BACKGROUND: The opportunity to improve care by delivering decision support to clinicians at the point of care represents one of the main incentives for implementing sophisticated clinical information systems. Previous reviews of computer reminder and decision support systems have reported mixed effects, possibly because they did not distinguish point of care computer reminders from e-mail alerts, computer-generated paper reminders, and other modes of delivering 'computer reminders'. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects on processes and outcomes of care attributable to on-screen computer reminders delivered to clinicians at the point of care. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane EPOC Group Trials register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL and CENTRAL to July 2008, and scanned bibliographies from key articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies of a reminder delivered via a computer system routinely used by clinicians, with a randomised or quasi-randomised design and reporting at least one outcome involving a clinical endpoint or adherence to a recommended process of care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened studies for eligibility and abstracted data. For each study, we calculated the median improvement in adherence to target processes of care and also identified the outcome with the largest such improvement. We then calculated the median absolute improvement in process adherence across all studies using both the median outcome from each study and the best outcome. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies (reporting a total of thirty-two comparisons) were included. Computer reminders achieved a median improvement in process adherence of 4.2% (interquartile range (IQR): 0.8% to 18.8%) across all reported process outcomes, 3.3% (IQR: 0.5% to 10.6%) for medication ordering, 3.8% (IQR: 0.5% to 6.6%) for vaccinations, and 3.8% (IQR: 0.4% to 16.3%) for test ordering. In a sensitivity analysis using the best outcome from each study, the median improvement was 5.6% (IQR: 2.0% to 19.2%) across all process measures and 6.2% (IQR: 3.0% to 28.0%) across measures of medication ordering. In the eight comparisons that reported dichotomous clinical endpoints, intervention patients experienced a median absolute improvement of 2.5% (IQR: 1.3% to 4.2%). Blood pressure was the most commonly reported clinical endpoint, with intervention patients experiencing a median reduction in their systolic blood pressure of 1.0 mmHg (IQR: 2.3 mmHg reduction to 2.0 mmHg increase). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Point of care computer reminders generally achieve small to modest improvements in provider behaviour. A minority of interventions showed larger effects, but no specific reminder or contextual features were significantly associated with effect magnitude. Further research must identify design features and contextual factors consistently associated with larger improvements in provider behaviour if computer reminders are to succeed on more than a trial and error basis.
BACKGROUND: The opportunity to improve care by delivering decision support to clinicians at the point of care represents one of the main incentives for implementing sophisticated clinical information systems. Previous reviews of computer reminder and decision support systems have reported mixed effects, possibly because they did not distinguish point of care computer reminders from e-mail alerts, computer-generated paper reminders, and other modes of delivering 'computer reminders'. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects on processes and outcomes of care attributable to on-screen computer reminders delivered to clinicians at the point of care. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane EPOC Group Trials register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL and CENTRAL to July 2008, and scanned bibliographies from key articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies of a reminder delivered via a computer system routinely used by clinicians, with a randomised or quasi-randomised design and reporting at least one outcome involving a clinical endpoint or adherence to a recommended process of care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened studies for eligibility and abstracted data. For each study, we calculated the median improvement in adherence to target processes of care and also identified the outcome with the largest such improvement. We then calculated the median absolute improvement in process adherence across all studies using both the median outcome from each study and the best outcome. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies (reporting a total of thirty-two comparisons) were included. Computer reminders achieved a median improvement in process adherence of 4.2% (interquartile range (IQR): 0.8% to 18.8%) across all reported process outcomes, 3.3% (IQR: 0.5% to 10.6%) for medication ordering, 3.8% (IQR: 0.5% to 6.6%) for vaccinations, and 3.8% (IQR: 0.4% to 16.3%) for test ordering. In a sensitivity analysis using the best outcome from each study, the median improvement was 5.6% (IQR: 2.0% to 19.2%) across all process measures and 6.2% (IQR: 3.0% to 28.0%) across measures of medication ordering. In the eight comparisons that reported dichotomous clinical endpoints, intervention patients experienced a median absolute improvement of 2.5% (IQR: 1.3% to 4.2%). Blood pressure was the most commonly reported clinical endpoint, with intervention patients experiencing a median reduction in their systolic blood pressure of 1.0 mmHg (IQR: 2.3 mmHg reduction to 2.0 mmHg increase). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Point of care computer reminders generally achieve small to modest improvements in provider behaviour. A minority of interventions showed larger effects, but no specific reminder or contextual features were significantly associated with effect magnitude. Further research must identify design features and contextual factors consistently associated with larger improvements in provider behaviour if computer reminders are to succeed on more than a trial and error basis.
