BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Care for advanced CKD patients is suboptimal. CKD practice guidelines aim to close gaps in care, but making providers aware of guidelines is an ineffective implementation strategy. The Institute of Medicine has endorsed the use of clinical decision support (CDS) for implementing guidelines. The authors' objective was to identify the requirements of an optimal CDS system for CKD management. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, AND MEASUREMENTS: The aims of this study expanded on those of previous work that used the facilitated process improvement (FPI) methodology. In FPI, an expert workgroup develops a set of quality improvement tools that can subsequently be utilized by practicing physicians. The authors conducted a discussion with a group of multidisciplinary experts to identify requirements for an optimal CDS system. RESULTS: The panel considered the process of patient identification and management, associated barriers, and elements by which CDS could address these barriers. The panel also discussed specific knowledge needs in the context of a typical scenario in which CDS would be used. Finally, the group developed a set of core requirements that will likely facilitate the implementation of a CDS system aimed at improving the management of any chronic medical condition. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the growing burden of CKD and the potential healthcare and resource impact of guideline implementation through CDS, the relevance of this systematic process, consistent with Institute of Medicine recommendations, cannot be understated. The requirements described in this report could serve as a basis for the design of a CKD-specific CDS.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Care for advanced CKD patients is suboptimal. CKD practice guidelines aim to close gaps in care, but making providers aware of guidelines is an ineffective implementation strategy. The Institute of Medicine has endorsed the use of clinical decision support (CDS) for implementing guidelines. The authors' objective was to identify the requirements of an optimal CDS system for CKD management. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, AND MEASUREMENTS: The aims of this study expanded on those of previous work that used the facilitated process improvement (FPI) methodology. In FPI, an expert workgroup develops a set of quality improvement tools that can subsequently be utilized by practicing physicians. The authors conducted a discussion with a group of multidisciplinary experts to identify requirements for an optimal CDS system. RESULTS: The panel considered the process of patient identification and management, associated barriers, and elements by which CDS could address these barriers. The panel also discussed specific knowledge needs in the context of a typical scenario in which CDS would be used. Finally, the group developed a set of core requirements that will likely facilitate the implementation of a CDS system aimed at improving the management of any chronic medical condition. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the growing burden of CKD and the potential healthcare and resource impact of guideline implementation through CDS, the relevance of this systematic process, consistent with Institute of Medicine recommendations, cannot be understated. The requirements described in this report could serve as a basis for the design of a CKD-specific CDS.
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: Michael I Oppenheim; Cristina Vidal; Ferdinand T Velasco; Aurelia G Boyer; Mary Reich Cooper; Joseph G Hayes; William W Frayer Journal: Proc AMIA Symp Date: 2002
Authors: Allen R Nissenson; Allan J Collins; Judith Hurley; Hans Petersen; Brian J G Pereira; Earl P Steinberg Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: G M Chertow; J Lee; G J Kuperman; E Burdick; J Horsky; D L Seger; R Lee; A Mekala; J Song; A L Komaroff; D W Bates Journal: JAMA Date: 2001-12-12 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Annamaria T Kausz; Samina S Khan; Rekha Abichandani; Waqar H Kazmi; Gregorio T Obrador; Robin Ruthazer; Brian J G Pereira Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2001-07 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Bernhard Klebe; Chris Farmer; Roger Cooley; Simon de Lusignan; Rachel Middleton; Donal O'Donoghue; John New; Paul Stevens Journal: Fam Pract Date: 2007-06-24 Impact factor: 2.267
Authors: Khaled Abdel-Kader; Gary S Fischer; Jie Li; Charity G Moore; Rachel Hess; Mark L Unruh Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2011-10-07 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Karly A Murphy; Raquel C Greer; Debra L Roter; Deidra C Crews; Patti L Ephraim; Kathryn A Carson; Lisa A Cooper; Michael C Albert; L Ebony Boulware Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-11-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Michelle M Estrella; Bernard G Jaar; Kerri L Cavanaugh; Chester H Fox; Mark A Perazella; Sandeep S Soman; Emily Howell; Michael V Rocco; Michael J Choi Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2013-10-24 Impact factor: 2.388
Authors: Danielle M Nash; Noah M Ivers; Jacqueline Young; R Liisa Jaakkimainen; Amit X Garg; Karen Tu Journal: Can J Kidney Health Dis Date: 2017-04-05
Authors: Elaine C Khoong; Leah Karliner; Lowell Lo; Marilyn Stebbins; Andrew Robinson; Sarita Pathak; Jasmine Santoyo-Olsson; Rebecca Scherzer; Carmen A Peralta Journal: JMIR Res Protoc Date: 2019-06-07
Authors: Ning Shang; Atlas Khan; Fernanda Polubriaginof; Francesca Zanoni; Karla Mehl; David Fasel; Paul E Drawz; Robert J Carrol; Joshua C Denny; Matthew A Hathcock; Adelaide M Arruda-Olson; Peggy L Peissig; Richard A Dart; Murray H Brilliant; Eric B Larson; David S Carrell; Sarah Pendergrass; Shefali Setia Verma; Marylyn D Ritchie; Barbara Benoit; Vivian S Gainer; Elizabeth W Karlson; Adam S Gordon; Gail P Jarvik; Ian B Stanaway; David R Crosslin; Sumit Mohan; Iuliana Ionita-Laza; Nicholas P Tatonetti; Ali G Gharavi; George Hripcsak; Chunhua Weng; Krzysztof Kiryluk Journal: NPJ Digit Med Date: 2021-04-13