» Articles » PMID: 30130028

Choosing Wisely Clinical Decision Support Adherence and Associated Inpatient Outcomes

Overview
Journal Am J Manag Care
Specialty Health Services
Date 2018 Aug 22
PMID 30130028
Citations 13
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: To determine whether utilization of clinical decision support (CDS) is correlated with improved patient clinical and financial outcomes.

Study Design: Observational study of 26,424 patient encounters. In the treatment group, the provider adhered to all CDS recommendations. In the control group, the provider did not adhere to CDS recommendations.

Methods: An observational study of provider adherence to a CDS system was conducted using inpatient encounters spanning 3 years. Data comprised alert status (adherence), provider type (resident, attending), patient demographics, clinical outcomes, Medicare status, and diagnosis information. We assessed the associations between alert adherence and 4 outcome measures: encounter length of stay, odds of 30-day readmission, odds of complications of care, and total direct costs. The associations between alert adherence and the outcome measures were estimated using 4 generalized linear models that adjusted for potential confounders, such as illness severity and case complexity.

Results: The total encounter cost increased 7.3% (95% CI, 3.5%-11%) for nonadherent encounters versus adherent encounters. We found a 6.2% (95% CI, 3.0%-9.4%) increase in length of stay for nonadherent versus adherent encounters. The odds ratio for readmission within 30 days increased by 1.14 (95% CI, 0.998-1.31) for nonadherent versus adherent encounters. The odds ratio for complications increased by 1.29 (95% CI, 1.04-1.61) for nonadherent versus adherent encounters.

Conclusions: Consistent improvements in measured outcomes were seen in the treatment group versus the control group. We recommend that provider organizations consider the introduction of real-time CDS to support adherence to evidence-based guidelines, but because we cannot determine the cause of the associations between CDS interventions and improved clinical and financial outcomes, further study is required.

Citing Articles

The Value of Clinical Decision Support in Healthcare: A Focus on Screening and Early Detection.

Schafer H, Lajmi N, Valente P, Pedrioli A, Cigoianu D, Hoehne B Diagnostics (Basel). 2025; 15(5).

PMID: 40075895 PMC: 11899545. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics15050648.


Anomaly-based threat detection in smart health using machine learning.

Tabassum M, Mahmood S, Bukhari A, Alshemaimri B, Daud A, Khalique F BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2024; 24(1):347.

PMID: 39563355 PMC: 11577804. DOI: 10.1186/s12911-024-02760-4.


Evaluating the Accuracy and Impact of the ESR-iGuide Decision Support Tool in Optimizing CT Imaging Referral Appropriateness.

Luxenburg O, Vaknin S, Wilf-Miron R, Saban M J Imaging Inform Med. 2024; 38(1):357-367.

PMID: 39028357 PMC: 11811312. DOI: 10.1007/s10278-024-01197-5.


Effect of an algorithm for automatic placing of standardised test order sets on low-value appointments and attendance rates at four Spanish teaching hospitals: an interrupted time series analysis.

Alvaro de la Parra J, Del Olmo Rodriguez M, Carames Sanchez C, Blanco A, Pfang B, Mayoralas-Alises S BMJ Open. 2024; 14(1):e081158.

PMID: 38267242 PMC: 10824031. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-081158.


Inappropriate CT examinations: how much, who and where? Insights from a clinical decision support system (CDSS) analysis.

Rosen S, Singer C, Vaknin S, Kaim A, Luxenburg O, Makori A Eur Radiol. 2023; 33(11):7796-7804.

PMID: 37646812 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-023-10136-x.


References
1.
DiMagno M, Wamsteker E, Rizk R, Spaete J, Gupta S, Sahay T . A combined paging alert and web-based instrument alters clinician behavior and shortens hospital length of stay in acute pancreatitis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014; 109(3):306-15. PMC: 5565843. DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2013.282. View

2.
Wolfstadt J, Gurwitz J, Field T, Lee M, Kalkar S, Wu W . The effect of computerized physician order entry with clinical decision support on the rates of adverse drug events: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med. 2008; 23(4):451-8. PMC: 2359507. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-008-0504-5. View

3.
Rosenberg A, Agiro A, Gottlieb M, Barron J, Brady P, Liu Y . Early Trends Among Seven Recommendations From the Choosing Wisely Campaign. JAMA Intern Med. 2015; 175(12):1913-20. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.5441. View

4.
Krouss M, Croft L, Morgan D . Physician Understanding and Ability to Communicate Harms and Benefits of Common Medical Treatments. JAMA Intern Med. 2016; 176(10):1565-1567. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.5027. View

5.
Campanella P, Lovato E, Marone C, Fallacara L, Mancuso A, Ricciardi W . The impact of electronic health records on healthcare quality: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Public Health. 2015; 26(1):60-4. DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/ckv122. View