For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
27
views
60
references
 Top references
cited by
32
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      228
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The effectiveness of computerized clinical guidelines in the process of care: a systematic review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Clinical practice guidelines have been developed aiming to improve the quality of care. The implementation of the computerized clinical guidelines (CCG) has been supported by the development of computerized clinical decision support systems.

          This systematic review assesses the impact of CCG on the process of care compared with non-computerized clinical guidelines.

          Methods

          Specific features of CCG were studied through an extensive search of scientific literature, querying electronic databases: Pubmed/Medline, Embase and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. A multivariable logistic regression was carried out to evaluate the association of CCG's features with positive effect on the process of care.

          Results

          Forty-five articles were selected. The logistic model showed that Automatic provision of recommendation in electronic version as part of clinician workflow (Odds Ratio [OR]= 17.5; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.6-193.7) and Publication Year (OR = 6.7; 95%CI: 1.3-34.3) were statistically significant predictors.

          Conclusions

          From the research that has been carried out, we can conclude that after implementation of CCG significant improvements in process of care are shown. Our findings also suggest clinicians, managers and other health care decision makers which features of CCG might improve the structure of computerized system.

          Related collections

          Most cited references60

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

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

          Amit X Garg, Neill K. J. Adhikari, Heather McDonald … (2005)
          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. To review controlled trials assessing the effects of computerized clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) and to identify study characteristics predicting benefit. 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. 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. Teams of 2 reviewers independently abstracted data on methods, setting, CDSS and patient characteristics, and outcomes. 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). Many CDSSs improve practitioner performance. To date, the effects on patient outcomes remain understudied and, when studied, inconsistent.
          Article 0 comments Cited 642 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems on physician performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review.

            Wilson K. Smith, James H Hunt, R. Brian Haynes … (1998)
            Many computer software developers and vendors claim that their systems can directly improve clinical decisions. As for other health care interventions, such claims should be based on careful trials that assess their effects on clinical performance and, preferably, patient outcomes. To systematically review controlled clinical trials assessing the effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) on physician performance and patient outcomes. We updated earlier reviews covering 1974 to 1992 by searching the MEDLINE, EMBASE, INSPEC, SCISEARCH, and the Cochrane Library bibliographic databases from 1992 to March 1998. Reference lists and conference proceedings were reviewed and evaluators of CDSSs were contacted. Studies were included if they involved the use of a CDSS in a clinical setting by a health care practitioner and assessed the effects of the system prospectively with a concurrent control. The validity of each relevant study (scored from 0-10) was evaluated in duplicate. Data on setting, subjects, computer systems, and outcomes were abstracted and a power analysis was done on studies with negative findings. A total of 68 controlled trials met our criteria, 40 of which were published since 1992. Quality scores ranged from 2 to 10, with more recent trials rating higher (mean, 7.7) than earlier studies (mean, 6.4) (P<.001). Effects on physician performance were assessed in 65 studies and 43 found a benefit (66%). These included 9 of 15 studies on drug dosing systems, 1 of 5 studies on diagnostic aids, 14 of 19 preventive care systems, and 19 of 26 studies evaluating CDSSs for other medical care. Six of 14 studies assessing patient outcomes found a benefit. Of the remaining 8 studies, only 3 had a power of greater than 80% to detect a clinically important effect. Published studies of CDSSs are increasing rapidly, and their quality is improving. The CDSSs can enhance clinical performance for drug dosing, preventive care, and other aspects of medical care, but not convincingly for diagnosis. The effects of CDSSs on patient outcomes have been insufficiently studied.
            Article 0 comments Cited 161 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Electronic alerts to prevent venous thromboembolism among hospitalized patients.

              M Paterno, M. J. Cooper, Samuel Z Goldhaber … (2005)
              Prophylaxis against deep-vein thrombosis in hospitalized patients remains underused. We hypothesized that the use of a computer-alert program to encourage prophylaxis might reduce the frequency of deep-vein thrombosis among high-risk hospitalized patients. We developed a computer program linked to the patient database to identify consecutive hospitalized patients at risk for deep-vein thrombosis in the absence of prophylaxis. The program used medical-record numbers to randomly assign 1255 eligible patients to an intervention group, in which the responsible physician was alerted to a patient's risk of deep-vein thrombosis, and 1251 patients to a control group, in which no alert was issued. The physician was required to acknowledge the alert and could then withhold or order prophylaxis, including graduated compression stockings, pneumatic compression boots, unfractionated heparin, low-molecular-weight heparin, or warfarin. The primary end point was clinically diagnosed, objectively confirmed deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism at 90 days. More patients in the intervention group than in the control group received mechanical prophylaxis (10.0 percent vs. 1.5 percent, P<0.001) or pharmacologic prophylaxis (23.6 percent vs. 13.0 percent, P<0.001). The primary end point occurred in 61 patients (4.9 percent) in the intervention group, as compared with 103 (8.2 percent) in the control group; the Kaplan-Meier estimates of the likelihood of freedom from deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism at 90 days were 94.1 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 92.5 to 95.4 percent) and 90.6 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 88.7 to 92.2 percent), respectively (P<0.001). The computer alert reduced the risk of deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism at 90 days by 41 percent (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.43 to 0.81; P=0.001). The institution of a computer-alert program increased physicians' use of prophylaxis and markedly reduced the rates of deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism among hospitalized patients at risk. Copyright 2005 Massachusetts Medical Society.
              Article 0 comments Cited 150 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): BMC Health Serv Res
                Title: BMC Health Services Research
                Publisher: BioMed Central
                ISSN (Electronic): 1472-6963
                Publication date Collection: 2010
                Publication date (Electronic): 4 January 2010
                Volume: 10
                Page: 2
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Public Health-Università Cattolica Sacro Cuore-Rome, Largo Francesco Vito 1, 00168, Rome, Italy
                [2 ]San Filippo Neri-Hospital Trust-Rome, Italy, Piazza di Santa Maria della Pietà 5, 00135, Rome, Italy
                [3 ]Oncological Referral Center of Basilicata (IRCCS CROB), Via Padre Pio 1, 85028, Rionero in Vulture, Potenza, Italy
                Article
                Publisher ID: 1472-6963-10-2
                DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-10-2
                PMC ID: 2837004
                PubMed ID: 20047686
                SO-VID: f900e628-0511-410d-9b0e-46a25ae7bf23
                Copyright © Copyright ©2010 Damiani et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
                License:

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Date received : 4 March 2009
                Date accepted : 4 January 2010
                Categories
                Subject: Research article

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Health & Social care
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Health & Social care

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content228

                See all similar

                Cited by32

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors1,072

                See all reference authors