Factors That Impact the Adoption of Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) for Antibiotic Management.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Laka M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7920296 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Factors That Impact the Adoption of Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) for Antibiotic Management.
Laka Mah M Milazzo Adriana A Merlin Tracy T
International journal of environmental research and public health 20210216 4
The study evaluated individual and setting-specific factors that moderate clinicians' perception regarding use of clinical decision support systems (CDSS) for antibiotic management. A cross-sectional online survey examined clinicians' perceptions about CDSS implementation for antibiotic management in Australia. Multivariable logistic regression determined the association between drivers of CDSS adoption and different moderators. Clinical experience, CDSS use and care setting were important predi ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:A clinical decision support system (CDSS) informs or generates medical recommendations for healthcare practitioners. An alert is the most common way for a CDSS to interact with practitioners. Research about alerts in CDSS has proliferated over the past ten years. The research trend is ongoing with new emerging terms and focus. Bibliometric analysis is ideal for researchers to understand the research trend and future directions. Influential articles, institutes, countries, authors, and commonly used keywords were analyzed to grasp a comprehensive view on our topic, alerts in CDSS. Articles published between 2011 and 2021 were extracted from the Web of Science database. There were 728 articles included for bibliometric analysis, among which 24 papers were selected for content analysis. Our analysis shows that the research direction has shifted from patient safety to system utility, implying the importance of alert usability to be clinically impactful. Finally, we conclude with future research directions such as the optimization of alert mechanisms and comprehensiveness to enhance alert appropriateness and to reduce alert fatigue.
| S-EPMC9028311 | 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:BackgroundElectronic health record (EHR)-based clinical decision support tools can improve the use of evidence-based clinical guidelines for preeclampsia management that can reduce maternal mortality and morbidity. No study has investigated the organizational capabilities that enable hospitals to use EHR-based decision support tools to manage preeclampsia.ObjectiveTo examine the association of organizational capabilities and hospital adoption of EHR-based decision support tools for preeclampsia management.MethodsCross-sectional analyses of hospitals providing obstetric care in 2017. In total, 739 hospitals responded to the 2017-2018 National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems (NSHOS) and were linked to the 2017 American Hospital Association (AHA) Annual Survey Database and the Area Health Resources File (AHRF). A total of 425 hospitals providing obstetric care across 49 states were included in the analysis. The main outcome was whether a hospital adopted EHR-based clinical decision support tools for preeclampsia management. Hospital organizational capabilities assessed as predictors include EHR functions, adoption of evidence-based clinical treatments, use of quality improvement methods, and dissemination processes to share best patient care practices. Logistic regression estimated the association of hospital organizational capabilities and hospital adoption of EHR-based decision support tools to manage preeclampsia, controlling for hospital structural and patient sociodemographic characteristics.ResultsTwo-thirds of the hospitals (68%) adopted EHR-based decision support tools for preeclampsia, and slightly more than half (56%) of hospitals had a single EHR system. Multivariable regression results indicate that hospitals with a single EHR system were more likely to adopt EHR-based decision support tools for preeclampsia (17.4 percentage points; 95% CI, 1.9 to 33.0; P < .05) than hospitals with a mixture of EHR and paper-based systems. Compared with hospitals having multiple EHRs, on average, hospitals having a single EHR were also more likely to adopt the tools by 9.3 percentage points, but the difference was not statistically significant (95% CI, -1.3 to 19.9). Hospitals with more processes to aid dissemination of best patient care practices were also more likely to adopt EHR-based decision-support tools for preeclampsia (0.4 percentage points; 95% CI, 0.1 to 0.6, for every 1-unit increase in dissemination processes; P < .01).ConclusionStandardized EHRs and policies to disseminate evidence are foundational hospital capabilities that can help advance the use of EHR-based decision support tools for preeclampsia management in the approximately one-third of US hospitals that still do not use them.
| S-EPMC8626519 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) are increasingly being used by clinicians to support antibiotic decision making in infection management. However, coexisting CDSSs often target different types of physicians, infectious situations, and patient profiles. The objective of this study was to perform an up-to-date inventory of French language CDSSs currently used in community and hospital settings for antimicrobial prescribing and to describe their main characteristics. A literature search, a search among smartphone application stores, and an open discussion with antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) experts were conducted in order to identify available French language CDSSs. Any clinical decision support tool that provides a personalized recommendation based on a clinical situation and/or a patient was included. Eleven CDSSs were identified through the search strategy. Of the 11 CDSSs, only 2 had been the subject of published studies, while 9 CDSSs were identified through smartphone application stores and expert knowledge. The majority of CDSSs were available free of charge (n = 8/11, 73%). Most CDSSs were accessible via smartphone applications (n = 9/11, 82%) and online websites (n = 8/11, 73%). Recommendations for antibiotic prescribing in urinary tract infections, upper and lower respiratory tract infections, and digestive tract infections were provided by over 90% of the CDSSs. More than 90% of the CDSSs displayed recommendations for antibiotic selection, prioritization, dosage, duration, route of administration, and alternative antibiotics in case of allergy. Information about antibiotic side effects, prescription recommendations for specific patient profiles and adaptation to local epidemiology were often missing or incomplete. There is a significant but heterogeneous offer for antibiotic prescribing decision support in French language. Standardized evaluation of these systems is needed to assess their impact on antimicrobial prescribing and antimicrobial resistance.
