Agnes Sebastian1,2, June C Carroll3,4, Leslie E Oldfield5, Chloe Mighton1,2, Salma Shickh1,2, Elizabeth Uleryk6, Yvonne Bombard7,8. 1. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. 2. Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada. 3. Mount Sinai Hospital, Sinai Health System, Toronto, Canada. 4. Department of Family Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. 5. Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, Toronto, Canada. 6. E. M. Uleryk Consulting, Mississauga, Canada. 7. Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. yvonne.bombard@utoronto.ca. 8. Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada. yvonne.bombard@utoronto.ca.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Patient care involving genetics is challenging for nongenetics health-care providers. Clinical decision support (CDS) tools are a potential solution because they provide patient-specific risk assessments and/or management recommendations. This systematic review synthesized evidence on whether using CDS tools resulted in appropriate changes in genetics-related patient management made by nongenetics health-care providers. METHODS: A comprehensive search in MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL yielded 2,239 unique articles. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts and full texts for quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods articles on management changes by nongenetics clinicians using a CDS tool as part of patient care. Effect sizes were calculated for quantitative studies and all articles were analyzed together using narrative synthesis. Twenty articles were included. RESULTS: In 12/16 quantitative studies, CDS tools slightly increased appropriate changes in management, but study design appeared to affect the statistical significance of the effect. The qualitative data in the four remaining studies reaffirmed that CDS tools facilitated management decisions but raised questions about their effect on patient outcomes. CONCLUSION: Our review assessed clinical utility of CDS tools, finding that they slightly increase appropriate management changes by nongenetics providers. Future studies on CDS tools should explicitly evaluate decision making and patient outcomes.
PURPOSE: Patient care involving genetics is challenging for nongenetics health-care providers. Clinical decision support (CDS) tools are a potential solution because they provide patient-specific risk assessments and/or management recommendations. This systematic review synthesized evidence on whether using CDS tools resulted in appropriate changes in genetics-related patient management made by nongenetics health-care providers. METHODS: A comprehensive search in MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL yielded 2,239 unique articles. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts and full texts for quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods articles on management changes by nongenetics clinicians using a CDS tool as part of patient care. Effect sizes were calculated for quantitative studies and all articles were analyzed together using narrative synthesis. Twenty articles were included. RESULTS: In 12/16 quantitative studies, CDS tools slightly increased appropriate changes in management, but study design appeared to affect the statistical significance of the effect. The qualitative data in the four remaining studies reaffirmed that CDS tools facilitated management decisions but raised questions about their effect on patient outcomes. CONCLUSION: Our review assessed clinical utility of CDS tools, finding that they slightly increase appropriate management changes by nongenetics providers. Future studies on CDS tools should explicitly evaluate decision making and patient outcomes.
Authors: Brittany A Borden; Paige Galecki; Rebecca Wellmann; Keith Danahey; Sang Mee Lee; Linda Patrick-Miller; Matthew J Sorrentino; Rita Nanda; Jay L Koyner; Tamar S Polonsky; Walter M Stadler; Cathleen Mulcahy; Robert T Kavitt; Mark J Ratain; David O Meltzer; Peter H O'Donnell Journal: Pharmacogenet Genomics Date: 2019-02 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Casey Lynnette Overby; Isaac Kohane; Joseph L Kannry; Marc S Williams; Justin Starren; Erwin Bottinger; Omri Gottesman; Joshua C Denny; Chunhua Weng; Peter Tarczy-Hornoch; George Hripcsak Journal: Genet Med Date: 2013-09-19 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Shangqing Jiang; Patrick C Mathias; Nathaniel Hendrix; Brian H Shirts; Peter Tarczy-Hornoch; David Veenstra; Daniel Malone; Beth Devine Journal: Pharmacogenomics J Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 3.245