Download PDF
Yearb Med Inform 2014; 23(01): 163-166
DOI: 10.15265/IY-2014-0036
Original Article
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart

A 2014 Medical Informatics Perspective on Clinical Decision Support Systems: Do We Hit The Ceiling of Effectiveness?

J. Bouaud
1   AP-HP, Dept. of Clinical Research and Development, Paris, France
2   Université Paris 13, Sorbonne Paris Cité, LIMICS, (UMR_S 1142), Bobigny, France; INSERM, U1142, LIMICS, Paris, France; Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ Paris 06, UMR_S 1142, LIMICS, Paris, France
,
J.-B. Lamy
2   Université Paris 13, Sorbonne Paris Cité, LIMICS, (UMR_S 1142), Bobigny, France; INSERM, U1142, LIMICS, Paris, France; Sorbonne Universités, UPMC Univ Paris 06, UMR_S 1142, LIMICS, Paris, France
,
Section Editors for the IMIA Yearbook Section on Decision Support › Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

15 August 2014

Publication Date:
05 March 2018 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Objective: To summarize recent research and propose a selection of best papers published in 2013 in the field of computer-based decision support in health care.

Method: Two literature reviews were performed by the two section editors from bibliographic databases with a focus on clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) and computer provider order entry in order to select a list of candidate best papers to be peer-reviewed by external reviewers.

Results: The full review process highlighted three papers, illustrating current trends in the domain of clinical decision support. The first trend is the development of theoretical approaches for CDSSs, and is exemplified by a paper proposing the integration of family histories and pedigrees in a CDSS. The second trend is illustrated by well-designed CDSSs, showing good theoretical performances and acceptance, while failing to show a clinical impact. An example is given with a paper reporting on scorecards aiming to reduce adverse drug events. The third trend is represented by research works that try to understand the limits of CDSS use, for instance by analyzing interactions between general practitioners, patients, and a CDSS.

Conclusions: CDSSs can achieve good theoretical results in terms of sensibility and specificity, as well as a good acceptance, but evaluations often fail to demonstrate a clinical impact. Future research is needed to better understand the causes of this observation and imagine new effective solutions for CDSS implementation.

Keywords

Medical informatics - International Medical Informatics Association - yearbook - decision support systems
 

  • References

  • 1 Grimshaw J, Eccles M, Lavis J, Hill S, Squires J. Knowledge translation of research findings. Implement Sci 2012; 7 (01) 50.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Cheung A, Weir M, Mayhew A, Kozloff N, Brown K, Grimshaw J. Overview of systematic reviews of the effectiveness of reminders in improving healthcare professional behavior. Syst Rev 2012; 1 (01) 36.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Ammenwerth E, Wolff A, Knaup P, Ulmer H, Skonetzki S, van Bemmel J. et al. Developing and evaluating criteria to help reviewers of biomedical informatics manuscripts. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2003; 10 (05) 512-4.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Gay P, Lopez B, Pla A, Saperas J, Pous C. Enabling the use of hereditary information from pedigree tools in medical knowledge-based systems. J Biomed Inform 2013; 46 (04) 710-20.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Wilk S, Michalowski W, Michalowski M, Farion K, Hing MM, Mohapatra S. Mitigation of adverse interactions in pairs of clinical practice guidelines using constraint logic programming. J Biomed Inform 2013; 46 (02) 341-53.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kohn M, Sun J, Knoop S, Shabo A, Carmeli B, Sow D. et al. IBM’s health analytics and clinical decision support. Yearb Med Inform 2014; 154-62.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Ferrucci D, Levas A, Bagchi S, Gondek D, Mueller ET. Watson: Beyond jeopardy! Artif Intell. 2013 199-200(0): 93-105.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Gerbier-Colomban S, Gicquel Q, Millet AL, Riou C, Grando J, Darmoni S. et al. Evaluation of syndromic algorithms for detecting patients with potentially transmissible infectious diseases based on computerised emergency-department data. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2013; 13: 101.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Hackl WO, Ammenwerth E, Marcilly R, Chazard E, Luyckx M, Leurs P. et al. Clinical evaluation of the ADE scorecards as a decision support tool for adverse drug event analysis and medication safety management. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2013; 76 (Suppl. 01) 78-90.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Beeckman D, Clays E, Van Hecke A, Vanderwee K, Schoonhoven L, Verhaeghe S. A multi-faceted tailored strategy to implement an electronic clinical decision support system for pressure ulcer prevention in nursing homes: a two-armed randomized controlled trial. Int J Nurs Stud 2013; 50 (04) 475-86.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Séroussi B, Laouénan C, Gligorov J, Uzan S, Mentré F, Bouaud J. Which breast cancer decisions remain non-compliant with guidelines despite the use of computerised decision support?. Br J Cancer 2013; 109 (05) 1147-56.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Korley FK, Morton MJ, Hill PM, Mundangepfupfu T, Zhou T, Mohareb AM. et al. Agreement Between Routine Emergency Department Care and Clinical Decision Support Recommended Care in Patients Evaluated for Mild Traumatic Brain Injury. Acad Emerg Med 2013; 20 (05) 463-9.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Boutis K, Grootendorst P, Willan A, Plint AC, Babyn P, Brison RJ. et al. Effect of the Low Risk Ankle Rule on the frequency of radiography in children with ankle injuries. CMAJ 2013; 185 (15) E731-8.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Lin FY, Dunning AM, Narula J, Shaw LJ, Gransar H, Berman DS. et al. Impact of an automated multimodality point-of-order decision support tool on rates of appropriate testing and clinical decision making for individuals with suspected coronary artery disease: a prospective multicenter study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013; 62 (04) 308-16.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Hayward J, Thomson F, Milne H, Buckingham S, Sheikh A, Fernando B. et al. ’Too much, too late’: mixed methods multi-channel video recording study of computerized decision support systems and GP prescribing. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2013; 20 e1 e76-84.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Roshanov PS, Fernandes N, Wilczynski JM, He-mens BJ, You JJ, Handler SM. et al. Features of effective computerised clinical decision support systems: meta-regression of 162 randomised trials. BMJ 2013; 346: f657.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Yeh ML, Chang YJ, Wang PY, Li YCJ, Hsu CY. Physicians’ responses to computerized drug-drug interaction alerts for outpatients. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2013; 111 (01) 17-25.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Smith M, Murphy D, Laxmisan A, Sittig D, Reis B, Esquivel A. et al. Developing software to “track and catch” missed follow-up of abnormal test results in a complex sociotechnical environment. Appl Clin Inform 2013; 4 (03) 359-75.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Shaffer VA, Probst CA, Merkle EC, Arkes HR, Medow MA. Why do patients derogate physicians who use a computer-based diagnostic support system?. Med Decis Making 2013; 33 (01) 108-18.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Raebel MA, Schmittdiel J, Karter AJ, Konieczny JL, Steiner JF. Standardizing terminology and definitions of medication adherence and persistence in research employing electronic databases. Med Care 2013; 51 8 Suppl 3 S11-21.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Bang JH, Hwang SH, Lee EJ, Kim Y. The predictability of claim-data-based comorbidity-adjusted models could be improved by using medication data. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2013; 13: 128.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Lee S. Features of computerized clinical decision support systems supportive of nursing practice: a literature review. Comput Inform Nurs 2013; 31 (10) 477-95.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Dilles T, Vander Stichele RH, Van Bortel LM, Elseviers MM. The development and test of an intervention to improve ADR screening in nursing homes. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2013; 14 (05) 379. e1–6.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar