Clinical Decision Support Capabilities of Commercially-available Clinical Information Systems

Purpose: The goal of this project was to describe and quantify the results of a study of decision support capabilities in Certification Commission for Health Information Technology (CCHIT) certified electronic health record systems. Methods: The authors conducted a series of interviews with representatives of nine commercially available clinical information systems, evaluating their capabilities against 42 different clinical decision support features. Results: Six of the nine reviewed systems offered all the applicable event-driven, action-oriented, real-time clinical decision support triggers required for initiating clinical decision support interventions. Five of the nine systems could access all the patient-specific data items identified as necessary. Six of the nine systems supported all the intervention types identified as necessary to allow clinical information systems to tailor their interventions based on the severity of the clinical situation and the user’s workflow. Only one system supported all the offered choices identified as key to allowing physicians to take action directly from within the alert. Discussion: The principal finding relates to system-by-system variability. The best system in our analysis had only a single missing feature (from 42 total) while the worst had eighteen.This dramatic variability in CDS capability among commercially available systems was unexpected and is a cause for concern. Conclusions: These findings have implications for four distinct constituencies: purchasers of clinical information systems, developers of clinical decision support, vendors of clinical information systems and certification bodies. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009;16:637–644. DOI 10.1197/jamia.M311

[1]  L. Hayden,et al.  Ten Commandments for Effective Clinical Decision Support: Making the Practice of Evidence-based Medicine a Reality , 2011 .

[2]  Vipul Kashyap,et al.  Creating and sharing clinical decision support content with Web 2.0: Issues and examples , 2009, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[3]  Diane L. Seger,et al.  Viewpoint Paper: Tiering Drug-Drug Interaction Alerts by Severity Increases Compliance Rates , 2009, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[4]  Adam Wright,et al.  A framework and model for evaluating clinical decision support architectures , 2008, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[5]  Shyam Visweswaran,et al.  Analysis of a Failed Clinical Decision Support System for Management of Congestive Heart Failure , 2008, AMIA.

[6]  Adam Wright,et al.  A four-phase model of the evolution of clinical decision support architectures , 2008, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[7]  Minna Kaila,et al.  What may help or hinder the implementation of computerized decision support systems (CDSSs): a focus group study with physicians. , 2008, Family practice.

[8]  Jonathan M. Teich,et al.  Grand challenges in clinical decision support , 2008, J. Biomed. Informatics.

[9]  Tonya Hongsermeier,et al.  Research Paper: A Description and Functional Taxonomy of Rule-based Decision Support Content at a Large Integrated Delivery Network , 2007, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[10]  Adam Wright,et al.  White paper: A Roadmap for National Action on Clinical Decision Support , 2007, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[11]  David W. Bates,et al.  Viewpoint Paper: Evaluation and Certification of Computerized Provider Order Entry Systems , 2007, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[12]  P. Shekelle,et al.  Systematic Review: Impact of Health Information Technology on Quality, Efficiency, and Costs of Medical Care , 2006, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[13]  Blackford Middleton,et al.  Achieving U.S. Health information technology adoption: the need for a third hand. , 2005, Health affairs.

[14]  Emily S. Patterson,et al.  Exploring barriers and facilitators to the use of computerized clinical reminders. , 2005, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA.

[15]  E. Balas,et al.  Improving clinical practice using clinical decision support systems: a systematic review of trials to identify features critical to success , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

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

[17]  David W. Bates,et al.  Position Paper: Factors and Forces Affecting EHR System Adoption: Report of a 2004 ACMI Discussion , 2004, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[18]  Blackford Middleton,et al.  Viewpoint Paper: Accelerating U.S. EHR Adoption: How to Get There From Here. Recommendations Based on the 2004 ACMI Retreat , 2005, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[19]  P. Shekelle,et al.  Comparison of Quality of Care for Patients in the Veterans Health Administration and Patients in a National Sample , 2004, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[20]  D. Bates,et al.  Adverse drug events and medication errors: detection and classification methods , 2004, Quality and Safety in Health Care.

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

[22]  David Blumenthal,et al.  Improving Preventive Care by Prompting Physicians , 2001 .

[23]  Jonathan M. Teich,et al.  Using information systems to measure and improve quality , 1999, Int. J. Medical Informatics.

[24]  J. Marc Overhage,et al.  Research Paper: A Randomized Trial of "Corollary Orders" to Prevent Errors of Omission , 1997, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[25]  Dean F. Sittig,et al.  Computerized management of patient care in a complex, controlled clinical trial in the intensive care unit. , 1987, Computer methods and programs in biomedicine.

[26]  C. McDonald.  Protocol-based computer reminders, the quality of care and the non-perfectability of man. , 1976, The New England journal of medicine.