OBJECTIVES: To determine whether utilization of clinical decision support (CDS) is correlated with improved patient clinical and financial outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: Observational study of 26,424 patient encounters. In the treatment group, the provider adhered to all CDS recommendations. In the control group, the provider did not adhere to CDS recommendations. METHODS: An observational study of provider adherence to a CDS system was conducted using inpatient encounters spanning 3 years. Data comprised alert status (adherence), provider type (resident, attending), patient demographics, clinical outcomes, Medicare status, and diagnosis information. We assessed the associations between alert adherence and 4 outcome measures: encounter length of stay, odds of 30-day readmission, odds of complications of care, and total direct costs. The associations between alert adherence and the outcome measures were estimated using 4 generalized linear models that adjusted for potential confounders, such as illness severity and case complexity. RESULTS: The total encounter cost increased 7.3% (95% CI, 3.5%-11%) for nonadherent encounters versus adherent encounters. We found a 6.2% (95% CI, 3.0%-9.4%) increase in length of stay for nonadherent versus adherent encounters. The odds ratio for readmission within 30 days increased by 1.14 (95% CI, 0.998-1.31) for nonadherent versus adherent encounters. The odds ratio for complications increased by 1.29 (95% CI, 1.04-1.61) for nonadherent versus adherent encounters. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent improvements in measured outcomes were seen in the treatment group versus the control group. We recommend that provider organizations consider the introduction of real-time CDS to support adherence to evidence-based guidelines, but because we cannot determine the cause of the associations between CDS interventions and improved clinical and financial outcomes, further study is required.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether utilization of clinical decision support (CDS) is correlated with improved patient clinical and financial outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: Observational study of 26,424 patient encounters. In the treatment group, the provider adhered to all CDS recommendations. In the control group, the provider did not adhere to CDS recommendations. METHODS: An observational study of provider adherence to a CDS system was conducted using inpatient encounters spanning 3 years. Data comprised alert status (adherence), provider type (resident, attending), patient demographics, clinical outcomes, Medicare status, and diagnosis information. We assessed the associations between alert adherence and 4 outcome measures: encounter length of stay, odds of 30-day readmission, odds of complications of care, and total direct costs. The associations between alert adherence and the outcome measures were estimated using 4 generalized linear models that adjusted for potential confounders, such as illness severity and case complexity. RESULTS: The total encounter cost increased 7.3% (95% CI, 3.5%-11%) for nonadherent encounters versus adherent encounters. We found a 6.2% (95% CI, 3.0%-9.4%) increase in length of stay for nonadherent versus adherent encounters. The odds ratio for readmission within 30 days increased by 1.14 (95% CI, 0.998-1.31) for nonadherent versus adherent encounters. The odds ratio for complications increased by 1.29 (95% CI, 1.04-1.61) for nonadherent versus adherent encounters. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent improvements in measured outcomes were seen in the treatment group versus the control group. We recommend that provider organizations consider the introduction of real-time CDS to support adherence to evidence-based guidelines, but because we cannot determine the cause of the associations between CDS interventions and improved clinical and financial outcomes, further study is required.
Authors: Jesse I Wolfstadt; Jerry H Gurwitz; Terry S Field; Monica Lee; Sunila Kalkar; Wei Wu; Paula A Rochon Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Caroline Lubick Goldzweig; Greg Orshansky; Neil M Paige; Isomi M Miake-Lye; Jessica M Beroes; Brett A Ewing; Paul G Shekelle Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2015-04-21 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Carrie H Colla; Elizabeth A Kinsella; Nancy E Morden; David J Meyers; Meredith B Rosenthal; Thomas D Sequist Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Matthew J Dimagno; Erik-Jan Wamsteker; Rafat S Rizk; Joshua P Spaete; Suraj Gupta; Tanya Sahay; Jeffrey Costanzo; John M Inadomi; Lena M Napolitano; Robert C Hyzy; Jeff S Desmond Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Alan Rosenberg; Abiy Agiro; Marc Gottlieb; John Barron; Peter Brady; Ying Liu; Cindy Li; Andrea DeVries Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 21.873