集成诊断决策支持软件与电子健康记录的经验:信息共享的好处与风险。

Michael M Segal, Alanna K Rahm, Nathan C Hulse, Grant Wood, Janet L Williams, Lynn Feldman, Gregory J Moore, David Gehrum, Michelle Yefko, Steven Mayernick, Roger Gildersleeve, Margie C Sunderland, Steven B Bleyl, Peter Haug, Marc S Williams
{"title":"集成诊断决策支持软件与电子健康记录的经验:信息共享的好处与风险。","authors":"Michael M Segal,&nbsp;Alanna K Rahm,&nbsp;Nathan C Hulse,&nbsp;Grant Wood,&nbsp;Janet L Williams,&nbsp;Lynn Feldman,&nbsp;Gregory J Moore,&nbsp;David Gehrum,&nbsp;Michelle Yefko,&nbsp;Steven Mayernick,&nbsp;Roger Gildersleeve,&nbsp;Margie C Sunderland,&nbsp;Steven B Bleyl,&nbsp;Peter Haug,&nbsp;Marc S Williams","doi":"10.5334/egems.244","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Reducing misdiagnosis has long been a goal of medical informatics. Current thinking has focused on achieving this goal by integrating diagnostic decision support into electronic health records.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A diagnostic decision support system already in clinical use was integrated into electronic health record systems at two large health systems, after clinician input on desired capabilities. The decision support provided three outputs: editable text for use in a clinical note, a summary including the suggested differential diagnosis with a graphical representation of probability, and a list of pertinent positive and pertinent negative findings (with onsets).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Structured interviews showed widespread agreement that the tool was useful and that the integration improved workflow. There was disagreement among various specialties over the risks versus benefits of documenting intermediate diagnostic thinking. Benefits were most valued by specialists involved in diagnostic testing, who were able to use the additional clinical context for richer interpretation of test results. Risks were most cited by physicians making clinical diagnoses, who expressed concern that a process that generated diagnostic possibilities exposed them to legal liability.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusion: </strong>Reconciling the preferences of the various groups could include saving only the finding list as a patient-wide resource, saving intermediate diagnostic thinking only temporarily, or adoption of professional guidelines to clarify the role of decision support in diagnosis.</p>","PeriodicalId":72880,"journal":{"name":"EGEMS (Washington, DC)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/d9/2d/egems-5-1-244.PMC5994959.pdf","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Experience with Integrating Diagnostic Decision Support Software with Electronic Health Records: Benefits versus Risks of Information Sharing.\",\"authors\":\"Michael M Segal,&nbsp;Alanna K Rahm,&nbsp;Nathan C Hulse,&nbsp;Grant Wood,&nbsp;Janet L Williams,&nbsp;Lynn Feldman,&nbsp;Gregory J Moore,&nbsp;David Gehrum,&nbsp;Michelle Yefko,&nbsp;Steven Mayernick,&nbsp;Roger Gildersleeve,&nbsp;Margie C Sunderland,&nbsp;Steven B Bleyl,&nbsp;Peter Haug,&nbsp;Marc S Williams\",\"doi\":\"10.5334/egems.244\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Reducing misdiagnosis has long been a goal of medical informatics. Current thinking has focused on achieving this goal by integrating diagnostic decision support into electronic health records.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A diagnostic decision support system already in clinical use was integrated into electronic health record systems at two large health systems, after clinician input on desired capabilities. The decision support provided three outputs: editable text for use in a clinical note, a summary including the suggested differential diagnosis with a graphical representation of probability, and a list of pertinent positive and pertinent negative findings (with onsets).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Structured interviews showed widespread agreement that the tool was useful and that the integration improved workflow. There was disagreement among various specialties over the risks versus benefits of documenting intermediate diagnostic thinking. Benefits were most valued by specialists involved in diagnostic testing, who were able to use the additional clinical context for richer interpretation of test results. Risks were most cited by physicians making clinical diagnoses, who expressed concern that a process that generated diagnostic possibilities exposed them to legal liability.</p><p><strong>Discussion and conclusion: </strong>Reconciling the preferences of the various groups could include saving only the finding list as a patient-wide resource, saving intermediate diagnostic thinking only temporarily, or adoption of professional guidelines to clarify the role of decision support in diagnosis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72880,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"EGEMS (Washington, DC)\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-12-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/d9/2d/egems-5-1-244.PMC5994959.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"EGEMS (Washington, DC)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5334/egems.244\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EGEMS (Washington, DC)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/egems.244","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

摘要

减少误诊一直是医学信息学研究的目标。目前的想法集中在通过将诊断决策支持集成到电子健康记录中来实现这一目标。方法:在临床医生输入所需功能后,将临床使用的诊断决策支持系统集成到两个大型卫生系统的电子健康记录系统中。决策支持提供了三种输出:用于临床说明的可编辑文本,包括建议的鉴别诊断的摘要和概率图形表示,以及相关阳性和相关阴性结果(包括发病)的列表。结果:结构化访谈显示了广泛的共识,即该工具是有用的,并且集成改进了工作流程。对于记录中间诊断思维的风险与收益,各专业之间存在分歧。参与诊断测试的专家最看重的是益处,他们能够利用额外的临床背景对测试结果进行更丰富的解释。进行临床诊断的医生提到的风险最多,他们担心产生诊断可能性的过程会使他们承担法律责任。讨论和结论:协调不同群体的偏好可以包括仅保存发现列表作为患者范围的资源,仅临时保存中间诊断思维,或采用专业指南来澄清决策支持在诊断中的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Experience with Integrating Diagnostic Decision Support Software with Electronic Health Records: Benefits versus Risks of Information Sharing.

Introduction: Reducing misdiagnosis has long been a goal of medical informatics. Current thinking has focused on achieving this goal by integrating diagnostic decision support into electronic health records.

Methods: A diagnostic decision support system already in clinical use was integrated into electronic health record systems at two large health systems, after clinician input on desired capabilities. The decision support provided three outputs: editable text for use in a clinical note, a summary including the suggested differential diagnosis with a graphical representation of probability, and a list of pertinent positive and pertinent negative findings (with onsets).

Results: Structured interviews showed widespread agreement that the tool was useful and that the integration improved workflow. There was disagreement among various specialties over the risks versus benefits of documenting intermediate diagnostic thinking. Benefits were most valued by specialists involved in diagnostic testing, who were able to use the additional clinical context for richer interpretation of test results. Risks were most cited by physicians making clinical diagnoses, who expressed concern that a process that generated diagnostic possibilities exposed them to legal liability.

Discussion and conclusion: Reconciling the preferences of the various groups could include saving only the finding list as a patient-wide resource, saving intermediate diagnostic thinking only temporarily, or adoption of professional guidelines to clarify the role of decision support in diagnosis.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Implementing a Novel Quality Improvement-Based Approach to Data Quality Monitoring and Enhancement in a Multipurpose Clinical Registry. A Spatial Analysis of Health Disparities Associated with Antibiotic Resistant Infections in Children Living in Atlanta (2002–2010) Predicting the Incidence of Pressure Ulcers in the Intensive Care Unit Using Machine Learning Applying a Commercialization-Readiness Framework to Optimize Value for Achieving Sustainability of an Electronic Health Data Research Network and Its Data Capabilities: The SAFTINet Experience. Innovative Data Science to Transform Health Care: All the Pieces Matter
×
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