Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review - PubMed (original) (raw)

Review

. 2005 Mar 9;293(10):1223-38.

doi: 10.1001/jama.293.10.1223.

Affiliations

• PMID: 15755945
• DOI: 10.1001/jama.293.10.1223

Review

Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review

Amit X Garg et al. JAMA. 2005.

Abstract

Context: Developers of health care software have attributed improvements in patient care to these applications. As with any health care intervention, such claims require confirmation in clinical trials.

Objectives: To review controlled trials assessing the effects of computerized clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) and to identify study characteristics predicting benefit.

Data sources: We updated our earlier reviews by searching the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Inspec, and ISI databases and consulting reference lists through September 2004. Authors of 64 primary studies confirmed data or provided additional information.

Study selection: We included randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials that evaluated the effect of a CDSS compared with care provided without a CDSS on practitioner performance or patient outcomes.

Data extraction: Teams of 2 reviewers independently abstracted data on methods, setting, CDSS and patient characteristics, and outcomes.

Data synthesis: One hundred studies met our inclusion criteria. The number and methodologic quality of studies improved over time. The CDSS improved practitioner performance in 62 (64%) of the 97 studies assessing this outcome, including 4 (40%) of 10 diagnostic systems, 16 (76%) of 21 reminder systems, 23 (62%) of 37 disease management systems, and 19 (66%) of 29 drug-dosing or prescribing systems. Fifty-two trials assessed 1 or more patient outcomes, of which 7 trials (13%) reported improvements. Improved practitioner performance was associated with CDSSs that automatically prompted users compared with requiring users to activate the system (success in 73% of trials vs 47%; P = .02) and studies in which the authors also developed the CDSS software compared with studies in which the authors were not the developers (74% success vs 28%; respectively, P = .001).

Conclusions: Many CDSSs improve practitioner performance. To date, the effects on patient outcomes remain understudied and, when studied, inconsistent.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

• Computer technology and clinical work: still waiting for Godot.
  Wears RL, Berg M. Wears RL, et al. JAMA. 2005 Mar 9;293(10):1261-3. doi: 10.1001/jama.293.10.1261. JAMA. 2005. PMID: 15755949 No abstract available.

Similar articles

• Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems on physician performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review.
  Hunt DL, Haynes RB, Hanna SE, Smith K. Hunt DL, et al. JAMA. 1998 Oct 21;280(15):1339-46. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.15.1339. JAMA. 1998. PMID: 9794315
• Computerised decision support systems in order communication for diagnostic, screening or monitoring test ordering: systematic reviews of the effects and cost-effectiveness of systems.
  Main C, Moxham T, Wyatt JC, Kay J, Anderson R, Stein K. Main C, et al. Health Technol Assess. 2010 Oct;14(48):1-227. doi: 10.3310/hta14480. Health Technol Assess. 2010. PMID: 21034668 Review.
• Computerized decision support systems in primary care for type 2 diabetes patients only improve patients' outcomes when combined with feedback on performance and case management: a systematic review.
  Cleveringa FG, Gorter KJ, van den Donk M, van Gijsel J, Rutten GE. Cleveringa FG, et al. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2013 Feb;15(2):180-92. doi: 10.1089/dia.2012.0201. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2013. PMID: 23360424 Review.
• The impact of pharmacy computerised clinical decision support on prescribing, clinical and patient outcomes: a systematic review of the literature.
  Robertson J, Walkom E, Pearson SA, Hains I, Williamsone M, Newby D. Robertson J, et al. Int J Pharm Pract. 2010 Apr;18(2):69-87. Int J Pharm Pract. 2010. PMID: 20441116 Review.
• Effects of computerized decision support systems on nursing performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review.
  Randell R, Mitchell N, Dowding D, Cullum N, Thompson C. Randell R, et al. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007 Oct;12(4):242-9. doi: 10.1258/135581907782101543. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007. PMID: 17925077 Review.

Cited by

• The implementation and acceptability of an HPV vaccination decision support system directed at both clinicians and families.
  Mayne S, Karavite D, Grundmeier RW, Localio R, Feemster K, DeBartolo E, Hughes CC, Fiks AG. Mayne S, et al. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2012;2012:616-24. Epub 2012 Nov 3. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2012. PMID: 23304334 Free PMC article.
• Barriers and Facilitators to Adoption of a Web-based Antibiotic Decision Support System.
  Zaidi ST, Marriott JL. Zaidi ST, et al. South Med Rev. 2012 Dec;5(2):42-50. Epub 2012 Dec 27. South Med Rev. 2012. PMID: 23532767 Free PMC article.
• Evaluation of medical decision support systems (DDX generators) using real medical cases of varying complexity and origin.
  Fritz P, Kleinhans A, Raoufi R, Sediqi A, Schmid N, Schricker S, Schanz M, Fritz-Kuisle C, Dalquen P, Firooz H, Stauch G, Alscher MD. Fritz P, et al. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2022 Sep 24;22(1):254. doi: 10.1186/s12911-022-01988-2. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2022. PMID: 36153527 Free PMC article.
• Validity of the Espiro Mobile Application in the Interpretation of Spirometric Patterns: An App Accuracy Study.
  Savic-Pesic D, Chamorro N, Lopez-Rodriguez V, Daniel-Diez J, Torres Creixenti A, El Mesnaoui MI, Benavides Navas VK, Castellanos Cotte JD, Abellan Cano I, Da Costa Azevedo FA, Trenza Peñas M, Voelcker-Sala I, Villalobos F, Satue-Gracia EM, Martin-Lujan F. Savic-Pesic D, et al. Diagnostics (Basel). 2023 Dec 22;14(1):29. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics14010029. Diagnostics (Basel). 2023. PMID: 38201338 Free PMC article.
• Understanding why clinicians answer or ignore clinical decision support prompts.
  Carroll AE, Anand V, Downs SM. Carroll AE, et al. Appl Clin Inform. 2012 Aug 1;3(3):309-17. doi: 10.4338/ACI-2012-04-RA-0013. Print 2012. Appl Clin Inform. 2012. PMID: 23646078 Free PMC article.

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources

• Full Text Sources

  • Ovid Technologies, Inc.
  • Silverchair Information Systems

• Other Literature Sources

  • The Lens - Patent Citations Database

• Research Materials

  • NCI CPTC Antibody Characterization Program

• Miscellaneous

  • NCI CPTAC Assay Portal