Improving Clinical Practice Using Clinical Decision Support Systems: A Systematic Review of Trials to Identify Features Critical to Success

Objective To identify features of clinical decision support systems critical for improving clinical practice. Design Systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Data sources Literature searches via Medline, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register up to 2003; and searches of reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews. Study selection Studies had to evaluate the ability of decision support systems to improve clinical practice. Data extraction Studies were assessed for statistically and clinically significant improvement in clinical practice and for the presence of 15 decision support system features whose importance had been repeatedly suggested in the literature. Results Seventy studies were included. Decision support systems significantly improved clinical practice in 68% of trials. Univariate analyses revealed that, for five of the system features, interventions possessing the feature were significantly more likely to improve clinical practice than interventions lacking the feature. Multiple logistic regression analysis identified four features as independent predictors of improved clinical practice: automatic provision of decision support as part of clinician workflow (P \u3c 0.00001), provision of recommendations rather than just assessments (P = 0.0187), provision of decision support at the time and location of decision making (P = 0.0263), and computer based decision support (P = 0.0294). Of 32 systems possessing all four features, 30 (94%) significantly improved clinical practice. Furthermore, direct experimental justification was found for providing periodic performance feedback, sharing recommendations with patients, and requesting documentation of reasons for not following recommendations. Conclusions Several features were closely correlated with decision support systems\u27 ability to improve patient care significantly. Clinicians and other stakeholders should implement clinical decision support systems that incorporate these features whenever feasible and appropriate

System-Agnostic Clinical Decision Support Services: Benefits and Challenges for Scalable Decision Support

System-agnostic clinical decision support (CDS) services provide patient evaluation capabilities that are independent of specific CDS systems and system implementation contexts. While such system-agnostic CDS services hold great potential for facilitating the widespread implementation of CDS systems, little has been described regarding the benefits and challenges of their use. In this manuscript, the authors address this need by describing potential benefits and challenges of using a system-agnostic CDS service. This analysis is based on the authors’ formal assessments of, and practical experiences with, various approaches to developing, implementing, and maintaining CDS capabilities. In particular, the analysis draws on the authors’ experience developing and leveraging a system-agnostic CDS Web service known as SEBASTIAN. A primary potential benefit of using a system-agnostic CDS service is the relative ease and flexibility with which the service can be leveraged to implement CDS capabilities across applications and care settings. Other important potential benefits include facilitation of centralized knowledge management and knowledge sharing; the potential to support multiple underlying knowledge representations and knowledge resources through a common service interface; improved simplicity and componentization; easier testing and validation; and the enabling of distributed CDS system development. Conversely, important potential challenges include the increased effort required to develop knowledge resources capable of being used in many contexts and the critical need to standardize the service interface. Despite these challenges, our experiences to date indicate that the benefits of using a system-agnostic CDS service generally outweigh the challenges of using this approach to implementing and maintaining CDS systems

Long-term Outcomes of the FRESH START Trial: Exploring the Role of Self-efficacy in Cancer Survivors’ Maintenance of Dietary Practices and Physical Activity

Background: This study examined whether changes in self-efficacy explain the effects of a mailed print intervention on long-term dietary practices of breast and prostate cancer survivors. The relationship between change in self-efficacy and long-term physical activity (PA) also was examined. Methods: Breast and prostate cancer survivors (N = 543) from 39 US states and two Canadian provinces participated in the FRESH START intervention trial. Participants were randomly assigned to receive a 10-month program of mailed print materials on diet and PA available in the public domain or a 10-month program of tailored materials designed to increase fruit and vegetable (F&V) intake, decrease fat intake, and/or increase PA. Changes in self-efficacy for F&V intake and fat restriction were analyzed as potential mediators of the intervention's effects on diet at 2-year follow-up. Because we previously found that change in self-efficacy for PA did not vary by group assignment, the relationship between change in self-efficacy and PA at 2-year follow-up was examined across study conditions. Results: Results suggest that change in self-efficacy for fat restriction partially explained the intervention's effect on fat intake (mean indirect effect = -0.28), and change in self-efficacy for F&V consumption partially explained the intervention's effect on daily F&V intake (mean indirect effect = .11). Change in self-efficacy for fat restriction partially accounted for the intervention's impact on overall diet quality among men only (mean indirect effect = 0.60). Finally, change in self-efficacy for PA predicted PA at 2-year follow-up. Conclusions: Findings suggest that self-efficacy may influence long-term maintenance of healthy lifestyle practices among cancer survivors

