Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1769911
Lessons Learned from a National Initiative Promoting Publicly Available Standards-Based Clinical Decision Support
Funding This work is based on research conducted by NORC at the University of Chicago under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. HHSP233201500023I).Abstract
Background Clinical decision support (CDS), which provides tools to assist clinical decision-making, can improve adherence to evidence-based practices, prevent medical errors, and support high-quality and patient-centered care delivery. Publicly available CDS that uses standards to express clinical logic (i.e., standards-based CDS) has the potential to reduce duplicative efforts of translating the same clinical evidence into CDS across multiple health care institutions. Yet development of such CDS is relatively new and its potential only partially explored.
Objectives This study aimed to describe lessons learned from a national initiative promoting publicly available, standards-based CDS resources, discuss challenges, and report suggestions for improvement.
Methods Findings were drawn from an evaluation of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Patient-Centered Outcomes Research CDS Initiative, which aimed to advance evidence into practice through standards-based and publicly available CDS. Methods included literature and program material reviews, key informant interviews, and a web-based survey about a public repository of CDS artifacts and tools for authoring standards-based CDS.
Results The evaluation identified important lessons for developing and implementing standards-based CDS through publicly available repositories such as CDS Connect. Trust is a critical factor in uptake and can be bolstered through transparent information on underlying evidence, collaboration with experts, and feedback loops between users and developers to support continuous improvement. Additionally, while adoption of standards among electronic health record developers will make it easier to implement standards-based CDS, lower-resourced health systems will need extra support to ensure successful implementation and use. Finally, although we found the resources developed by the Initiative to offer valuable prototypes for the field, health systems desire more information about patient-centered, clinical, and cost-related outcomes to help them justify the investment required to implement standards-based, publicly available CDS.
Conclusion While the standards and technology to publicly share standards-based CDS have increased, broad dissemination and implementation remain challenging.
Keywords
decision support systems - electronic health records - standards-based CDS - implementation - facilitators and barriersProtection of Human and Animal Subjects
The evaluation was performed in compliance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects and was reviewed by the NORC at the University of Chicago Institutional Review Boards.
Authors' Contributions
All authors made substantial contributions to conception, design, and execution of this research. All authors participated in drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content and gave final approval of the version published.
Publication History
Received: 22 December 2022
Accepted: 14 April 2023
Article published online:
26 July 2023
© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany
-
References
- 1 Michel JJ, Flores EJ, Dutcher L, Mull NK, Tsou AY. Translating an evidence-based clinical pathway into shareable CDS: developing a systematic process using publicly available tools. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2021; 28 (01) 52-61
- 2 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Rockville, MD. . Clinical decision support. Accessed April 29, 2022 at: https://www.ahrq.gov/cpi/about/otherwebsites/clinical-decision-support/index.html
- 3 Kubben P, Dumontier M, Dekker A. eds. Fundamentals of Clinical Data Science. CHAM (CH): Springer; 2019. Accessed May 15, 2023 at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK543527/ Doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-99713-1. Accessed June 1, 2023
- 4 Sutton RT, Pincock D, Baumgart DC, Sadowski DC, Fedorak RN, Kroeker KI. An overview of clinical decision support systems: benefits, risks, and strategies for success. NPJ Digit Med 2020; 3 (01) 17
- 5 Shi Y, Amill-Rosario A, Rudin RS. et al. Barriers to using clinical decision support in ambulatory care: do clinics in health systems fare better?. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2021; 28 (08) 1667-1675
