Literature DB >> 21183758

AHRQ White Paper: Use of clinical decision rules for point-of-care decision support.

Mark Ebell1.   

Abstract

Translation of research into clinical practice remains a barrier, with inconsistent adoption of effective treatments and useful tests. Clinical decision rules (CDRs) integrate information from several clinical or laboratory findings to provide quantitative estimates of risk for a diagnosis or clinical outcome. They are increasingly reported in the literature and have the potential to provide a bridge that helps translate findings from original research studies into clinical practice. Unlike formal aids for shared decision making, they are pragmatic solutions that provide discrete quantitative data to aid clinicians and patients in decision making. These quantitative data can help inform the informal episodes of shared decision making that frequently take place at the point of care. Methods used to develop CDRs include expert opinion, multivariate models, point scores, and classification and regression trees Desirable CDRs are valid (make accurate predictions of risk), relevant (have been shown to improve patient-oriented outcomes), are easy to use at the point of care, are acceptable (with good face validity and transparency of recommendations), and are situated in the clinical context. The latter means that the rule places patients in risk groups that are clinically useful (i.e., below the test threshold or above the treatment threshold) and does so in adequate numbers to make use of the CDR a worthwhile investment in time. CDRs meeting these criteria should be integrated with electronic health records, populating the point score or decision tree with individual patient data and performing calculations automatically to streamline decision making.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 21183758     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X10386232

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  16 in total

1.  Translational informatics: an industry perspective.

Authors:  Michael N Cantor
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2012-01-11       Impact factor: 4.497

2.  Impact of a clinical decision support system on antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infections in primary care: quasi-experimental trial.

Authors:  Arch G Mainous; Carol A Lambourne; Paul J Nietert
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2012-07-03       Impact factor: 4.497

3.  Prediction of discharge walking ability from initial assessment in a stroke inpatient rehabilitation facility population.

Authors:  Marghuretta D Bland; Audra Sturmoski; Michelle Whitson; Lisa Tabor Connor; Robert Fucetola; Thy Huskey; Maurizio Corbetta; Catherine E Lang
Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2012-03-20       Impact factor: 3.966

4.  Adult Cigarette Smokers at Highest Risk for Concurrent Alternative Tobacco Product Use Among a Racially/Ethnically and Socioeconomically Diverse Sample.

Authors:  Nicole L Nollen; Jasjit S Ahluwalia; Yang Lei; Qing Yu; Taneisha S Scheuermann; Matthew S Mayo
Journal:  Nicotine Tob Res       Date:  2015-05-20       Impact factor: 4.244

5.  Clinical gestalt to diagnose pneumonia, sinusitis, and pharyngitis: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ariella P Dale; Christian Marchello; Mark H Ebell
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2019-06-17       Impact factor: 5.386

6.  Diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection in Medicare patients: multicriteria decision analysis.

Authors:  Claudio Diaz-Ledezma; Paul M Lichstein; James G Dolan; Javad Parvizi
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 7.  Outpatient diabetes clinical decision support: current status and future directions.

Authors:  P J O'Connor; J M Sperl-Hillen; C J Fazio; B M Averbeck; B H Rank; K L Margolis
Journal:  Diabet Med       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 4.359

8.  Chest pain for coronary heart disease in general practice: clinical judgement and a clinical decision rule.

Authors:  Jörg Haasenritter; Norbert Donner-Banzhoff; Stefan Bösner
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 5.386

9.  Willingness to share personal health record data for care improvement and public health: a survey of experienced personal health record users.

Authors:  Elissa R Weitzman; Skyler Kelemen; Liljana Kaci; Kenneth D Mandl
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2012-05-22       Impact factor: 2.796

Review 10.  Use of health information technology to reduce diagnostic errors.

Authors:  Robert El-Kareh; Omar Hasan; Gordon D Schiff
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2013-07-13       Impact factor: 7.035

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.