PubMed · 15559840
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
AHIMA computer-assisted coding e-HIM work group. Delving into computer-assisted coding.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15559840/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) are computer-based information systems used to integrate clinical and patient information to provide support for decision-making in patient care. They may be useful in aiding the diagnostic process, the generation of alerts and reminders, therapy critiquing/planning, information retrieval, and image recognition and interpretation. CDSS for use in adult patients have been evaluated using randomised control trials and their results analysed in systematic reviews. There is as yet no systematic review on CDSS use in neonatal medicine. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether the use of clinical decision support systems has an effect on 1. the mortality and morbidity of newborn infants and 2. the performance of physicians treating them SEARCH STRATEGY: The standard search method of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group was used. Searches were made of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2004), MEDLINE (from 1966 to August 2004), EMBASE (1980-2004), CINAHL (1982 to August 2004) and AMED (1985 to August 2004). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials which compared the effects of CDSS versus no CDSS in the care of newborn infants. Trials which compared CDSS against other CDSS were also considered. The eligible interventions were CDSS for computerised physician order entry, computerised physiological monitoring, diagnostic systems and prognostic systems. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Studies were assessed for eligibility using a standard pro forma. Methodological quality was assessed independently by the different investigators. MAIN RESULTS: Two studies fitting the selection criteria were found for computer aided prescribing and one study for computer aided physiological monitoring.Computer-aided prescribing: one study (Cade 1997) examined the effects of computerised prescribing of parenteral nutrition ordering. No significant effects on short-term outcomes were found and longer term outcomes were not studied. The second study (Balaguer 2001) investigated the effects of a database program in aiding the calculation of neonatal drug dosages. It was found that the time taken for calculation was significantly reduced and there was a significant reduction in the number of calculation errors.Computer-aided physiological monitoring: one eligible study (Cunningham 1998) was found which examined the effects of computerised cot side physiological trend monitoring and display. There were no significant effects on mortality, volume of colloid infused, frequency of blood gases sampling (samples per day) or severe (Papile Grade 4) intraventricular haemorrhage. Published data did not permit us to analyse effects on long-term neurodevelopmental outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There are very limited data from randomised trials on which to assess the effects of clinical decision support systems in neonatal care. Further evaluation of CDSS using randomised controlled trials is warranted.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
OBJECTIVE: Authors evaluated whether displaying context sensitive links to infrequently accessed educational materials and patient information via the user interface of an inpatient computerized care provider order entry (CPOE) system would affect access rates to the materials. DESIGN: The CPOE of Vanderbilt University Hospital (VUH) included "baseline" clinical decision support advice for safety and quality. Authors augmented this with seven new primarily educational decision support features. A prospective, randomized, controlled trial compared clinicians' utilization rates for the new materials via two interfaces. Control subjects could access study-related decision support from a menu in the standard CPOE interface. Intervention subjects received active notification when study-related decision support was available through context sensitive, visibly highlighted, selectable hyperlinks. MEASUREMENTS: Rates of opportunities to access and utilization of study-related decision support materials from April 1999 through March 2000 on seven VUH Internal Medicine wards. RESULTS: During 4,466 intervention subject-days, there were 240,504 (53.9/subject-day) opportunities for study-related decision support, while during 3,397 control subject-days, there were 178,235 (52.5/subject-day) opportunities for such decision support, respectively (p = 0.11). Individual intervention subjects accessed the decision support features at least once on 3.8% of subject-days logged on (278 responses); controls accessed it at least once on 0.6% of subject-days (18 responses), with a response rate ratio adjusted for decision support frequency of 9.17 (95% confidence interval 4.6-18, p < 0.0005). On average, intervention subjects accessed study-related decision support materials once every 16 days individually and once every 1.26 days in aggregate. CONCLUSION: Highlighting availability of context-sensitive educational materials and patient information through visible hyperlinks significantly increased utilization rates for study-related decision support when compared to "standard" VUH CPOE methods, although absolute response rates were low.