results using medians and interquartile ranges and rated our certainty in the evidence using the GRADE system. RESULTS:We identified 66 head-to-head trials that we synthesised across 14 comparisons of CDS intervention factors. Providing CDS automatically versus on demand led to large improvements in adherence. Displaying CDS on-screen versus on paper led to moderate improvements and making CDS more versus less patient-specific improved adherence modestly. When CDS interventions were combined with professional-oriented strategies, combined with patient-oriented strategies, or combined with staff-oriented strategies, then adherence improved slightly. Providing CDS to patients slightly increased adherence versus CDS aimed at the healthcare provider only. Making CDS advice more explicit and requiring users to respond to the advice made little or no difference. The CDS intervention factors made little or no difference to patient outcomes. The results for economic outcomes and satisfaction outcomes were sparse. CONCLUSION:Multiple factors may affect the success of CDS interventions. CDS may be more effective when the advice is provided automatically and displayed on-screen and when the suggestions are more patient-specific. CDS interventions combined with other strategies probably also improves adherence. Providing CDS directly to patients may also positively affect adherence. The certainty of the evidence was low to moderate for all factors. TRIAL REGISTRATION:PROSPERO, CRD42016033738.

Project description:BackgroundComputerised clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) are used widely to improve quality of care and patient outcomes. This systematic review evaluated the impact of CDSSs in targeting specific aspects of prescribing, namely initiating, monitoring and stopping therapy. We also examined the influence of clinical setting (institutional vs ambulatory care), system- or user-initiation of CDSS, multi-faceted vs stand alone CDSS interventions and clinical target on practice changes in line with the intent of the CDSS.MethodsWe searched Medline, Embase and PsychINFO for publications from 1990-2007 detailing CDSS prescribing interventions. Pairs of independent reviewers extracted the key features and prescribing outcomes of methodologically adequate studies (experiments and strong quasi-experiments).Results56 studies met our inclusion criteria, 38 addressing initiating, 23 monitoring and three stopping therapy. At the time of initiating therapy, CDSSs appear to be somewhat more effective after, rather than before, drug selection has occurred (7/12 versus 12/26 studies reporting statistically significant improvements in favour of CDSSs on = 50% of prescribing outcomes reported). CDSSs also appeared to be effective for monitoring therapy, particularly using laboratory test reminders (4/7 studies reporting significant improvements in favour of CDSSs on the majority of prescribing outcomes). None of the studies addressing stopping therapy demonstrated impacts in favour of CDSSs over comparators. The most consistently effective approaches used system-initiated advice to fine-tune existing therapy by making recommendations to improve patient safety, adjust the dose, duration or form of prescribed drugs or increase the laboratory testing rates for patients on long-term therapy. CDSSs appeared to perform better in institutional compared to ambulatory settings and when decision support was initiated automatically by the system as opposed to user initiation. CDSSs implemented with other strategies such as education were no more successful in improving prescribing than stand alone interventions. Cardiovascular disease was the most studied clinical target but few studies demonstrated significant improvements on the majority of prescribing outcomes.ConclusionOur understanding of CDSS impacts on specific aspects of the prescribing process remains relatively limited. Future implementation should build on effective approaches including the use of system-initiated advice to address safety issues and improve the monitoring of therapy.

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.

Project description:ObjectivesChronic diseases are the leading cause of disability globally. Most chronic disease management occurs in primary care with outcomes varying across primary care providers. Computerised clinical decision support systems (CDSS) have been shown to positively affect clinician behaviour by improving adherence to clinical guidelines. This study provides a summary of the available evidence on the effect of CDSS embedded in electronic health records on patient-reported and clinical outcomes of adult patients with chronic disease managed in primary care.Design and eligibility criteriaSystematic review, including randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster RCTs, quasi-RCTs, interrupted time series and controlled before-and-after studies, assessing the effect of CDSS (vs usual care) on patient-reported or clinical outcomes of adult patients with selected common chronic diseases (asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, heart failure, myocardial ischaemia, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidaemia, arthritis and osteoporosis) managed in primary care.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, CENTRAL, Scopus, Health Management Information Consortium and trial register clinicaltrials.gov were searched from inception to 24 June 2020.Data extraction and synthesisScreening, data extraction and quality assessment were performed by two reviewers independently. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used for quality appraisal.ResultsFrom 5430 articles, 8 studies met the inclusion criteria. Studies were heterogeneous in population characteristics, intervention components and outcome measurements and focused on diabetes, asthma, hyperlipidaemia and hypertension. Most outcomes were clinical with one study reporting on patient-reported outcomes. Quality of the evidence was impacted by methodological biases of studies.ConclusionsThere is inconclusive evidence in support of CDSS. A firm inference on the intervention effect was not possible due to methodological biases and study heterogeneity. Further research is needed to provide evidence on the intervention effect and the interplay between healthcare setting features, CDSS characteristics and implementation processes.Prospero registration numberCRD42020218184.

