OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a personal digital assistant (PDA)-based clinical decision support system (CDSS) on nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) prescribing safety in the outpatient setting. DESIGN: The design was a randomized, controlled trial conducted in a university-based resident clinic. Internal medicine residents received a PDA-based CDSS suite. For intervention residents, the CDSS included a prediction rule for NSAID-related gastrointestinal risk assessment and treatment recommendations. Unannounced standardized patients (SPs) trained to portray musculoskeletal symptoms presented to study physicians. Safety outcomes were assessed from the prescriptions given to the SPs. Each prescription was reviewed by a committee of clinicians blinded to participant, intervention group assignment, and baseline or follow-up status. MEASUREMENTS: Prescriptions were judged as safe or unsafe. The main outcome measure was the differential change in unsafe prescribing of NSAIDs for the intervention versus the control group. RESULTS: At baseline, the mean proportion of cases per physician with unsafe prescriptions for the two groups was similar (0.27 vs. 0.29, p > 0.05). Controlling for baseline performance, intervention participants prescribed more safely than controls after receiving the CDSS (0.23 vs. 0.45 [F = 4.24, p < 0.05]). With the CDSS, intervention participants documented more complete assessment of patient gastrointestinal risk from NSAIDs. CONCLUSION: PARTICIPANTS provided with a PDA-based CDSS for NSAID prescribing made fewer unsafe treatment decisions than participants without the CDSS.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a personal digital assistant (PDA)-based clinical decision support system (CDSS) on nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) prescribing safety in the outpatient setting. DESIGN: The design was a randomized, controlled trial conducted in a university-based resident clinic. Internal medicine residents received a PDA-based CDSS suite. For intervention residents, the CDSS included a prediction rule for NSAID-related gastrointestinal risk assessment and treatment recommendations. Unannounced standardized patients (SPs) trained to portray musculoskeletal symptoms presented to study physicians. Safety outcomes were assessed from the prescriptions given to the SPs. Each prescription was reviewed by a committee of clinicians blinded to participant, intervention group assignment, and baseline or follow-up status. MEASUREMENTS: Prescriptions were judged as safe or unsafe. The main outcome measure was the differential change in unsafe prescribing of NSAIDs for the intervention versus the control group. RESULTS: At baseline, the mean proportion of cases per physician with unsafe prescriptions for the two groups was similar (0.27 vs. 0.29, p > 0.05). Controlling for baseline performance, intervention participants prescribed more safely than controls after receiving the CDSS (0.23 vs. 0.45 [F = 4.24, p < 0.05]). With the CDSS, intervention participants documented more complete assessment of patient gastrointestinal risk from NSAIDs. CONCLUSION:PARTICIPANTS provided with a PDA-based CDSS for NSAID prescribing made fewer unsafe treatment decisions than participants without the CDSS.
Authors: Jonathan M Teich; Jerome A Osheroff; Eric A Pifer; Dean F Sittig; Robert A Jenders Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2005-03-31 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: P S Wells; D R Anderson; M Rodger; J S Ginsberg; C Kearon; M Gent; A G Turpie; J Bormanis; J Weitz; M Chamberlain; D Bowie; D Barnes; J Hirsh Journal: Thromb Haemost Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 5.249
Authors: R J Cooper; J R Hoffman; J G Bartlett; R E Besser; R Gonzales; J M Hickner; M A Sande Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2001-03-20 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: F E Silverstein; G Faich; J L Goldstein; L S Simon; T Pincus; A Whelton; R Makuch; G Eisen; N M Agrawal; W F Stenson; A M Burr; W W Zhao; J D Kent; J B Lefkowith; K M Verburg; G S Geis Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-09-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: M J Fine; T E Auble; D M Yealy; B H Hanusa; L A Weissfeld; D E Singer; C M Coley; T J Marrie; W N Kapoor Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1997-01-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: C Bombardier; L Laine; A Reicin; D Shapiro; R Burgos-Vargas; B Davis; R Day; M B Ferraz; C J Hawkey; M C Hochberg; T K Kvien; T J Schnitzer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-11-23 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Josceli Maria Tenório; Anderson Diniz Hummel; Vera Lucia Sdepanian; Ivan Torres Pisa; Heimar de Fátima Marin Journal: J Health Inform Date: 2011 Jan-Mar
Authors: Midge N Ray; Thomas K Houston; Feliciano B Yu; Nir Menachemi; Richard S Maisiak; Jeroan J Allison; Eta S Berner Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2006-06-23 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Jeffrey M Rothschild; Edward Fang; Vincent Liu; Irina Litvak; Cathy Yoon; David W Bates Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2006-08-23 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Susan E Hauser; Dina Demner-Fushman; Joshua L Jacobs; Susanne M Humphrey; Glenn Ford; George R Thoma Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2007-08-21 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Chee Peng Hor; James M O'Donnell; Andrew W Murphy; Timothy O'Brien; Thomas J B Kropmans Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2010-01-12 Impact factor: 2.796