Dataset Information

Effect of Interventions With a Clinical Decision Support System for Hospitalized Older Patients: Systematic Review Mapping Implementation and Design Factors.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) form an implementation strategy that can facilitate and support health care professionals in the care of older hospitalized patients.

Objective

Our study aims to systematically review the effects of CDSS interventions in older hospitalized patients. As a secondary aim, we aim to summarize the implementation and design factors described in effective and ineffective interventions and identify gaps in the current literature.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review with a search strategy combining the categories older patients, geriatric topic, hospital, CDSS, and intervention in the databases MEDLINE, Embase, and SCOPUS. We included controlled studies, extracted data of all reported outcomes, and potentially beneficial design and implementation factors. We structured these factors using the Grol and Wensing Implementation of Change model, the GUIDES (Guideline Implementation with Decision Support) checklist, and the two-stream model. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Effective Practice and Organisation of Care risk of bias approach.

Results

Our systematic review included 18 interventions, of which 13 (72%) were effective in improving care. Among these interventions, 8 (6 effective) focused on medication review, 8 (6 effective) on delirium, 7 (4 effective) on falls, 5 (4 effective) on functional decline, 4 (3 effective) on discharge or aftercare, and 2 (0 effective) on pressure ulcers. In 77% (10/13) effective interventions, the effect was based on process-related outcomes, in 15% (2/13) interventions on both process- and patient-related outcomes, and in 8% (1/13) interventions on patient-related outcomes. The following implementation and design factors were potentially associated with effectiveness: a priori problem or performance analyses (described in 9/13, 69% effective vs 0/5, 0% ineffective interventions), multifaceted interventions (8/13, 62% vs 1/5, 20%), and consideration of the workflow (9/13, 69% vs 1/5, 20%).

Conclusions

CDSS interventions can improve the hospital care of older patients, mostly on process-related outcomes. We identified 2 implementation factors and 1 design factor that were reported more frequently in articles on effective interventions. More studies with strong designs are needed to measure the effect of CDSS on relevant patient-related outcomes, investigate personalized (data-driven) interventions, and quantify the impact of implementation and design factors on CDSS effectiveness.

Trial registration

PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews): CRD42019124470; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=124470.

SUBMITTER: Damoiseaux-Volman BA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8325084 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundUnderstanding how to implement innovations in primary care practices is key to improve primary health care. Aiming to contribute to this understanding, we investigate the implementation of a clinical decision support system (CDSS) as part of the innovation fund project AdAM (01NVF16006). Originating from complexity theory, the practice change and development model (PCD) proposes several interdependent factors that enable organizational-level change and thus accounts for the complex settings of primary care practices. Leveraging the PCD, we seek to answer the following research questions: Which combinations of internal and external factors based on the PCD contribute to successful implementation in primary care practices? Given these results, how can implementation in the primary care setting be improved?MethodsWe analyzed the joint contributions of internal and external factors on implementation success using qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). QCA is a set-theoretic approach that allows to identify configurations of multiple factors that lead to one outcome (here: successful implementation of a CDSS in primary care practices). Using survey data, we conducted our analysis based on a sample of 224 primary care practices.ResultsWe identified two configurations of internal and external factors that likewise enable successful implementation. The first configuration enables implementation based on a combination of Strong Inside Motivation, High Capability for Development, and Strong Outside Motivation; the second configuration based on a combination of Strong Inside Motivators, Many Options for Development and the absence of High Capability for Development.ConclusionIn line with the PCD, our results demonstrate the importance of the combination of internal and external factors for implementation outcomes. Moreover, the two identified configurations show that different ways exist to achieve successful implementation in primary care practices.Trial registrationAdAM was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03430336 ) on February 6, 2018.

Project description:ImportanceScalable deprescribing interventions may reduce polypharmacy and the use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs); however, few studies have been large enough to evaluate the impact that deprescribing may have on adverse drug events (ADEs).ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of an electronic deprescribing decision support tool on ADEs after hospital discharge among older adults with polypharmacy.Design, setting, and participantsThis was a cluster randomized clinical trial of older (≥65 years) hospitalized patients with an expected survival of more than 3 months who were admitted to 1 of 11 acute care hospitals in Canada from August 22, 2017, to January 13, 2020. At admission, participants were taking 5 or more medications per day. Data analyses were performed from January 3, 2021, to September 23, 2021.InterventionsPersonalized reports of deprescribing opportunities generated by MedSafer software to address usual home medications and measures of prognosis and frailty. Deprescribing reports provided to the treating team were compared with usual care (medication reconciliation).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was a reduction of ADEs within the first 30 days postdischarge (including adverse drug withdrawal events) captured through structured telephone surveys and adjudicated blinded to intervention status. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients with 1 or more PIMs deprescribed at discharge and the proportion of patients with an adverse drug withdrawal event (ADWE).ResultsA total of 5698 participants (median [range] age, 78 [72-85] years; 2858 [50.2%] women; race and ethnicity data were not collected) were enrolled in 3 clusters and were adjudicated for the primary outcome (control, 3204; intervention, 2494). Despite cluster randomization, there were group imbalances, eg, the participants in the intervention arm were older and had more PIMS prescribed at baseline. After hospital discharge, 4989 (87.6%) participants completed an ADE interview. There was no significant difference in ADEs within 30 days of discharge (138 [5.0%] of 2742 control vs 111 [4.9%] of 2247 intervention participants; adjusted risk difference [aRD] -0.8%; 95% CI, -2.9% to 1.3%). Deprescribing increased from 795 (29.8%) of 2667 control to 1249 (55.4%) of 2256 intervention participants [aRD, 22.2%; 95% CI, 16.9% to 27.4%]. There was no difference in ADWEs between groups. Several post hoc sensitivity analyses, including the use of a nonparametric test to address the low cluster number, group imbalances, and potential biases, did not alter study conclusions.Conclusions and relevanceThis cluster randomized clinical trial showed that providing deprescribing clinical decision support during acute hospitalization had no demonstrable impact on ADEs, although the intervention was safe and led to improvements in deprescribing.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03272607.

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.