Long-Term Dietary Outcomes of the FRESH START Intervention for Breast and Prostate Cancer Survivors

Background Cancer survivors are at increased risk for secondary cancers and other diseases. Healthy dietary practices may improve cancer survivors' health and well-being. Objective The durability of the effects of the FRESH START intervention, a program of sequentially tailored mailed materials, and standardized mailed materials (for controls) on cancer survivors' dietary outcomes was assessed over a 2-year period. Greater dietary gains were expected for FRESH START participants relative to controls. Design Participants were randomized to receive tailored vs standardized 10-month mailed print interventions promoting diet and exercise behaviors. Data were collected at baseline and 1- and 2-year follow-ups. Participants/setting Breast and prostate cancer survivors (n=543) were recruited from 39 states and two provinces within North America. A total of 489 participants completed the 2-year follow-up assessment (10% attrition). Intervention Participants were randomly assigned to either a 10-month program of tailored mailed print materials promoting fruit and vegetable consumption, reduced total and saturated fat intake, and/or increased exercise or to a 10-month program of publicly available mailed materials on diet and exercise. Main outcome measures Telephone surveys (supported with blood biomarkers) assessed dietary habits at baseline and 1- and 2-year follow-ups. Statistical analyses performed Paired-samples t tests were conducted to examine the durability of the intervention's effects on dietary outcomes within each study arm. Arm differences in follow-up outcomes were then tested with the general linear model, controlling for the baseline value of the outcomes. Results Both arms reported decreased saturated fat intake, increased servings of fruits and vegetables, and better overall diet quality at year 2 relative to baseline. However, FRESH START participants reported better overall diet quality and lower total and saturated fat intake compared to controls at the 2-year follow-up. Conclusions Results suggest that mailed material interventions, especially those that are tailored, can produce long-term dietary improvement among cancer survivors

Change in self-efficacy partially mediates the effects of the FRESH START intervention on cancer survivors' dietary outcomes

Objective: This study examined change in self-efficacy as a mediator of the effects of a mailed print intervention on the dietary and exercise practices of newly diagnosed breast and prostate cancer survivors. Method: A total of 543 breast and prostate cancer patients were recruited from 39 states and two provinces within North America. Participants were randomly assigned to receive a 10-month program of tailored mailed print materials that aimed to increase fruit and vegetable consumption, reduce fat intake, and/or increase exercise or a 10-month program of publically available materials on diet and exercise. Telephone surveys conducted at baseline and 1 year assessed dietary practices, physical activity, and self-efficacy for engaging in these health behaviors. Results: Results indicated that changes in self-efficacy for fat restriction and eating more fruits and vegetables were significant mediators of the intervention's effects on dietary outcomes at 1-year follow-up. The intervention did not significantly affect self-efficacy for exercise; however, a significant, positive relationship was found between self-efficacy for exercise and exercise duration at follow-up. Conclusions: Findings are largely consistent with Social Cognitive Theory and support the use of strategies to increase self-efficacy in health promotion interventions for cancer survivors. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd

A national clinical decision support infrastructure to enable the widespread and consistent practice of genomic and personalized medicine