| S-EPMC8944435 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe use of computerized clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) may improve chronic disease management, which requires recurrent visits to multiple health professionals, ongoing disease and treatment monitoring, and patient behavior modification. The objective of this review was to determine if CCDSSs improve the processes of chronic care (such as diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of disease) and associated patient outcomes (such as effects on biomarkers and clinical exacerbations).MethodsWe conducted a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Ovid's EBM Reviews database, Inspec, and reference lists for potentially eligible articles published up to January 2010. We included randomized controlled trials that compared the use of CCDSSs to usual practice or non-CCDSS controls. Trials were eligible if at least one component of the CCDSS was designed to support chronic disease management. We considered studies 'positive' if they showed a statistically significant improvement in at least 50% of relevant outcomes.ResultsOf 55 included trials, 87% (n = 48) measured system impact on the process of care and 52% (n = 25) of those demonstrated statistically significant improvements. Sixty-five percent (36/55) of trials measured impact on, typically, non-major (surrogate) patient outcomes, and 31% (n = 11) of those demonstrated benefits. Factors of interest to decision makers, such as cost, user satisfaction, system interface and feature sets, unique design and deployment characteristics, and effects on user workflow were rarely investigated or reported.ConclusionsA small majority (just over half) of CCDSSs improved care processes in chronic disease management and some improved patient health. Policy makers, healthcare administrators, and practitioners should be aware that the evidence of CCDSS effectiveness is limited, especially with respect to the small number and size of studies measuring patient outcomes.
| S-EPMC3170626 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundComputerized clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) for drug therapy management are designed to promote safe and effective medication use. Evidence documenting the effectiveness of CCDSSs for improving drug therapy is necessary for informed adoption decisions. The objective of this review was to systematically review randomized controlled trials assessing the effects of CCDSSs for drug therapy management on process of care and patient outcomes. We also sought to identify system and study characteristics that predicted benefit.MethodsWe conducted a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review. We updated our earlier reviews (1998, 2005) by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, Inspec, and other databases, and consulting reference lists through January 2010. Authors of 82% of included studies confirmed or supplemented extracted data. We included only randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effect on process of care or patient outcomes of a CCDSS for drug therapy management compared to care provided without a CCDSS. A study was considered to have a positive effect (i.e., CCDSS showed improvement) if at least 50% of the relevant study outcomes were statistically significantly positive.ResultsSixty-five studies met our inclusion criteria, including 41 new studies since our previous review. Methodological quality was generally high and unchanged with time. CCDSSs improved process of care performance in 37 of the 59 studies assessing this type of outcome (64%, 57% of all studies). Twenty-nine trials assessed patient outcomes, of which six trials (21%, 9% of all trials) reported improvements.ConclusionsCCDSSs inconsistently improved process of care measures and seldomly improved patient outcomes. Lack of clear patient benefit and lack of data on harms and costs preclude a recommendation to adopt CCDSSs for drug therapy management.
| S-EPMC3179735 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAntibiotic resistance is a major health threat. Inappropriate antibiotic use has been shown to be an important determinant of the emergence of antibiotic resistance. Decision support systems for antimicrobial management can support clinicians to optimize antibiotic prescription.ObjectiveThe aim of this systematic review is to identify factors influencing the implementation of decision support systems for antibiotic prescription in hospitals.MethodsA systematic search of factors impeding or facilitating successful implementation of decision support systems for antibiotic prescription was performed in January 2022 in the databases PubMed, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library. Only studies were included which comprised decision support systems in hospitals for prescribing antibiotic therapy, published in English with a qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods study design and between 2011 and 2021. Factors influencing the implementation were identified through text analysis by two reviewers.ResultsA total of 14 publications were identified matching the inclusion criteria. The majority of factors relate to technological and organizational aspects of decision support system implementation. Some factors include the integration of the decision support systems into existing systems, system design, consideration of potential end-users as well as training and support for end-users. In addition, user-related factors, like user attitude towards the system, computer literacy and prior experience with the system seem to be important for successful implementation of decision support systems for antibiotic prescription in hospitals.ConclusionThe results indicate a broad spectrum of factors of decision support system implementation for antibiotic prescription and contributes to the literature by identifying important organizational as well as user-related factors. Wider organizational dimensions as well as the interaction between user and technology appear important for supporting implementation.
