Computerised decision support systems for healthcare professionals: an interpretative review.

Kathrin Cresswell, Azeem Majeed, David W Bates, Aziz Sheikh
{"title":"Computerised decision support systems for healthcare professionals: an interpretative review.","authors":"Kathrin Cresswell,&nbsp;Azeem Majeed,&nbsp;David W Bates,&nbsp;Aziz Sheikh","doi":"10.14236/jhi.v20i2.32","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Computerised decision support systems are designed to support clinicians in making decisions and thereby enhance the quality and safety of care. We aimed to undertake an interpretative review of the empirical evidence on computerised decision support systems, their contexts of use, and summarise evidence on the effectiveness of these tools and insights into how these can be successfully implemented and adopted.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically searched the empirical literature to identify systematic literature reviews on computerised decision support applications and their impact on the quality and safety of healthcare delivery over a 13-year period (1997-2010). The databases searched included: MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, The Cochrane Methodology Register, The Health Technology Assessment Database, and The National Health Service (NHS) Economic Evaluation Database. To be eligible for inclusion, systematic reviews needed to address computerised decision support systems, and at least one of the following: impact on safety; quality; or organisational, implementation or adoption considerations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our searches yielded 121 systematic reviews relating to eHealth, of which we identified 41 as investigating computerised decision support systems. These indicated that, whilst there was a lack of investigating potential risks, such tools can result in improvements in practitioner performance in the promotion of preventive care and guideline adherence, particularly if specific information is available in real time and systems are effectively integrated into clinical workflows. However, the evidence regarding impact on patient outcomes was less clear-cut with reviews finding either no, inconsistent or modest benefits.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Whilst the potential of clinical decision support systems in improving, in particular, practitioner performance is considerable, such technology may also introduce new risks resulting not only from technical challenges (such as data inaccuracies) but also from disruption of clinical workflows. Moving forward, there is a need for system development, procurement and implementation to be characterised by a user 'pull' and then tailor systems to the needs of users.</p>","PeriodicalId":30591,"journal":{"name":"Informatics in Primary Care","volume":"20 2","pages":"115-28"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"84","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Informatics in Primary Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14236/jhi.v20i2.32","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 84

Abstract

Purpose: Computerised decision support systems are designed to support clinicians in making decisions and thereby enhance the quality and safety of care. We aimed to undertake an interpretative review of the empirical evidence on computerised decision support systems, their contexts of use, and summarise evidence on the effectiveness of these tools and insights into how these can be successfully implemented and adopted.

Methods: We systematically searched the empirical literature to identify systematic literature reviews on computerised decision support applications and their impact on the quality and safety of healthcare delivery over a 13-year period (1997-2010). The databases searched included: MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, The Cochrane Methodology Register, The Health Technology Assessment Database, and The National Health Service (NHS) Economic Evaluation Database. To be eligible for inclusion, systematic reviews needed to address computerised decision support systems, and at least one of the following: impact on safety; quality; or organisational, implementation or adoption considerations.

Results: Our searches yielded 121 systematic reviews relating to eHealth, of which we identified 41 as investigating computerised decision support systems. These indicated that, whilst there was a lack of investigating potential risks, such tools can result in improvements in practitioner performance in the promotion of preventive care and guideline adherence, particularly if specific information is available in real time and systems are effectively integrated into clinical workflows. However, the evidence regarding impact on patient outcomes was less clear-cut with reviews finding either no, inconsistent or modest benefits.

Conclusions: Whilst the potential of clinical decision support systems in improving, in particular, practitioner performance is considerable, such technology may also introduce new risks resulting not only from technical challenges (such as data inaccuracies) but also from disruption of clinical workflows. Moving forward, there is a need for system development, procurement and implementation to be characterised by a user 'pull' and then tailor systems to the needs of users.

医疗保健专业人员的计算机化决策支持系统:解释性综述。
目的:计算机化决策支持系统旨在支持临床医生做出决策,从而提高护理的质量和安全性。我们的目标是对计算机化决策支持系统及其使用背景的经验证据进行解释性审查,并总结有关这些工具有效性的证据以及如何成功实施和采用这些工具的见解。方法:我们系统地检索了经验文献,以确定13年间(1997-2010)计算机化决策支持应用及其对医疗服务质量和安全的影响的系统文献综述。检索的数据库包括:MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane系统评价数据库、Cochrane效果评价摘要数据库、Cochrane对照试验中央注册库、Cochrane方学注册库、卫生技术评估数据库和国民健康服务(NHS)经济评价数据库。为了有资格纳入,系统评价需要解决计算机化决策支持系统,并且至少满足以下一项:对安全的影响;质量;或组织、实现或采用方面的考虑。结果:我们的搜索产生了121篇与电子健康相关的系统评论,其中我们确定了41篇调查计算机化决策支持系统。这些表明,虽然缺乏对潜在风险的调查,但这些工具可以改善医生在促进预防保健和遵守指南方面的表现,特别是如果实时提供特定信息并且系统有效地集成到临床工作流程中。然而,关于对患者结果的影响的证据不太明确,评论发现没有,不一致或适度的益处。结论:虽然临床决策支持系统在改善,特别是医生表现方面的潜力是相当大的,但这种技术也可能引入新的风险,不仅来自技术挑战(如数据不准确),还来自临床工作流程的中断。展望未来,系统开发、采购和实施需要以用户“拉动”为特征,然后根据用户的需要定制系统。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信