Sharare Taheri Moghadam1, Farahnaz Sadoughi2, Farnia Velayati1, Seyed Jafar Ehsanzadeh3, Shayan Poursharif4. 1. Department of Health Information Management, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 2. Health Management and Economics Research Center, School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Rashid Yasemi Street, Vali-e Asr Avenue, Tehran, 1996713883, Iran. sadoughi.f@iums.ac.ir. 3. School of Health Management and Information Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 4. Faculty of Medicine, University of Alberta, Alberta, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSSs) for Prescribing are one of the innovations designed to improve physician practice performance and patient outcomes by reducing prescription errors. This study was therefore conducted to examine the effects of various CDSSs on physician practice performance and patient outcomes. METHODS: This systematic review was carried out by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library from 2005 to 2019. The studies were independently reviewed by two researchers. Any discrepancies in the eligibility of the studies between the two researchers were then resolved by consulting the third researcher. In the next step, we performed a meta-analysis based on medication subgroups, CDSS-type subgroups, and outcome categories. Also, we provided the narrative style of the findings. In the meantime, we used a random-effects model to estimate the effects of CDSS on patient outcomes and physician practice performance with a 95% confidence interval. Q statistics and I2 were then used to calculate heterogeneity. RESULTS: On the basis of the inclusion criteria, 45 studies were qualified for analysis in this study. CDSS for prescription drugs/COPE has been used for various diseases such as cardiovascular diseases, hypertension, diabetes, gastrointestinal and respiratory diseases, AIDS, appendicitis, kidney disease, malaria, high blood potassium, and mental diseases. In the meantime, other cases such as concurrent prescribing of multiple medications for patients and their effects on the above-mentioned results have been analyzed. The study shows that in some cases the use of CDSS has beneficial effects on patient outcomes and physician practice performance (std diff in means = 0.084, 95% CI 0.067 to 0.102). It was also statistically significant for outcome categories such as those demonstrating better results for physician practice performance and patient outcomes or both. However, there was no significant difference between some other cases and traditional approaches. We assume that this may be due to the disease type, the quantity, and the type of CDSS criteria that affected the comparison. Overall, the results of this study show positive effects on performance for all forms of CDSSs. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that the positive effects of the CDSS can be due to factors such as user-friendliness, compliance with clinical guidelines, patient and physician cooperation, integration of electronic health records, CDSS, and pharmaceutical systems, consideration of the views of physicians in assessing the importance of CDSS alerts, and the real-time alerts in the prescription.
BACKGROUND: Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSSs) for Prescribing are one of the innovations designed to improve physician practice performance and patient outcomes by reducing prescription errors. This study was therefore conducted to examine the effects of various CDSSs on physician practice performance and patient outcomes. METHODS: This systematic review was carried out by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library from 2005 to 2019. The studies were independently reviewed by two researchers. Any discrepancies in the eligibility of the studies between the two researchers were then resolved by consulting the third researcher. In the next step, we performed a meta-analysis based on medication subgroups, CDSS-type subgroups, and outcome categories. Also, we provided the narrative style of the findings. In the meantime, we used a random-effects model to estimate the effects of CDSS on patient outcomes and physician practice performance with a 95% confidence interval. Q statistics and I2 were then used to calculate heterogeneity. RESULTS: On the basis of the inclusion criteria, 45 studies were qualified for analysis in this study. CDSS for prescription drugs/COPE has been used for various diseases such as cardiovascular diseases, hypertension, diabetes, gastrointestinal and respiratory diseases, AIDS, appendicitis, kidney disease, malaria, high blood potassium, and mental diseases. In the meantime, other cases such as concurrent prescribing of multiple medications for patients and their effects on the above-mentioned results have been analyzed. The study shows that in some cases the use of CDSS has beneficial effects on patient outcomes and physician practice performance (std diff in means = 0.084, 95% CI 0.067 to 0.102). It was also statistically significant for outcome categories such as those demonstrating better results for physician practice performance and patient outcomes or both. However, there was no significant difference between some other cases and traditional approaches. We assume that this may be due to the disease type, the quantity, and the type of CDSS criteria that affected the comparison. Overall, the results of this study show positive effects on performance for all forms of CDSSs. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that the positive effects of the CDSS can be due to factors such as user-friendliness, compliance with clinical guidelines, patient and physician cooperation, integration of electronic health records, CDSS, and pharmaceutical systems, consideration of the views of physicians in assessing the importance of CDSS alerts, and the real-time alerts in the prescription.
Entities:
Keywords:
Computerized clinical decision support systems; Medication prescription; Systematic review
Authors: Alexander Turchin; Oliver D James; Eric D Godlewski; Maria Shubina; Christopher M Coley; Tejal K Gandhi; Carol Broverman Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2010-07-15 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: G M Chertow; J Lee; G J Kuperman; E Burdick; J Horsky; D L Seger; R Lee; A Mekala; J Song; A L Komaroff; D W Bates Journal: JAMA Date: 2001-12-12 Impact factor: 56.272
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: Lisa McDermott; Lucy Yardley; Paul Little; Tjeerd van Staa; Alex Dregan; Gerard McCann; Mark Ashworth; Martin Gulliford Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2014-12-03 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Robin Brünn; Dorothea Lemke; Jale Basten; Petra Kellermann-Mühlhoff; Juliane Köberlein-Neu; Christiane Muth; Marjan van den Akker Journal: Pharmaceuticals (Basel) Date: 2022-06-17
Authors: Mona Saraiya; Jean Colbert; Geeta L Bhat; Rose Almonte; David W Winters; Sharon Sebastian; Michael O'Hanlon; Ginny Meadows; Michael R Nosal; Thomas B Richards; Maria Michaels; Julie S Townsend; Jacqueline W Miller; Rebecca B Perkins; George F Sawaya; Nicolas Wentzensen; Mary C White; Lisa C Richardson Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2022-04 Impact factor: 3.017
Authors: Rosa María Añel Rodríguez; Irene García Alfaro; Rafael Bravo Toledo; José Daniel Carballeira Rodríguez Journal: Aten Primaria Date: 2021-12 Impact factor: 1.137
Authors: Jeffrey H Millstein; David A Asch; Keith Hamilton; Srinath Adusumalli; Nishaminy Kasbekar; Vivek Ahya; Nida Al-Ramahi Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2022-08-03 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Xiaowei Yan; Hannah Husby; Satish Mudiganti; Madina Gbotoe; Jake Delatorre-Reimer; Kevin Knobel; Andrew Hudnut; J B Jones Journal: JMIR Med Inform Date: 2022-09-06
Authors: F Jacob Seagull; Michael S Lanham; Michelle Pomorski; Mollie Callahan; Elizabeth K Jones; Geoffrey D Barnes Journal: Res Pract Thromb Haemost Date: 2022-09-11