- 6 Panattoni L, Stults CD, Chan AS, Tai-Seale M. The human resource costs of implementing autopend clinical decision support to improve health maintenance. Am J Manag Care 2020; 26 (07) e232-e236
- 7 Shear K, Rice H, Garabedian PM. et al. Summative usability of an interoperable computerized clinical decision support tool for fall risk management in primary care. Appl Clin Inform 2023; 14 (02) 212-226
- 8 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. . Rockville, MD. Patient-centered outcomes research clinical decision support: accelerating evidence into practice through CDS. Overview. Accessed May 15, 2023 at: https://cds.ahrq.gov/overview
- 9 Reaction Data Industry Insights. Clinical decision support 2018. Accessed August 15, 2022 at: https://www.reactiondata.com/industry-insights/report-clinical-decision-support-2018/
- 10 Stipelman CH, Kukhareva PV, Trepman E. et al. Electronic health record-integrated clinical decision support for clinicians serving populations facing health care disparities: literature review. Yearb Med Inform 2022; 31 (01) 184-198
- 11 Tamposis I, Tsougos I, Karatzas A, Vassiou K, Vlychou M, Tzortzis V. PCaGuard: a software platform to support optimal management of prostate cancer. Appl Clin Inform 2022; 13 (01) 91-99
- 12 Rhodes B. . Clinical decision support standards. Accessed April 28, 2022 at: https://confluence.hl7.org/display/CDS/Clinical+Decision+Support+Standards
- 13 Taber P, Radloff C, Del Fiol G, Staes C, Kawamoto K. New standards for clinical decision support: a survey of the state of implementation. Yearb Med Inform 2021; 30 (01) 159-171
- 14 Open Clinical Decision Support (OpenCDS). . OpenCDS tools and resources. Accessed September 23, 2022 at: https://www.opencds.org/
- 15 Lomotan EA, Meadows G, Michaels M, Michel JJ, Miller K. To share is human! advancing evidence into practice through a national repository of interoperable clinical decision support. Appl Clin Inform 2020; 11 (01) 112-121
- 16 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. . CDS Connect. Accessed February 3, 2020 at: https://cds.ahrq.gov/cdsconnect
- 17 Connect Frequently Asked Questions CDS. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Accessed May 15, 2023 at: https://cds.ahrq.gov/cdsconnect/faq
- 18 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Rockville, MD. Factors to consider in managing chronic pain: A pain management summary. Accessed May 15, 2023 at: https://cds.ahrq.gov/index.php/cdsconnect/artifact/factors-consider-managing-chronic-pain-pain-management-summary
- 19 Saldana J. . The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. 3rd ed. SAGE Publications; 2016
- 20 Posit team (2023). RStudio: Integrated Development Environment for R. Posit Software, PBC, Boston, MA. Accessed May 15, 2023 at: http://www.posit.co/.
- 21 Oleinik A. Mixing quantitative and qualitative content analysis: triangulation at work. Qual Quant 2011; 45 (04) 859-873
- 22 Fetters MD, Curry LA, Creswell JW. Achieving integration in mixed methods designs-principles and practices. Health Serv Res 2013; 48 6 Pt 2 2134-2156
- 23 Marcial LH, Richardson JE, Lasater B. et al. The Imperative for Patient-Centered Clinical Decision Support. EGEMS (Wash DC) 2018; 6 (01) 12
- 24 MITRE Corporation CMS Alliance to Modernize Healthcare. . CDS Connect Contract Year 1 Final Report. October 2017. Accessed May 15, 2023 at: https://cds.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/reports/AHRQ_Final_Report_2017.pdf
- 25 Boxwala AA, Rocha BH, Maviglia S. et al. A multi-layered framework for disseminating knowledge for computer-based decision support. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2011; 18 (Suppl 1, Suppl 1): i132-i139
- 26 Odigie E, Lacson R, Raja A. et al. Fast healthcare interoperability resources, clinical quality language, and systematized nomenclature of medicine-clinical terms in representing clinical evidence logic statements for the use of imaging procedures: descriptive study. JMIR Med Inform 2019; 7 (02) e13590
- 27 Strasberg HR, Rhodes B, Del Fiol G, Jenders RA, Haug PJ, Kawamoto K. Contemporary clinical decision support standards using Health Level Seven International Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2021; 28 (08) 1796-1806
- 28 Miller K, Hettinger Z, Kazi S. et al. Quantifying Efficiencies Gained Through Shareable Clinical Decision Support Resources: Final Report; AHRQ Publication No. 20-018. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. December 2019. Accessed May 15, 2023 at https://digital.ahrq.gov/ahrq-funded-projects/quantifying-efficiencies-gained-through-shareable-clinical-decision-support/final-report
