Medical Decision Support Systems: Old Dilemmas and new Paradigms?

M. Fieschi; J.-C. Dufour; P. Staccini; J. Gouvernet; O. Bouhaddou

doi:10.1055/s-0038-1634394

Methods of Information in Medicine, Inhaltsverzeichnis

Methods Inf Med 2003; 42(03): 190-198
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1634394

Original article

Schattauer GmbH

Medical Decision Support Systems: Old Dilemmas and new Paradigms?

Tracks for Successful Integration and Adoption

M. Fieschi

¹LERTIM, Faculté de Médecine Université de la Méditerranée, France

,

J.-C. Dufour

¹LERTIM, Faculté de Médecine Université de la Méditerranée, France

,

P. Staccini

¹LERTIM, Faculté de Médecine Université de la Méditerranée, France

,

J. Gouvernet

¹LERTIM, Faculté de Médecine Université de la Méditerranée, France

,

O. Bouhaddou

²WRITA, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA

› Institutsangaben

Abstract

Summary

Objectives: The purpose of this paper is to examine past and present medical decision support systems and the environment in which they operate and to propose specific research tracks that improve integration and adoption of these systems in today’s health care systems.

Methods: In preamble, we examine the objectives, decision models, and performances of past decision support systems.

Results: Medical decision support tools were essentially formulated from a technical capability perspective and this view has met limited adoption and slowed down new development as well as integration of these important systems into patient management work flows and clinical information systems. The science base of these systems needs to include evidence-based medicine and clinical practice guidelines and the paradigms need to be extended to include a collaborative provider model, the users and the organization perspectives. The availability of patient record and medical terminology standards is essential to the dissemination of decision support systems and so is their integration into the care process.

Conclusion: To build new decision support systems based on practice guidelines and taking into account users preferences, we do not so much advocate new technological solutions but rather suggest that technology is not enough to ensure successful adoption by the users, the integration into practice workflow, and consequently, the realisation of improved health care outcomes.

Keywords

Medical decision support systems - Evidence-based Medicine - Clinical Practice Guidelines - Medical practice - shared decision-making - patient empowerment - technology adoption barriers and drivers.

Volltext

Referenzen

References
1 Fox J. On the soundness and safety of expert systems. Artif Intell Med 1993; 5: 1592-79.
2 Bensing J. Bridging the gap. The separate worlds of evidence-based medicine and patient-centered medicine. Patient Education and Counseling 2000; 39: 17-25.
3 Perleth M, Jakubowski E, Busse R. What is ‘best practice’ in health care? State of the art and perspectives in improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the European health care systems. Health Policy 2001; 56: 235-8.
4 Quaglini S, Stefanelli M, Lanzola G, Caporusso V, Panzarasa S. Flexible guideline-based patient careflow systems. Artif Intell Med 2001; 1: 65-80.
5 Bricon-Souf N, Renard JM, Beuscart R. Dynamic workflow model for complex activity in intensive care unit. Int J Med Inf 53 (2-3) 143-50.
6 Pearson JM. An empirical investigation into DSS structures and environments. Decision Support Systems 1995; 13: 141-58.
7 Delaney BC, Fitzmaurice DA, Riaz A, and Richard Hobbs FD. Can computerised decision support systems deliver improved quality in primary care?. BMJ 1999; 319: 1281.
8 Shim JP, Warkentin M, Courtney JF, Power DJ, Sharda R, Carlsson C. Past, present, and future of decision support technology. Decision support systems 2002 in press.
9 Institute of Medicine. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21^st Century. National Academy Press; Washington DC: 2001
10 Sweeney KG, MacAuley D, Pereira Grey D. Personal significance: the third dimension. Lancet 1998; 351: 134-6.
11 Nonaka I. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organisation Science 1994; 5 (Suppl. 01) 14-37.
12 Stefanelli M. The socio-organizational age of artificial intelligence in medicine,. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine 2001; 23 (Suppl. 01) 25-47.
13 Teach RL, Shortliffe EH. An analysis of Physician’s attitudes. Comp Biomed Research 1981; 14: 542-58.
14 Kassirer JP. The quality of care and the quality of measuring it. N Engl J Med 1993; 329 (Suppl. 17) 1263-5.
15 Eysenbach G, Sa ER, Diepgen TL. Shopping around the internet today and tomorrow: towards the millennium of Cybermedicine. BMJ 1999; 319: 1294.
16 Brender J. et al. Research needs and priorities in health informatics. Inter Journ Of Med Informatics 2000; 58-59: 257-89.
17 Vaughan PJ. System implementation success factors; it’s not just the technology. Internal Report of Information Technology Services. University of Colorado at Boulder; 2000
18 Jadad AR. Promoting partnerships: challenges for the internet age. BMJ 1999; 319: 761-4.
19 Greenes RA, Lorenzi NM. Audacious Goals for Health and Biomedical Informatics in the New Millennium. JAMIA. 1998; 5: 395-400.
20 Karp S, Monroe AF. Quality of health care information on the Internet: caveat emptor still rules. Manag Care Q 2002; 10 (Suppl. 02) 3-8.
21 Tetzlaff L. Consumer Informatics in Chronic Illness. JAMIA. 1997; 4: 285-300.
22 Grimshaw JM, Russell IT. Effect of clinical guidelines on medical practice: a systematic review of rigorous evaluations. Lancet 1993; 342 8883 1317-22.
23 Wang RY, Strong DM. Beyond accuracy: what data quality means to data consumers. Journal of Management Information Systems 1996; 12 (Suppl. 04) 5-34.
24 Brender J, Nohr C, McNair P. Research needs and priorities in health informatics. Inter Journ of Med Informatics 2000; 58 -59: 257-89.
25 Davis DA, Thomson MA, Oxman AD, Haynes RB. Evidence for the effectiveness of CME. A review of 50 randomized controlled trials. JAMA 1992; 268: 1111-7.
26 Durieux P, Ravaud P, Dosquet P, Durocher A. [Effectiveness of clinical guideline implementation strategies: systematic review of systematic reviews]. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 2000; 24: 1018-25.
27 Stolte JJ, Ash J, Chin H. The dissemination of clinical practice guidelines over an intranet: an evaluation. Proc AMIA Symp 1999; Suppl.: 960-4.
28 Lobach DF, Hammond WE. Computerized decision support based on a clinical practice guideline improves compliance with care standards. Am J Med 1997; 102: 89-98.
29 Degoulet P, Fieschi M. Critical dimensions in medical informatics. Int J Med Inf 1997; 44: 21-6.
30 Beynon M. “A new paradigm for computer-based decision support”. Decision Support Systems 2002; 33: 127-42.
31 Evans RS, Gardner RM, Bush AR. Development of a Computerized Infectious Disease Monitor (CIDM). Comput Biomed Res 1985; 18: 103-13.
32 Pryor TA, Clayton PD, Haug PJ, Wigertz O. Design of a knowledge driven HIS. In: Proceedings 11th SCAMC 87. Washington: IEEE; 1987: 60-3.
33 Mc Donald CJ, Hui SI, Smith DM, Tierney WM, Stuart MD, Cohen J, Wienberger M, Mc Cabe GP. Reminders to Physicians from an Introspective Computer Medical Record: A Two Year Randomized Trial. Ann Intern Med 1984; 100: 130-8.
34 Sim I, Gorman P. et al. Clinical decision support systems for the practice of evidence-based medicine. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2000; 8: 527-34.