关于CDS失败的特刊:临床决策支持放射学适当使用标准的成本和收益:一项回顾性观察研究。

IF 2.1 2区 医学 Q4 MEDICAL INFORMATICS
Andrew Fischer Lees, Andrew White, Michael G Leu, Jeff Robinson, M Kennedy Hall, Robert Doerning
{"title":"关于CDS失败的特刊:临床决策支持放射学适当使用标准的成本和收益:一项回顾性观察研究。","authors":"Andrew Fischer Lees, Andrew White, Michael G Leu, Jeff Robinson, M Kennedy Hall, Robert Doerning","doi":"10.1055/a-2635-3820","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Appropriate Use Criteria Clinical Decision Support (AUC CDS) was legislatively mandated in the United States in 2014, and multiple CDS vendors were designated as qualified Clinical Decision Support Mechanisms by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Little is known about the costs and benefits of these systems in real-world settings.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We evaluated the effectiveness of an AUC CDS system and the time costs it imposes on clinicians at a US academic medical center.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Our academic medical center's enterprise data warehouse was queried for AUC CDS alert events and timestamps occurring between July 1, 2021 and June 30, 2022. We calculated percent of altered orders and alert-related timespans, and used these to calculate CDS positive predictive value (PPV), time costs, and the cost-benefit ratio of minutes of provider time per altered order. Based on the medical literature and expert opinion on well-performing CDS, we hypothesized a CDS PPV of 8%.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall PPV was 1%, leading us to reject our hypothesis that our AUC CDS was well performing (p < 0.001). Median time costs per alert were high (12 seconds load time, 2 seconds dwell time), yielding a CDS cost/benefit ratio of 38 provider minutes per altered order.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite using one of three market-leading AUC CDS tools, our CDS demonstrated long load times, short dwell times, and low PPV. Provider attention is not free - policymakers should consider both CDS effectiveness and costs (including time costs) when designing AUC policy.</p>","PeriodicalId":48956,"journal":{"name":"Applied Clinical Informatics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Special Issue on CDS Failures: The Costs and Benefits of Clinical Decision Support for Radiology Appropriate Use Criteria: A Retrospective Observational Study.\",\"authors\":\"Andrew Fischer Lees, Andrew White, Michael G Leu, Jeff Robinson, M Kennedy Hall, Robert Doerning\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/a-2635-3820\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Appropriate Use Criteria Clinical Decision Support (AUC CDS) was legislatively mandated in the United States in 2014, and multiple CDS vendors were designated as qualified Clinical Decision Support Mechanisms by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Little is known about the costs and benefits of these systems in real-world settings.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We evaluated the effectiveness of an AUC CDS system and the time costs it imposes on clinicians at a US academic medical center.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Our academic medical center's enterprise data warehouse was queried for AUC CDS alert events and timestamps occurring between July 1, 2021 and June 30, 2022. We calculated percent of altered orders and alert-related timespans, and used these to calculate CDS positive predictive value (PPV), time costs, and the cost-benefit ratio of minutes of provider time per altered order. Based on the medical literature and expert opinion on well-performing CDS, we hypothesized a CDS PPV of 8%.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall PPV was 1%, leading us to reject our hypothesis that our AUC CDS was well performing (p < 0.001). Median time costs per alert were high (12 seconds load time, 2 seconds dwell time), yielding a CDS cost/benefit ratio of 38 provider minutes per altered order.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite using one of three market-leading AUC CDS tools, our CDS demonstrated long load times, short dwell times, and low PPV. Provider attention is not free - policymakers should consider both CDS effectiveness and costs (including time costs) when designing AUC policy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48956,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Clinical Informatics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Clinical Informatics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2635-3820\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL INFORMATICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Clinical Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2635-3820","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:2014年,美国立法要求适当使用标准临床决策支持(AUC CDS),多个CDS供应商被医疗保险和医疗补助服务中心指定为合格的临床决策支持机制。人们对这些系统在现实环境中的成本和收益知之甚少。目的:我们评估了AUC CDS系统的有效性以及它对美国学术医疗中心临床医生施加的时间成本。方法:查询我院学术医疗中心企业数据仓库中发生于2021年7月1日至2022年6月30日之间的AUC CDS报警事件和时间戳。我们计算了更改订单的百分比和警报相关的时间跨度,并使用这些来计算CDS阳性预测值(PPV)、时间成本和每个更改订单的供应商时间分钟的成本效益比。根据医学文献和专家对表现良好的CDS的意见,我们假设CDS PPV为8%。结果:总体PPV为1%,导致我们拒绝我们的假设,即我们的AUC CDS表现良好(p < 0.001)。每次警报的平均时间成本很高(加载时间为12秒,停留时间为2秒),因此每次更改订单的CDS成本/效益比为38分钟。结论:尽管使用了三种市场领先的AUC CDS工具之一,但我们的CDS显示出加载时间长、停留时间短和PPV低。提供者的关注不是免费的,决策者在设计AUC政策时应同时考虑CDS的有效性和成本(包括时间成本)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Special Issue on CDS Failures: The Costs and Benefits of Clinical Decision Support for Radiology Appropriate Use Criteria: A Retrospective Observational Study.

Background: Appropriate Use Criteria Clinical Decision Support (AUC CDS) was legislatively mandated in the United States in 2014, and multiple CDS vendors were designated as qualified Clinical Decision Support Mechanisms by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Little is known about the costs and benefits of these systems in real-world settings.

Objectives: We evaluated the effectiveness of an AUC CDS system and the time costs it imposes on clinicians at a US academic medical center.

Methods: Our academic medical center's enterprise data warehouse was queried for AUC CDS alert events and timestamps occurring between July 1, 2021 and June 30, 2022. We calculated percent of altered orders and alert-related timespans, and used these to calculate CDS positive predictive value (PPV), time costs, and the cost-benefit ratio of minutes of provider time per altered order. Based on the medical literature and expert opinion on well-performing CDS, we hypothesized a CDS PPV of 8%.

Results: Overall PPV was 1%, leading us to reject our hypothesis that our AUC CDS was well performing (p < 0.001). Median time costs per alert were high (12 seconds load time, 2 seconds dwell time), yielding a CDS cost/benefit ratio of 38 provider minutes per altered order.

Conclusions: Despite using one of three market-leading AUC CDS tools, our CDS demonstrated long load times, short dwell times, and low PPV. Provider attention is not free - policymakers should consider both CDS effectiveness and costs (including time costs) when designing AUC policy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Applied Clinical Informatics
Applied Clinical Informatics MEDICAL INFORMATICS-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
24.10%
发文量
132
期刊介绍: ACI is the third Schattauer journal dealing with biomedical and health informatics. It perfectly complements our other journals Öffnet internen Link im aktuellen FensterMethods of Information in Medicine and the Öffnet internen Link im aktuellen FensterYearbook of Medical Informatics. The Yearbook of Medical Informatics being the “Milestone” or state-of-the-art journal and Methods of Information in Medicine being the “Science and Research” journal of IMIA, ACI intends to be the “Practical” journal of IMIA.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信