Paula Bennett1, Nicholas R Hardiker2. 1. Greater Manchester Academic Health Science Network, Citylabs, Manchester, UK. 2. School of Nursing, Midwifery, Social Work, and Social Sciences, University of Salford, Salford, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: : This paper provides a substantive review of international literature evaluating the impact of computerized clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) on the care of emergency department (ED) patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: : A literature search was conducted using Medline, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase electronic resources, and gray literature. Studies were selected if they compared the use of a CCDSS with usual care in a face-to-face clinical interaction in an ED. RESULTS: : Of the 23 studies included, approximately half demonstrated a statistically significant positive impact on aspects of clinical care with the use of CCDSSs. The remaining studies showed small improvements, mainly around documentation. However, the methodological quality of the studies was poor, with few or no controls to mitigate against confounding variables. The risk of bias was high in all but 6 studies. DISCUSSION: : The ED environment is complex and does not lend itself to robust quantitative designs such as randomized controlled trials. The quality of the research in ∼75% of the studies was poor, and therefore conclusions cannot be drawn from these results. However, the studies with a more robust design show evidence of the positive impact of CCDSSs on ED patient care. CONCLUSION: This is the first review to consider the role of CCDSSs in emergency care and expose the research in this area. The role of CCDSSs in emergency care may provide some solutions to the current challenges in EDs, but further high-quality research is needed to better understand what technological solutions can offer clinicians and patients.
OBJECTIVES: : This paper provides a substantive review of international literature evaluating the impact of computerized clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) on the care of emergency department (ED) patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: : A literature search was conducted using Medline, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase electronic resources, and gray literature. Studies were selected if they compared the use of a CCDSS with usual care in a face-to-face clinical interaction in an ED. RESULTS: : Of the 23 studies included, approximately half demonstrated a statistically significant positive impact on aspects of clinical care with the use of CCDSSs. The remaining studies showed small improvements, mainly around documentation. However, the methodological quality of the studies was poor, with few or no controls to mitigate against confounding variables. The risk of bias was high in all but 6 studies. DISCUSSION: : The ED environment is complex and does not lend itself to robust quantitative designs such as randomized controlled trials. The quality of the research in ∼75% of the studies was poor, and therefore conclusions cannot be drawn from these results. However, the studies with a more robust design show evidence of the positive impact of CCDSSs on ED patient care. CONCLUSION: This is the first review to consider the role of CCDSSs in emergency care and expose the research in this area. The role of CCDSSs in emergency care may provide some solutions to the current challenges in EDs, but further high-quality research is needed to better understand what technological solutions can offer clinicians and patients.
Authors: Christopher M Bond; Dennis Djogovic; Cristina Villa-Roel; Michael J Bullard; David P Meurer; Brian H Rowe Journal: J Emerg Med Date: 2012-11-05 Impact factor: 1.484
Authors: Andrew Georgiou; Mirela Prgomet; Richard Paoloni; Nerida Creswick; Antonia Hordern; Scott Walter; Johanna Westbrook Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2013-03-30 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Brian J Hemens; Anne Holbrook; Marita Tonkin; Jean A Mackay; Lorraine Weise-Kelly; Tamara Navarro; Nancy L Wilczynski; R Brian Haynes Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2011-08-03 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Pascale Carayon; Peter Hoonakker; Ann Schoofs Hundt; Megan Salwei; Douglas Wiegmann; Roger L Brown; Peter Kleinschmidt; Clair Novak; Michael Pulia; Yudi Wang; Emily Wirkus; Brian Patterson Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2019-11-27 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Brian W Patterson; Michael S Pulia; Shashank Ravi; Peter L T Hoonakker; Ann Schoofs Hundt; Douglas Wiegmann; Emily J Wirkus; Stephen Johnson; Pascale Carayon Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2019-01-03 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Megan E Salwei; Pascale Carayon; Douglas Wiegmann; Michael S Pulia; Brian W Patterson; Peter L T Hoonakker Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2021-12-09 Impact factor: 4.730
Authors: Megan E Salwei; Peter Hoonakker; Pascale Carayon; Douglas Wiegmann; Michael Pulia; Brian W Patterson Journal: Hum Factors Date: 2022-04-14 Impact factor: 3.598
Authors: Barbara E Jones; Dave S Collingridge; Caroline G Vines; Herman Post; John Holmen; Todd L Allen; Peter Haug; Charlene R Weir; Nathan C Dean Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2019-01-02 Impact factor: 2.342