BACKGROUND: The opportunity to improve care using computer reminders is one of the main incentives for implementing sophisticated clinical information systems. We conducted a systematic review to quantify the expected magnitude of improvements in processes of care from computer reminders delivered to clinicians during their routine activities. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases (to July 2008) and scanned the bibliographies of retrieved articles. We included studies in our review if they used a randomized or quasi-randomized design to evaluate improvements in processes or outcomes of care from computer reminders delivered to physicians during routine electronic ordering or charting activities. RESULTS: Among the 28 trials (reporting 32 comparisons) included in our study, we found that computer reminders improved adherence to processes of care by a median of 4.2% (interquartile range [IQR] 0.8%-18.8%). Using the best outcome from each study, we found that the median improvement was 5.6% (IQR 2.0%-19.2%). A minority of studies reported larger effects; however, no study characteristic or reminder feature significantly predicted the magnitude of effect except in one institution, where a well-developed, "homegrown" clinical information system achieved larger improvements than in all other studies (median 16.8% [IQR 8.7%-26.0%] v. 3.0% [IQR 0.5%-11.5%]; p = 0.04). A trend toward larger improvements was seen for reminders that required users to enter a response (median 12.9% [IQR 2.7%-22.8%] v. 2.7% [IQR 0.6%-5.6%]; p = 0.09). INTERPRETATION: Computer reminders produced much smaller improvements than those generally expected from the implementation of computerized order entry and electronic medical record systems. Further research is required to identify features of reminder systems consistently associated with clinically worthwhile improvements.
BACKGROUND: The opportunity to improve care using computer reminders is one of the main incentives for implementing sophisticated clinical information systems. We conducted a systematic review to quantify the expected magnitude of improvements in processes of care from computer reminders delivered to clinicians during their routine activities. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases (to July 2008) and scanned the bibliographies of retrieved articles. We included studies in our review if they used a randomized or quasi-randomized design to evaluate improvements in processes or outcomes of care from computer reminders delivered to physicians during routine electronic ordering or charting activities. RESULTS: Among the 28 trials (reporting 32 comparisons) included in our study, we found that computer reminders improved adherence to processes of care by a median of 4.2% (interquartile range [IQR] 0.8%-18.8%). Using the best outcome from each study, we found that the median improvement was 5.6% (IQR 2.0%-19.2%). A minority of studies reported larger effects; however, no study characteristic or reminder feature significantly predicted the magnitude of effect except in one institution, where a well-developed, "homegrown" clinical information system achieved larger improvements than in all other studies (median 16.8% [IQR 8.7%-26.0%] v. 3.0% [IQR 0.5%-11.5%]; p = 0.04). A trend toward larger improvements was seen for reminders that required users to enter a response (median 12.9% [IQR 2.7%-22.8%] v. 2.7% [IQR 0.6%-5.6%]; p = 0.09). INTERPRETATION: Computer reminders produced much smaller improvements than those generally expected from the implementation of computerized order entry and electronic medical record systems. Further research is required to identify features of reminder systems consistently associated with clinically worthwhile improvements.
Authors: J M Grimshaw; R E Thomas; G MacLennan; C Fraser; C R Ramsay; L Vale; P Whitty; M P Eccles; L Matowe; L Shirran; M Wensing; R Dijkstra; C Donaldson Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2004-02 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Robyn Tamblyn; Allen Huang; Robert Perreault; André Jacques; Denis Roy; James Hanley; Peter McLeod; Réjean Laprise Journal: CMAJ Date: 2003-09-16 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: James B Meigs; Enrico Cagliero; Anil Dubey; Patricia Murphy-Sheehy; Catharyn Gildesgame; Henry Chueh; Michael J Barry; Daniel E Singer; David M Nathan Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: William M Tierney; J Marc Overhage; Michael D Murray; Lisa E Harris; Xiao-Hua Zhou; George J Eckert; Faye E Smith; Nancy Nienaber; Clement J McDonald; Fredric D Wolinsky Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Cameron G Shultz; Jean M Malouin; Lee A Green; Melissa Plegue; Grant M Greenberg Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2015-08-13 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: M F Engel; A H W Bruns; M E J L Hulscher; C A J M Gaillard; S U C Sankatsing; F Teding van Berkhout; M H Emmelot-Vonk; E M Kuck; M H M Steeghs; J H den Breeijen; R K Stellato; A I M Hoepelman; J J Oosterheert Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2014-05-26 Impact factor: 3.267
Authors: Kai Zheng; Kathleen Fear; Bruce W Chaffee; Christopher R Zimmerman; Edward M Karls; Justin D Gatwood; James G Stevenson; Mark D Pearlman Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-04-12 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Jayna M Holroyd-Leduc; Diane Lorenzetti; Sharon E Straus; Lindsay Sykes; Hude Quan Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-06-09 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Brandyn D Lau; Rebecca A Aslakson; Renee F Wilson; Oluwakemi A Fawole; Colleen C Apostol; Kathryn A Martinez; Daniela Vollenweider; Eric B Bass; Sydney E Morss Dy Journal: Am J Hosp Palliat Care Date: 2013-03-26 Impact factor: 2.500