Project description:IntroductionNowadays nearly every patient with cancer is discussed in a multidisciplinary team meeting (MDTM) to determine an optimal treatment plan. The growth in the number of patients to be discussed is unsustainable. Streamlining and use of computerised clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) are two major ways to restructure MDTMs. Streamlining is the process of selecting the patients who need to be discussed and in which type of MDTM. Using CCDSSs, patient data is automatically loaded into the minutes and a guideline-based treatment proposal is generated. We aimed to identify the pros and cons of streamlining and CCDSSs.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with Dutch MDTM participants. With purposive sampling we maximised variation in participants' characteristics. Interview data were thematically analysed.ResultsThirty-five interviews were analysed. All interviewees agreed on the need to change the current MDTM workflow. Streamlining suggestions were thematised based on standard and complex cases and the location of the MDTM (i.e. local, regional or nationwide). Interviewees suggested easing the pressure on MDTMs by discussing standard cases briefly, not at all, or outside the MDTM with only two to three specialists. Complex cases should be discussed in tumour-type-specific regional MDTMs and highly complex cases by regional/nationwide expert teams. Categorizing patients as standard or complex was found to be the greatest challenge of streamlining. CCDSSs were recognised as promising, although none of the interviewees had made use of them. The assumed advantage was their capacity to generate protocolised treatment proposals based on automatically uploaded patient data, to unify treatment proposals and to facilitate research. However, they were thought to limit the freedom to deviate from the treatment advice.ConclusionTo make oncological MDTMs sustainable, methods of streamlining should be developed and introduced. Physicians still have doubts about the value of CCDSSs.

Project description:A computerised clinical decision support system (CCDSS) is a technology that uses patient-specific data to provide relevant medical knowledge at the point of care. It is considered to be an important quality improvement intervention, and the implementation of CCDSS is growing substantially. However, the significant investments do not consistently result in value for money due to content, context, system and implementation issues. The Guideline Implementation with Decision Support (GUIDES) project aims to improve the impact of CCDSS through optimised implementation based on high-quality evidence-based recommendations. To achieve this, we will develop tools that address the factors that determine successful CCDSS implementation.We will develop the GUIDES tools in four steps, using the methods and results of the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases (TICD) project as a starting point: (1) a review of research evidence and frameworks on the determinants of implementing recommendations using CCDSS; (2) a synthesis of a comprehensive framework for the identified determinants; (3) the development of tools for use of the framework and (4) pilot testing the utility of the tools through the development of a tailored CCDSS intervention in Norway, Belgium and Finland. We selected the conservative management of knee osteoarthritis as a prototype condition for the pilot. During the process, the authors will collaborate with an international expert group to provide input and feedback on the tools.This project will provide guidance and tools on methods of identifying implementation determinants and selecting strategies to implement evidence-based recommendations through CCDSS. We will make the GUIDES tools available to CCDSS developers, implementers, researchers, funders, clinicians, managers, educators, and policymakers internationally. The tools and recommendations will be generic, which makes them scalable to a large spectrum of conditions. Ultimately, the better implementation of CCDSS may lead to better-informed decisions and improved care and patient outcomes for a wide range of conditions.PROSPERO, CRD42016033738.

Project description:BackgroundPharmacogenetics can impact patient care and outcomes through personalizing the selection of medicines, resulting in improved efficacy and a reduction in harmful side effects. Despite the existence of compelling clinical evidence and international guidelines highlighting the benefits of pharmacogenetics in clinical practice, implementation within the National Health Service in the United Kingdom is limited. An important barrier to overcome is the development of IT solutions that support the integration of pharmacogenetic data into health care systems. This necessitates a better understanding of the role of electronic health records (EHRs) and the design of clinical decision support systems that are acceptable to clinicians, particularly those in primary care.ObjectiveExplore the needs and requirements of a pharmacogenetic service from the perspective of primary care clinicians with a view to co-design a prototype solution.MethodsWe used ethnographic and think-aloud observations, user research workshops, and prototyping. The participants for this study included general practitioners and pharmacists. In total, we undertook 5 sessions of ethnographic observation to understand current practices and workflows. This was followed by 3 user research workshops, each with its own topic guide starting with personas and early ideation, through to exploring the potential of clinical decision support systems and prototype design. We subsequently analyzed workshop data using affinity diagramming and refined the key requirements for the solution collaboratively as a multidisciplinary project team.ResultsUser research results identified that pharmacogenetic data must be incorporated within existing EHRs rather than through a stand-alone portal. The information presented through clinical decision support systems must be clear, accessible, and user-friendly as the service will be used by a range of end users. Critically, the information should be displayed within the prescribing workflow, rather than discrete results stored statically in the EHR. Finally, the prescribing recommendations should be authoritative to provide confidence in the validity of the results. Based on these findings we co-designed an interactive prototype, demonstrating pharmacogenetic clinical decision support integrated within the prescribing workflow of an EHR.ConclusionsThis study marks a significant step forward in the design of systems that support pharmacogenetic-guided prescribing in primary care settings. Clinical decision support systems have the potential to enhance the personalization of medicines, provided they are effectively implemented within EHRs and present pharmacogenetic data in a user-friendly, actionable, and standardized format. Achieving this requires the development of a decoupled, standards-based architecture that allows for the separation of data from application, facilitating integration across various EHRs through the use of application programming interfaces (APIs). More globally, this study demonstrates the role of health informatics and user-centered design in realizing the potential of personalized medicine at scale and ensuring that the benefits of genomic innovation reach patients and populations effectively.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of Computerised Clinical Decision Support (CCDS) for paramedics attending older people who fall.DesignCluster trial randomised by paramedic; modelling.Setting13 ambulance stations in two UK emergency ambulance services.Participants42 of 409 eligible paramedics, who attended 779 older patients for a reported fall.InterventionsIntervention paramedics received CCDS on Tablet computers to guide patient care. Control paramedics provided care as usual. One service had already installed electronic data capture.Main outcome measuresEffectiveness: patients referred to falls service, patient reported quality of life and satisfaction, processes of care.SafetyFurther emergency contacts or death within one month.Cost-effectivenessCosts and quality of life. We used findings from published Community Falls Prevention Trial to model cost-effectiveness.Results17 intervention paramedics used CCDS for 54 (12.4%) of 436 participants. They referred 42 (9.6%) to falls services, compared with 17 (5.0%) of 343 participants seen by 19 control paramedics [Odds ratio (OR) 2.04, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.72]. No adverse events were related to the intervention. Non-significant differences between groups included: subsequent emergency contacts (34.6% versus 29.1%; OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.72); quality of life (mean SF12 differences: MCS -0.74, 95% CI -2.83 to +1.28; PCS -0.13, 95% CI -1.65 to +1.39) and non-conveyance (42.0% versus 36.7%; OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.52). However ambulance job cycle time was 8.9 minutes longer for intervention patients (95% CI 2.3 to 15.3). Average net cost of implementing CCDS was £208 per patient with existing electronic data capture, and £308 without. Modelling estimated cost per quality-adjusted life-year at £15,000 with existing electronic data capture; and £22,200 without.ConclusionsIntervention paramedics referred twice as many participants to falls services with no difference in safety. CCDS is potentially cost-effective, especially with existing electronic data capture.Trial registrationISRCTN Register ISRCTN10538608.

Project description:ObjectiveTo identify features of clinical decision support systems critical for improving clinical practice.DesignSystematic review of randomised controlled trials.Data sourcesLiterature searches via Medline, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register up to 2003; and searches of reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews.Study selectionStudies had to evaluate the ability of decision support systems to improve clinical practice.Data extractionStudies were assessed for statistically and clinically significant improvement in clinical practice and for the presence of 15 decision support system features whose importance had been repeatedly suggested in the literature.ResultsSeventy studies were included. Decision support systems significantly improved clinical practice in 68% of trials. Univariate analyses revealed that, for five of the system features, interventions possessing the feature were significantly more likely to improve clinical practice than interventions lacking the feature. Multiple logistic regression analysis identified four features as independent predictors of improved clinical practice: automatic provision of decision support as part of clinician workflow (P < 0.00001), provision of recommendations rather than just assessments (P = 0.0187), provision of decision support at the time and location of decision making (P = 0.0263), and computer based decision support (P = 0.0294). Of 32 systems possessing all four features, 30 (94%) significantly improved clinical practice. Furthermore, direct experimental justification was found for providing periodic performance feedback, sharing recommendations with patients, and requesting documentation of reasons for not following recommendations.ConclusionsSeveral features were closely correlated with decision support systems' ability to improve patient care significantly. Clinicians and other stakeholders should implement clinical decision support systems that incorporate these features whenever feasible and appropriate.

Dataset Information

Computerised clinical decision support systems and absolute improvements in care: meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials.

Publications

Computerised clinical decision support systems and absolute improvements in care: meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets