BACKGROUND: Automated clinical decision support systems (CDSS) are associated with improvements in health care delivery to those with long-term conditions, including diabetes. A CDSS was introduced to two Scottish regions (combined diabetes population ~30 000) via a national diabetes electronic health record. This study aims to describe users' reactions to the CDSS and to quantify impact on clinical processes and outcomes over two improvement cycles: December 2013 to February 2014 and August 2014 to November 2014. METHODS: Feedback was sought via patient questionnaires, health care professional (HCP) focus groups, and questionnaires. Multivariable regression was used to analyze HCP SCI-Diabetes usage (with respect to CDSS message presence/absence) and case-control comparison of clinical processes/outcomes. Cases were patients whose HCP received a CDSS messages during the study period. Closely matched controls were selected from regions outside the study, following similar clinical practice (without CDSS). Clinical process measures were screening rates for diabetes-related complications. Clinical outcomes included HbA1c at 1 year. RESULTS: The CDSS had no adverse impact on consultations. HCPs were generally positive toward CDSS and used it within normal clinical workflow. CDSS messages were generated for 5692 cases, matched to 10 667 controls. Following clinic, the probability of patients being appropriately screened for complications more than doubled for most measures. Mean HbA1c improved in cases and controls but more so in cases (-2.3 mmol/mol [-0.2%] versus -1.1 [-0.1%], P = .003). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The CDSS was well received; associated with improved efficiencies in working practices; and large improvements in guideline adherence. These evidence-based, early interventions can significantly reduce costly and devastating complications.
BACKGROUND: Automated clinical decision support systems (CDSS) are associated with improvements in health care delivery to those with long-term conditions, including diabetes. A CDSS was introduced to two Scottish regions (combined diabetes population ~30 000) via a national diabetes electronic health record. This study aims to describe users' reactions to the CDSS and to quantify impact on clinical processes and outcomes over two improvement cycles: December 2013 to February 2014 and August 2014 to November 2014. METHODS: Feedback was sought via patient questionnaires, health care professional (HCP) focus groups, and questionnaires. Multivariable regression was used to analyze HCP SCI-Diabetes usage (with respect to CDSS message presence/absence) and case-control comparison of clinical processes/outcomes. Cases were patients whose HCP received a CDSS messages during the study period. Closely matched controls were selected from regions outside the study, following similar clinical practice (without CDSS). Clinical process measures were screening rates for diabetes-related complications. Clinical outcomes included HbA1c at 1 year. RESULTS: The CDSS had no adverse impact on consultations. HCPs were generally positive toward CDSS and used it within normal clinical workflow. CDSS messages were generated for 5692 cases, matched to 10 667 controls. Following clinic, the probability of patients being appropriately screened for complications more than doubled for most measures. Mean HbA1c improved in cases and controls but more so in cases (-2.3 mmol/mol [-0.2%] versus -1.1 [-0.1%], P = .003). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The CDSS was well received; associated with improved efficiencies in working practices; and large improvements in guideline adherence. These evidence-based, early interventions can significantly reduce costly and devastating complications.
Entities:
Keywords:
clinical; decision support systems; diabetes mellitus; guideline adherence; process assessment (health care)
Authors: Elizabeth A McGlynn; Steven M Asch; John Adams; Joan Keesey; Jennifer Hicks; Alison DeCristofaro; Eve A Kerr Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-06-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Amit X Garg; Neill K J Adhikari; Heather McDonald; M Patricia Rosas-Arellano; P J Devereaux; Joseph Beyene; Justina Sam; R Brian Haynes Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-03-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Scott Cunningham; Ritchie McAlpine; Graham Leese; Geraldine Brennan; Frank Sullivan; Alan Connacher; Annalu Waller; Douglas Ir Boyle; Stephen Greene; Elaine Wilson; Alistair Emslie-Smith; Andrew D Morris Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2011-05-01
Authors: James H Vallance; Peter J Wilson; Graham P Leese; Ritchie McAlpine; Caroline J MacEwen; John D Ellis Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2008-03-17 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Marjolein Lugtenberg; Jako S Burgers; Carolyn Clancy; Gert P Westert; Eric C Schneider Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-10-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Tiina Kortteisto; Jani Raitanen; Jorma Komulainen; Ilkka Kunnamo; Marjukka Mäkelä; Pekka Rissanen; Minna Kaila Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2014-01-20 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Andreas Sönnichsen; Ulrike S Trampisch; Anja Rieckert; Giuliano Piccoliori; Anna Vögele; Maria Flamm; Tim Johansson; Aneez Esmail; David Reeves; Christin Löffler; Jennifer Höck; Renate Klaassen-Mielke; Hans Joachim Trampisch; Ilkka Kunnamo Journal: Trials Date: 2016-01-29 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Hala K El Mikati; Lisa Yazel-Smith; Randall W Grout; Stephen M Downs; Aaron E Carroll; Tamara S Hannon Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2020-05-13 Impact factor: 2.342