- 29 Richardson JE, Middleton B, Platt JE, Blumenfeld BH. Building and maintaining trust in clinical decision support: Recommendations from the Patient-Centered CDS Learning Network. Learn Health Syst 2019; 4 (02) e10208
- 30 Singh H, Sittig DF. Measuring and improving patient safety through health information technology: the Health IT Safety Framework. BMJ Qual Saf 2016; 25 (04) 226-232
- 31 MITRE Corporation CMS Alliance to Modernize Healthcare. . CDS Connect pilot report preventive health CDS interventions; 2019. Accessed May 15, 2023 at: https://cds.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/cds/artifact/1071/CDS%20Connect_Year%203%20Pilot%20Report_Final.pdf
- 32 Liberati EG, Ruggiero F, Galuppo L. et al. What hinders the uptake of computerized decision support systems in hospitals? A qualitative study and framework for implementation. Implement Sci 2017; 12 (01) 113
- 33 Jones C, Thornton J, Wyatt JC. Enhancing trust in clinical decision support systems: a framework for developers. BMJ Health Care Inform 2021; 28 (01) e100247
- 34 van Leeuwen D, Mittelman M, Fabian L, Lomotan EA. Nothing for me or about me, without me: codesign of clinical decision support. Appl Clin Inform 2022; 13 (03) 641-646
- 35 Saraiya M, Colbert J, Bhat GL. et al. Computable guidelines and clinical decision support for cervical cancer screening and management to improve outcomes and health equity. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2022; 31 (04) 462-468
- 36 FHIR Clinical Guidelines Implementation Guide. . HL7 International. Accessed May 17, 2023 at: http://hl7.org/fhir/uv/cpg/index.html
- 37 Open Clinical Decision Support (OpenCDS) Overview. Accessed April 28, 2022 at: https://www.opencds.org/
- 38 Department of Health and Human Services. . 21st Century Cures Act: Interoperability, information blocking, and the ONC Health IT Certification Program. Accessed August 31, 2022 at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/05/01/2020-07419/21st-century-cures-act-interoperability-information-blocking-and-the-onc-health-it-certification
- 39 Soares A, Jenders RA, Harrison R, Schilling LM. A comparison of Arden syntax and clinical quality language as knowledge representation formalisms for clinical decision support. Appl Clin Inform 2021; 12 (03) 495-506
- 40 Bright TJ, Wong A, Dhurjati R. et al. Effect of clinical decision-support systems: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2012; 157 (01) 29-43
- 41 Kuotu GC, Barth B, Lower M. . Literature study on the return on investment concerning the implementation of a computerized clinical decision support in a hospital information system. medRxiv. 2020. Accessed May 15, 2023 at: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.30.20223362v1.full
- 42 Discern Health. Clinical decision support resource sharing and use: an assessment of the current state and recommendations to OCQS for near-term next steps. 2015. Accessed August 15, 2022 at: http://www.discernhealth.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/CDS-Resource-Sharing-and-Use-Report.pdf
- 43 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Rockville MD. . Clinical decision support for chronic pain management. Accessed May 15, 2023 at: https://digital.ahrq.gov/ahrq-funded-projects/clinical-decision-support-chronic-pain-management-rti
- 44 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Rockville MD. . Clinical decision support for chronic pain management. Accessed May 15, 2023 at: https://digital.ahrq.gov/ahrq-funded-projects/clinical-decision-support-chronic-pain-management-medstar
- 45 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Rockville MD. . Shareable, interoperable clinical decision support for older adults: advancing fall assessment and prevention patient-centered outcomes research findings into diverse primary care practices (ASPIRE). Accessed May 15, 2023 at: https://digital.ahrq.gov/ahrq-funded-projects/shareable-interoperable-clinical-decision-support-older-adults-advancing-fall
- 46 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Rockville MD. . Translating hypertension guidelines into practice: development of interoperable clinical decision support. Accessed May 15, 2023 at: https://digital.ahrq.gov/ahrq-funded-projects/translating-hypertension-guidelines-practice-development-interoperable-clinical
- 47 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Rockville MD. . Enabling shared decision making to reduce harm from drug interactions: an end-to-end demonstration. Accessed May 15, 2023 at: https://digital.ahrq.gov/ahrq-funded-projects/enabling-shared-decision-making-reduce-harm-drug-interactions-end-end