BACKGROUND: The compliance of physicians with the clinical practice guidelines (CPG) is insufficient and needs to be improved. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether standalone computerized CPG within the PRESGUID project could improve compliance with the recommendations than the use of CPG in textual format. METHOD: Comparative analyses of the responses made by two groups of resident physicians to a set of clinical cases. One group of residents had access to the CPG exclusively in textual format (paper document) while the second group had access to the CPG exclusively in computerized format within the PRESGUID software applications. RESULTS: The computable CPG are more efficient than the paper-based CPG regarding responses in compliance with the recommendations especially those judged to be relevant by an expert. CONCLUSION: These results should encourage the bodies responsible for diffusing CPG to promote the computable format and to facilitate the computerization process.
BACKGROUND: The compliance of physicians with the clinical practice guidelines (CPG) is insufficient and needs to be improved. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether standalone computerized CPG within the PRESGUID project could improve compliance with the recommendations than the use of CPG in textual format. METHOD: Comparative analyses of the responses made by two groups of resident physicians to a set of clinical cases. One group of residents had access to the CPG exclusively in textual format (paper document) while the second group had access to the CPG exclusively in computerized format within the PRESGUID software applications. RESULTS: The computable CPG are more efficient than the paper-based CPG regarding responses in compliance with the recommendations especially those judged to be relevant by an expert. CONCLUSION: These results should encourage the bodies responsible for diffusing CPG to promote the computable format and to facilitate the computerization process.
Authors: I Sim; P Gorman; R A Greenes; R B Haynes; B Kaplan; H Lehmann; P C Tang Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2001 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: A A Boxwala; S Tu; M Peleg; Q Zeng; O Ogunyemi; R A Greenes; E H Shortliffe; V L Patel Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Padmanabhan Ramnarayan; Ritika R Kapoor; Michael Coren; Vasantha Nanduri; Amanda L Tomlinson; Paul M Taylor; Jeremy C Wyatt; Joseph F Britto Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2003-08-04 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Samson W Tu; Mark A Musen; Ravi Shankar; James Campbell; Karen Hrabak; James McClay; Stanley M Huff; Robert McClure; Craig Parker; Roberto Rocha; Robert Abarbanel; Nick Beard; Julie Glasgow; Guy Mansfield; Prabhu Ram; Qin Ye; Eric Mays; Tony Weida; Christopher G Chute; Kevin McDonald; David Molu; Mark A Nyman; Sidna Scheitel; Harold Solbrig; David A Zill; Mary K Goldstein Journal: Stud Health Technol Inform Date: 2004
Authors: Mor Peleg; Samson Tu; Jonathan Bury; Paolo Ciccarese; John Fox; Robert A Greenes; Richard Hall; Peter D Johnson; Neill Jones; Anand Kumar; Silvia Miksch; Silvana Quaglini; Andreas Seyfang; Edward H Shortliffe; Mario Stefanelli Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2003 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Dean F Sittig; Michael A Krall; Richard H Dykstra; Allen Russell; Homer L Chin Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2006-02-01 Impact factor: 2.796