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In recent years, the completion of the Human Genome Project and other rapid advances in genomics have led to increasing anticipation of an era of genomic and personalized medicine, in which an individual's health is optimized through the use of all available patient data, including data on the individual's genome and its downstream products. Genomic and personalized medicine could transform healthcare systems and catalyze significant reductions in morbidity, mortality, and overall healthcare costs.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Critical to the achievement of more efficient and effective healthcare enabled by genomics is the establishment of a robust, nationwide clinical decision support infrastructure that assists clinicians in their use of genomic assays to guide disease prevention, diagnosis, and therapy. Requisite components of this infrastructure include the standardized representation of genomic and non-genomic patient data across health information systems; centrally managed repositories of computer-processable medical knowledge; and standardized approaches for applying these knowledge resources against patient data to generate and deliver patient-specific care recommendations. Here, we provide recommendations for establishing a national decision support infrastructure for genomic and personalized medicine that fulfills these needs, leverages existing resources, and is aligned with the <it>Roadmap for National Action on Clinical Decision Support </it>commissioned by the U.S. Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology. Critical to the establishment of this infrastructure will be strong leadership and substantial funding from the federal government.</p> <p>Summary</p> <p>A national clinical decision support infrastructure will be required for reaping the full benefits of genomic and personalized medicine. Essential components of this infrastructure include standards for data representation; centrally managed knowledge repositories; and standardized approaches for leveraging these knowledge repositories to generate patient-specific care recommendations at the point of care.</p

Standards for Scalable Clinical Decision Support: Need, Current and Emerging Standards, Gaps, and Proposal for Progress

Despite their potential to significantly improve health care, advanced clinical decision support (CDS) capabilities are not widely available in the clinical setting. An important reason for this limited availability of CDS capabilities is the application-specific and institution-specific nature of most current CDS implementations. Thus, a critical need for enabling CDS capabilities on a much larger scale is the development and adoption of standards that enable current and emerging CDS resources to be more effectively leveraged across multiple applications and care settings. Standards required for such effective scaling of CDS include (i) standard terminologies and information models to represent and communicate about health care data; (ii) standard approaches to representing clinical knowledge in both human-readable and machine-executable formats; and (iii) standard approaches for leveraging these knowledge resources to provide CDS capabilities across various applications and care settings. A number of standards do exist or are under development to meet these needs. However, many gaps and challenges remain, including the excessive complexity of many standards; the limited availability of easily accessible knowledge resources implemented using standard approaches; and the lack of tooling and other practical resources to enable the efficient adoption of existing standards. Thus, the future development and widespread adoption of current CDS standards will depend critically on the availability of tooling, knowledge bases, and other resources that make the adoption of CDS standards not only the right approach to take, but the cost-effective path to follow given the alternative of using a traditional, ad hoc approach to implementing CDS

Can computerized clinical decision support systems improve practitioners' diagnostic test ordering behavior? A decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Underuse and overuse of diagnostic tests have important implications for health outcomes and costs. Decision support technology purports to optimize the use of diagnostic tests in clinical practice. The objective of this review was to assess whether computerized clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) are effective at improving ordering of tests for diagnosis, monitoring of disease, or monitoring of treatment. The outcome of interest was effect on the diagnostic test-ordering behavior of practitioners.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Ovid's EBM Reviews database, Inspec, and reference lists for eligible articles published up to January 2010. We included randomized controlled trials comparing the use of CCDSSs to usual practice or non-CCDSS controls in clinical care settings. Trials were eligible if at least one component of the CCDSS gave suggestions for ordering or performing a diagnostic procedure. We considered studies 'positive' if they showed a statistically significant improvement in at least 50% of test ordering outcomes.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Thirty-five studies were identified, with significantly higher methodological quality in those published after the year 2000 (<it>p </it>= 0.002). Thirty-three trials reported evaluable data on diagnostic test ordering, and 55% (18/33) of CCDSSs improved testing behavior overall, including 83% (5/6) for diagnosis, 63% (5/8) for treatment monitoring, 35% (6/17) for disease monitoring, and 100% (3/3) for other purposes. Four of the systems explicitly attempted to reduce test ordering rates and all succeeded. Factors of particular interest to decision makers include costs, user satisfaction, and impact on workflow but were rarely investigated or reported.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Some CCDSSs can modify practitioner test-ordering behavior. To better inform development and implementation efforts, studies should describe in more detail potentially important factors such as system design, user interface, local context, implementation strategy, and evaluate impact on user satisfaction and workflow, costs, and unintended consequences.</p