Literature DB >> 25954334

Health information technology: use it well, or don't! Findings from the use of a decision support system for breast cancer management.

Jacques Bouaud1, Brigitte Blaszka-Jaulerry2, Laurent Zelek3, Jean-Philippe Spano4, Jean-Pierre Lefranc5, Isabelle Cojean-Zelek6, Axel Durieux7, Christophe Tournigand8, Alexandra Rousseau9, Brigitte Séroussi10.   

Abstract

The potential of health information technology is hampered by new types of errors which impact is not totally assessed. OncoDoc2 is a decision support system designed to support treatment decisions of multidisciplinary meetings (MDMs) for breast cancer patients. We evaluated how the way the system was used had an impact on MDM decision compliance with clinical practice guidelines. We distinguished "correct navigations" (N+), "incorrect navigations" (N-), and "missing navigations" (N0), according to the quality of data entry when using OncoDoc2. We collected 557 MDM decisions from three hospitals of Paris area (France) where OncoDoc2 was routinely used. We observed 33.9% N+, 36.8% N-, and 29.3% N0. The compliance rate was significantly different according to the quality of navigations, 94.2%, 80.0%, and 90.2% for N+, N-, and N0 respectively. Surprinsingly, it was better not to use the system (N0) than to use it improperly (N-).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25954334      PMCID: PMC4419891     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc        ISSN: 1559-4076


  25 in total

1.  Types of unintended consequences related to computerized provider order entry.

Authors:  Emily M Campbell; Dean F Sittig; Joan S Ash; Kenneth P Guappone; Richard H Dykstra
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2006-06-23       Impact factor: 4.497

2.  "e-Iatrogenesis": the most critical unintended consequence of CPOE and other HIT.

Authors:  Jonathan P Weiner; Toni Kfuri; Kitty Chan; Jinnet B Fowles
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2007-02-28       Impact factor: 4.497

Review 3.  Introduction to multiple imputation for dealing with missing data.

Authors:  Katherine J Lee; Julie A Simpson
Journal:  Respirology       Date:  2013-12-23       Impact factor: 6.424

Review 4.  Tumor boards: optimizing the structure and improving efficiency of multidisciplinary management of patients with cancer worldwide.

Authors:  Nagi S El Saghir; Nancy L Keating; Robert W Carlson; Katia E Khoury; Lesley Fallowfield
Journal:  Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book       Date:  2014

5.  How good are the data? Feasible approach to validation of metrics of quality derived from an outpatient electronic health record.

Authors:  Andrea L Benin; Ada Fenick; Jeph Herrin; Grace Vitkauskas; John Chen; Cynthia Brandt
Journal:  Am J Med Qual       Date:  2011-09-16       Impact factor: 1.852

6.  A comparative review of patient safety initiatives for national health information technology.

Authors:  Farah Magrabi; Jos Aarts; Christian Nohr; Maureen Baker; Stuart Harrison; Sylvia Pelayo; Jan Talmon; Dean F Sittig; Enrico Coiera
Journal:  Int J Med Inform       Date:  2012-12-21       Impact factor: 4.046

Review 7.  Multidisciplinary cancer care: does it improve outcomes?

Authors:  Savtaj S Brar; Nicole Look Hong; Frances C Wright
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2014-07-02       Impact factor: 3.454

8.  Defining health information technology-related errors: new developments since to err is human.

Authors:  Dean F Sittig; Hardeep Singh
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2011-07-25

9.  Quality improvement by implementing an integrated oncological care pathway for breast cancer patients.

Authors:  J van Hoeve; L de Munck; R Otter; J de Vries; S Siesling
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2014-02-25       Impact factor: 4.380

10.  Cancer multidisciplinary team meetings: evidence, challenges, and the role of clinical decision support technology.

Authors:  Vivek Patkar; Dionisio Acosta; Tim Davidson; Alison Jones; John Fox; Mohammad Keshtgar
Journal:  Int J Breast Cancer       Date:  2011-07-17
View more
  3 in total

Review 1.  Computerized Clinical Decision Support: Contributions from 2014.

Authors:  J Bouaud; V Koutkias
Journal:  Yearb Med Inform       Date:  2015-08-13

2.  Using guideline-based clinical decision support in oncological multidisciplinary team meetings: A prospective, multicenter concordance study.

Authors:  Kees C W J Ebben; Mathijs P Hendriks; Lieke Markus; Milan Kos; Ignace H J T De Hingh; Jorg R Oddens; Joost Rothbarth; Hans De Wilt; Luc J A Strobbe; Maud Bessems; Carsten T Mellema; Sabine Siesling; Xander A A M Verbeek
Journal:  Int J Qual Health Care       Date:  2022-03-19       Impact factor: 2.038

Review 3.  The Effect of Higher Level Computerized Clinical Decision Support Systems on Oncology Care: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Sosse E Klarenbeek; Harm H A Weekenstroo; J P Michiel Sedelaar; Jurgen J Fütterer; Mathias Prokop; Marcia Tummers
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2020-04-22       Impact factor: 6.639

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.