Authors: F Perry Wilson; Michael Shashaty; Jeffrey Testani; Iram Aqeel; Yuliya Borovskiy; Susan S Ellenberg; Harold I Feldman; Hilda Fernandez; Yevgeniy Gitelman; Jennie Lin; Dan Negoianu; Chirag R Parikh; Peter P Reese; Richard Urbani; Barry Fuchs Journal: Lancet Date: 2015-02-26 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: William E Trick; Krishna Das; Mary N Gerard; Marjorie Charles-Damte; Gregory Murphy; Irene Benson; Julia Y Morita Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Mackenzie Williams; Gregory M Peterson; Peter C Tenni; Ivan K Bindoff; Colin Curtain; Josephine Hughes; Luke Re Bereznicki; Shane L Jackson; David Cm Kong; Jeff D Hughes Journal: Ann Pharmacother Date: 2011-08-30 Impact factor: 3.154
Authors: Aditya Biswas; Chirag R Parikh; Harold I Feldman; Amit X Garg; Stephen Latham; Haiqun Lin; Paul M Palevsky; Ugochukwu Ugwuowo; F Perry Wilson Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2018-03-29 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Stefan Lüders; Joachim Schrader; Roland E Schmieder; Wenefrieda Smolka; Karl Wegscheider; Kurt Bestehorn Journal: Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil Date: 2010-06
Authors: Gregory A Coté; John P Rice; William Bulsiewicz; John P Norvell; Keri Christensen; Anne Bobb; Michael Postelnick; Colin W Howden Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Elsie M Taveras; Richard Marshall; Christine M Horan; Matthew W Gillman; Karen Hacker; Ken P Kleinman; Renata Koziol; Sarah Price; Sheryl L Rifas-Shiman; Steven R Simon Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) Date: 2013-10-16 Impact factor: 5.002
Authors: Jane Rebecca Smith; Michael J Noble; Stanley Musgrave; Jamie Murdoch; Gill M Price; Garry R Barton; Jennifer Windley; Richard Holland; Brian Dw Harrison; Amanda Howe; David B Price; Ian Harvey; Andrew M Wilson Journal: Thorax Date: 2012-08-31 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Michael H Hooper; Lisa Weavind; Arthur P Wheeler; Jason B Martin; Supriya Srinivasa Gowda; Matthew W Semler; Rachel M Hayes; Daniel W Albert; Norment B Deane; Hui Nian; Janos L Mathe; Andras Nadas; Janos Sztipanovits; Anne Miller; Gordon R Bernard; Todd W Rice Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Gregory P T Scott; Priya Shah; Jeremy C Wyatt; Boikanyo Makubate; Frank W Cross Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-08-11 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Tim A Holt; Andrew Rh Dalton; Susan Kirkpatrick; Jenny Hislop; Tom Marshall; Matthew Fay; Nadeem Qureshi; Daniel S Lasserson; Karen Kearley; Jill Mollison; Ly-Mee Yu; David Fitzmaurice; Fd Richard Hobbs Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2018-11-05 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Alexander G Fiks; Robert W Grundmeier; Stephanie Mayne; Lihai Song; Kristen Feemster; Dean Karavite; Cayce C Hughes; James Massey; Ron Keren; Louis M Bell; Richard Wasserman; A Russell Localio Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2013-05-06 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Agustín Ciapponi; Simon Lewin; Cristian A Herrera; Newton Opiyo; Tomas Pantoja; Elizabeth Paulsen; Gabriel Rada; Charles S Wiysonge; Gabriel Bastías; Lilian Dudley; Signe Flottorp; Marie-Pierre Gagnon; Sebastian Garcia Marti; Claire Glenton; Charles I Okwundu; Blanca Peñaloza; Fatima Suleman; Andrew D Oxman Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-09-13