Electronic Health Record-Integrated Clinical Decision Support for Clinicians Serving Populations Facing Health Care Disparities: Literature Review.

Carole H Stipelman, Polina V Kukhareva, Elly Trepman, Quang-Tuyen Nguyen, Lourdes Valdez, Colleen Kenost, Maia Hightower, Kensaku Kawamoto
{"title":"Electronic Health Record-Integrated Clinical Decision Support for Clinicians Serving Populations Facing Health Care Disparities: Literature Review.","authors":"Carole H Stipelman,&nbsp;Polina V Kukhareva,&nbsp;Elly Trepman,&nbsp;Quang-Tuyen Nguyen,&nbsp;Lourdes Valdez,&nbsp;Colleen Kenost,&nbsp;Maia Hightower,&nbsp;Kensaku Kawamoto","doi":"10.1055/s-0042-1742518","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To review current studies about designing and implementing clinician-facing clinical decision support (CDS) integrated or interoperable with an electronic health record (EHR) to improve health care for populations facing disparities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed to identify studies published between January 1, 2011 and October 22, 2021 about clinician-facing CDS integrated or interoperable with an EHR. We screened abstracts and titles and extracted study data from articles using a protocol developed by team consensus. Extracted data included patient population characteristics, clinical specialty, setting, EHR, clinical problem, CDS type, reported user-centered design, implementation strategies, and outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 28 studies (36 articles) included. Most studies were performed at safety net institutions (14 studies) or Indian Health Service sites (6 studies). CDS tools were implemented in primary care outpatient settings in 24 studies (86%) for screening or treatment. CDS included point-of-care alerts (93%), order facilitators (46%), workflow support (39%), relevant information display (36%), expert systems (11%), and medication dosing support (7%). Successful outcomes were reported in 19 of 26 studies that reported outcomes (73%). User-centered design was reported during CDS planning (39%), development (32%), and implementation phase (25%). Most frequent implementation strategies were education (89%) and consensus facilitation (50%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>CDS tools may improve health equity and outcomes for patients who face disparities. The present review underscores the need for high-quality analyses of CDS-associated health outcomes, reporting of user-centered design and implementation strategies used in low-resource settings, and methods to disseminate CDS created to improve health equity.</p>","PeriodicalId":40027,"journal":{"name":"Yearbook of medical informatics","volume":"31 1","pages":"184-198"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/67/1c/10-1055-s-0042-1742518.PMC9719761.pdf","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Yearbook of medical informatics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1742518","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Objectives: To review current studies about designing and implementing clinician-facing clinical decision support (CDS) integrated or interoperable with an electronic health record (EHR) to improve health care for populations facing disparities.

Methods: We searched PubMed to identify studies published between January 1, 2011 and October 22, 2021 about clinician-facing CDS integrated or interoperable with an EHR. We screened abstracts and titles and extracted study data from articles using a protocol developed by team consensus. Extracted data included patient population characteristics, clinical specialty, setting, EHR, clinical problem, CDS type, reported user-centered design, implementation strategies, and outcomes.

Results: There were 28 studies (36 articles) included. Most studies were performed at safety net institutions (14 studies) or Indian Health Service sites (6 studies). CDS tools were implemented in primary care outpatient settings in 24 studies (86%) for screening or treatment. CDS included point-of-care alerts (93%), order facilitators (46%), workflow support (39%), relevant information display (36%), expert systems (11%), and medication dosing support (7%). Successful outcomes were reported in 19 of 26 studies that reported outcomes (73%). User-centered design was reported during CDS planning (39%), development (32%), and implementation phase (25%). Most frequent implementation strategies were education (89%) and consensus facilitation (50%).

Conclusions: CDS tools may improve health equity and outcomes for patients who face disparities. The present review underscores the need for high-quality analyses of CDS-associated health outcomes, reporting of user-centered design and implementation strategies used in low-resource settings, and methods to disseminate CDS created to improve health equity.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
电子健康记录集成临床决策支持临床医生服务面临卫生保健差距的人群:文献综述。
目的:回顾目前关于设计和实施与电子健康记录(EHR)集成或互操作的面向临床医生的临床决策支持(CDS)以改善面临差异人群的医疗保健的研究。方法:我们检索PubMed,以确定2011年1月1日至2021年10月22日之间发表的关于面向临床医生的CDS与EHR集成或互操作的研究。我们筛选摘要和标题,并使用团队共识制定的协议从文章中提取研究数据。提取的数据包括患者群体特征、临床专科、环境、电子病历、临床问题、CDS类型、报告的以用户为中心的设计、实施策略和结果。结果:共纳入28篇研究(36篇)。大多数研究是在安全网机构(14项研究)或印第安人卫生服务站(6项研究)进行的。24项研究(86%)在初级保健门诊环境中使用CDS工具进行筛查或治疗。CDS包括即时护理警报(93%)、订单辅助器(46%)、工作流程支持(39%)、相关信息显示(36%)、专家系统(11%)和药物剂量支持(7%)。报告结果的26项研究中有19项(73%)报告了成功的结果。在CDS计划(39%)、开发(32%)和实施阶段(25%)报告了以用户为中心的设计。最常见的实施策略是教育(89%)和促进共识(50%)。结论:CDS工具可以改善面临差异的患者的健康公平性和结果。本综述强调需要对CDS相关的健康结果进行高质量的分析,报告在低资源环境中使用的以用户为中心的设计和实施策略,以及传播旨在改善卫生公平的CDS的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Yearbook of medical informatics
Yearbook of medical informatics Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊介绍: Published by the International Medical Informatics Association, this annual publication includes the best papers in medical informatics from around the world.
期刊最新文献
Reflections Towards the Future of Medical Informatics. The Impact of Clinical Decision Support on Health Disparities and the Digital Divide. Health Information Exchange: Understanding the Policy Landscape and Future of Data Interoperability. The Need for Green and Responsible Medical Informatics and Digital Health: Looking Forward with One Digital Health. Health Equity in Clinical Research Informatics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1