Section 1: Health and Clinical Mangement: The Safety and Quality of Decision Support Systems

The use of clinical decision support systems (CDSS) can improve the overall safety and quality of health care delivery, but may also introduce machine-related errors. Recent concerns about the potential for CDSS to harm patients have generated much debate, but there is little research available to identify the nature of such errors, or quantify their frequency or clinical impact. A review of recent literature into electronic prescribing systems, as well as related literature in decision support. There seems to be some evidence for variation in the outcomes of using CDSS, most likely reflecting variations in clinical setting, culture, training and organizational process, independent of technical variables. There is also preliminary evidence that poorly implemented CDSS can lead to increased mortality in some settings. Studies in the US, UK and Australia have found commercial prescribing systems often fail to uniformly detect significant drug interactions, probably because of errors in their knowledge base. Electronic medication management systems may generate new types of error because of user-interface design, but al so because of events in the workplace such as distraction affecting the actions of system users. Another potential source of CDSS influenced errors are automation biases, including errors of omission where individuals miss important data because the system does not prompt them to notice them, and errors of commission where individuals do what the decision aid tells to do, even when this contradicts their training and other available data. Errors of dismissal occur when relevant alerts are ignored. On-line decision support systems may also result in errors where clinicians come to an incorrect assessment of the evidence, possibly shaped in part by cognitive decision biases. The effectiveness of decision support systems, like all other health IT, cannot be assessed purely by evaluating the usability and performance of the software, but is the outcome of a complex set of cognitive and socio-technical interactions. A deeper understanding of these issues can result in the design of systems which are not just intrinsically ‘safe’ but which also result in safe outcomes in the hands of busy or poorly resourced clinicians.

[1]  Annie Y. S. Lau,et al.  A Bayesian model that predicts the impact of Web searching on decision making , 2006 .

[2]  Richard I. Cook,et al.  Hiding in plain sight: What Koppel et al. tell us about healthcare IT , 2005, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[3]  C. Pope,et al.  Making monitoring ‘work’: human–machine interaction and patient safety in anaesthesia , 2003, Anaesthesia.

[4]  Tim Benson,et al.  Why general practitioners use computers and hospital doctors do not—Part 1: incentives , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[5]  Marc Berg,et al.  Viewpoint Paper: Some Unintended Consequences of Information Technology in Health Care: The Nature of Patient Care Information System-related Errors , 2003, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[6]  R. Wears,et al.  Computer technology and clinical work: still waiting for Godot. , 2005, JAMA.

[7]  C. Safran,et al.  Effect of computer-based alerts on the treatment and outcomes of hospitalized patients. , 1994, Archives of internal medicine.

[8]  Aki Mäkivirta,et al.  Frequency and reliability of alarms in the monitoring of cardiac postoperative patients , 1990, International journal of clinical monitoring and computing.

[9]  T. Clemmer,et al.  A computer-assisted management program for antibiotics and other antiinfective agents. , 1998, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  Jonathan M. Teich,et al.  The impact of computerized physician order entry on medication error prevention. , 1999, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA.

[11]  Julie M. Fiskio,et al.  Research Paper: Characteristics and Consequences of Drug Allergy Alert Overrides in a Computerized Physician Order Entry System , 2004, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[12]  Johanna I. Westbrook,et al.  Do online information retrieval systems help experienced clinicians answer clinical questions? , 2005, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA.

[13]  Timothy M. Franz,et al.  Enhancement of clinicians' diagnostic reasoning by computer-based consultation: a multisite study of 2 systems. , 1999, JAMA.

[14]  E. Coiera Four rules for the reinvention of health care , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[15]  David W. Bates,et al.  Reducing the frequency of errors in medicine using information technology. , 2001, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA.

[16]  A. Localio,et al.  Role of computerized physician order entry systems in facilitating medication errors. , 2005 .

[17]  J. G. Hollands,et al.  Engineering Psychology and Human Performance , 1984 .

[18]  Thomas H. Payne,et al.  A cross-site qualitative study of physician order entry. , 2003, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA.

[19]  Y. Han,et al.  Unexpected Increased Mortality After Implementation of a Commercially Sold Computerized Physician Order Entry System , 2005, Pediatrics.

[20]  H. Mcdonald,et al.  Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. , 2005, JAMA.

[21]  Mark Graber The safety of computer-based medication systems. , 2004, Archives of internal medicine.

[22]  Danielle A Stowasser,et al.  Effect of computerised prescribing on use of antibiotics , 2004, The Medical journal of Australia.

[23]  Roger B. Davis,et al.  Physicians' decisions to override computerized drug alerts in primary care. , 2003, Archives of internal medicine.

[24]  S. Liaw,et al.  Computer aided prescribing: Decision support needs to be evidence based , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[25]  S. Lawless Crying wolf: False alarms in a pediatric intensive care unit , 1994, Critical care medicine.

[26]  William L. Galanter,et al.  A trial of automated safety alerts for inpatient digoxin use with computerized physician order entry. , 2004, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA.

[27]  Edward H. Shortliffe,et al.  Evaluation Methods in Biomedical Informatics , 2000 .

[28]  Johanna I. Westbrook,et al.  Variation in the use of online clinical evidence: a qualitative analysis , 2003, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[29]  Ross Koppel,et al.  Neither panacea nor black box: Responding to three Journal of Biomedical Informatics papers on computerized physician order entry systems , 2005, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[30]  R. Haynes,et al.  Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems on physician performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. , 1998, JAMA.

[31]  T. Fahey,et al.  How accurately do primary health care professionals use cardiovascular risk tables in the management of hypertension? , 1999, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[32]  David Parkin,et al.  Effect of computerised evidence based guidelines on management of asthma and angina in adults in primary care: cluster randomised controlled trial , 2002, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[33]  Kathleen L. Mosier,et al.  Does automation bias decision-making? , 1999, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[34]  David W. Bates,et al.  Computerized physician order entry and medication errors: Finding a balance , 2005, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[35]  L J Skitka,et al.  Automation Bias and Errors: Are Crews Better Than Individuals? , 2000, The International journal of aviation psychology.

[36]  Aziz Sheikh,et al.  Prescribing safety features of general practice computer systems: evaluation using simulated test cases , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.