| S-EPMC9903563 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInappropriate antimicrobial use, such as antibiotic intake in viral infections, incorrect dosing and incorrect dosing cycles, has been shown to be an important determinant of the emergence of antimicrobial resistance. Artificial intelligence-based decision support systems represent a potential solution for improving antimicrobial prescribing and containing antimicrobial resistance by supporting clinical decision-making thus optimizing antibiotic use and improving patient outcomes.ObjectiveThe aim of this research was to examine implementation factors of artificial intelligence-based decision support systems for antibiotic prescription in hospitals from the perspective of the hospital managers, who have decision-making authority for the organization.MethodsAn online survey was conducted between December 2022 and May 2023 with managers of German hospitals on factors for decision support system implementation. Survey responses were analyzed from 118 respondents through descriptive statistics.ResultsSurvey participants reported openness towards the use of artificial intelligence-based decision support systems for antibiotic prescription in hospitals but little self-perceived knowledge in this field. Artificial intelligence-based decision support systems appear to be a promising opportunity to improve quality of care and increase treatment safety. Along with the Human-Organization-Technology-fit model attitudes were presented. In particular, user-friendliness of the system and compatibility with existing technical structures are considered to be important for implementation. The uptake of decision support systems also depends on the ability of an organization to create a facilitating environment that helps to address the lack of user knowledge as well as trust in and skepticism towards these systems. This includes the training of user groups and support of the management level. Besides, it has been assessed to be important that potential users are open towards change and perceive an added value of the use of artificial intelligence-based decision support systems.ConclusionThe survey has revealed the perspective of hospital managers on different factors that may help to address implementation challenges for artificial intelligence-based decision support systems in antibiotic prescribing. By combining factors of user perceptions about the systems´ perceived benefits with external factors of system design requirements and contextual conditions, the findings highlight the need for a holistic implementation framework of artificial intelligence-based decision support systems.
| S-EPMC11020884 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveComputerised clinical decision support systems (CDSS) are an increasingly important part of nurse and allied health professional (AHP) roles in delivering healthcare. The impact of these technologies on these health professionals' performance and patient outcomes has not been systematically reviewed. We aimed to conduct a systematic review to investigate this.Materials and methodsThe following bibliographic databases and grey literature sources were searched by an experienced Information Professional for published and unpublished research from inception to February 2021 without language restrictions: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase Classic+Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), HMIC (Ovid), AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine) (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Wiley), Social Sciences Citation Index Expanded (Clarivate), ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Abstracts & Index, ProQuest ASSIA (Applied Social Science Index and Abstract), Clinical Trials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry (ICTRP), Health Services Research Projects in Progress (HSRProj), OpenClinical(www.OpenClinical.org), OpenGrey (www.opengrey.eu), Health.IT.gov, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (www.ahrq.gov). Any comparative research studies comparing CDSS with usual care were eligible for inclusion.ResultsA total of 36 106 non-duplicate records were identified. Of 35 included studies: 28 were randomised trials, three controlled-before-and-after studies, three interrupted-time-series and one non-randomised trial. There were ~1318 health professionals and ~67 595 patient participants in the studies. Most studies focused on nurse decision-makers (71%) or paramedics (5.7%). CDSS as a standalone Personal Computer/LAPTOP-technology was a feature of 88.7% of the studies; only 8.6% of the studies involved 'smart' mobile/handheld-technology.DiscussionCDSS impacted 38% of the outcome measures used positively. Care processes were better in 47% of the measures adopted; examples included, nurses' adherence to hand disinfection guidance, insulin dosing, on-time blood sampling and documenting care. Patient care outcomes in 40.7% of indicators were better; examples included, lower numbers of falls and pressure ulcers, better glycaemic control, screening of malnutrition and obesity and triaging appropriateness.ConclusionCDSS may have a positive impact on selected aspects of nurses' and AHPs' performance and care outcomes. However, comparative research is generally low quality, with a wide range of heterogeneous outcomes. After more than 13 years of synthesised research into CDSS in healthcare professions other than medicine, the need for better quality evaluative research remains as pressing.
| S-EPMC8679061 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWell-established electronic data capture in UK general practice means that algorithms, developed on patient data, can be used for automated clinical decision support systems (CDSSs). These can predict patient risk, help with prescribing safety, improve diagnosis and prompt clinicians to record extra data. However, there is persistent evidence of low uptake of CDSSs in the clinic. We interviewed UK General Practitioners (GPs) to understand what features of CDSSs, and the contexts of their use, facilitate or present barriers to their use.MethodsWe interviewed 11 practicing GPs in London and South England using a semi-structured interview schedule and discussed a hypothetical CDSS that could detect early signs of dementia. We applied thematic analysis to the anonymised interview transcripts.ResultsWe identified three overarching themes: trust in individual CDSSs; usability of individual CDSSs; and usability of CDSSs in the broader practice context, to which nine subthemes contributed. Trust was affected by CDSS provenance, perceived threat to autonomy and clear management guidance. Usability was influenced by sensitivity to the patient context, CDSS flexibility, ease of control, and non-intrusiveness. CDSSs were more likely to be used by GPs if they did not contribute to alert proliferation and subsequent fatigue, or if GPs were provided with training in their use.ConclusionsBuilding on these findings we make a number of recommendations for CDSS developers to consider when bringing a new CDSS into GP patient records systems. These include co-producing CDSS with GPs to improve fit within clinic workflow and wider practice systems, ensuring a high level of accuracy and a clear clinical pathway, and providing CDSS training for practice staff. These recommendations may reduce the proliferation of unhelpful alerts that can result in important decision-support being ignored.
| S-EPMC8215812 | biostudies-literature