110
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Use of health information technology to reduce diagnostic errors

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Health information technology (HIT) systems have the potential to reduce delayed, missed or incorrect diagnoses. We describe and classify the current state of diagnostic HIT and identify future research directions.

          Methods

          A multi-pronged literature search was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, backwards and forwards reference searches and contributions from domain experts. We included HIT systems evaluated in clinical and experimental settings as well as previous reviews, and excluded radiology computer-aided diagnosis, monitor alerts and alarms, and studies focused on disease staging and prognosis. Articles were organised within a conceptual framework of the diagnostic process and areas requiring further investigation were identified.

          Results

          HIT approaches, tools and algorithms were identified and organised into 10 categories related to those assisting: (1) information gathering; (2) information organisation and display; (3) differential diagnosis generation; (4) weighing of diagnoses; (5) generation of diagnostic plan; (6) access to diagnostic reference information; (7) facilitating follow-up; (8) screening for early detection in asymptomatic patients; (9) collaborative diagnosis; and (10) facilitating diagnostic feedback to clinicians. We found many studies characterising potential interventions, but relatively few evaluating the interventions in actual clinical settings and even fewer demonstrating clinical impact.

          Conclusions

          Diagnostic HIT research is still in its early stages with few demonstrations of measurable clinical impact. Future efforts need to focus on: (1) improving methods and criteria for measurement of the diagnostic process using electronic data; (2) better usability and interfaces in electronic health records; (3) more meaningful incorporation of evidence-based diagnostic protocols within clinical workflows; and (4) systematic feedback of diagnostic performance.

          Related collections

          Most cited references125

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review.

          Developers of health care software have attributed improvements in patient care to these applications. As with any health care intervention, such claims require confirmation in clinical trials. To review controlled trials assessing the effects of computerized clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) and to identify study characteristics predicting benefit. We updated our earlier reviews by searching the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Inspec, and ISI databases and consulting reference lists through September 2004. Authors of 64 primary studies confirmed data or provided additional information. We included randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials that evaluated the effect of a CDSS compared with care provided without a CDSS on practitioner performance or patient outcomes. Teams of 2 reviewers independently abstracted data on methods, setting, CDSS and patient characteristics, and outcomes. One hundred studies met our inclusion criteria. The number and methodologic quality of studies improved over time. The CDSS improved practitioner performance in 62 (64%) of the 97 studies assessing this outcome, including 4 (40%) of 10 diagnostic systems, 16 (76%) of 21 reminder systems, 23 (62%) of 37 disease management systems, and 19 (66%) of 29 drug-dosing or prescribing systems. Fifty-two trials assessed 1 or more patient outcomes, of which 7 trials (13%) reported improvements. Improved practitioner performance was associated with CDSSs that automatically prompted users compared with requiring users to activate the system (success in 73% of trials vs 47%; P = .02) and studies in which the authors also developed the CDSS software compared with studies in which the authors were not the developers (74% success vs 28%; respectively, P = .001). Many CDSSs improve practitioner performance. To date, the effects on patient outcomes remain understudied and, when studied, inconsistent.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Ten commandments for effective clinical decision support: making the practice of evidence-based medicine a reality.

            While evidence-based medicine has increasingly broad-based support in health care, it remains difficult to get physicians to actually practice it. Across most domains in medicine, practice has lagged behind knowledge by at least several years. The authors believe that the key tools for closing this gap will be information systems that provide decision support to users at the time they make decisions, which should result in improved quality of care. Furthermore, providers make many errors, and clinical decision support can be useful for finding and preventing such errors. Over the last eight years the authors have implemented and studied the impact of decision support across a broad array of domains and have found a number of common elements important to success. The goal of this report is to discuss these lessons learned in the interest of informing the efforts of others working to make the practice of evidence-based medicine a reality.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Inviting patients to read their doctors' notes: a quasi-experimental study and a look ahead.

              Little information exists about what primary care physicians (PCPs) and patients experience if patients are invited to read their doctors' office notes. To evaluate the effect on doctors and patients of facilitating patient access to visit notes over secure Internet portals. Quasi-experimental trial of PCPs and patient volunteers in a year-long program that provided patients with electronic links to their doctors' notes. Primary care practices at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) in Massachusetts, Geisinger Health System (GHS) in Pennsylvania, and Harborview Medical Center (HMC) in Washington. 105 PCPs and 13 564 of their patients who had at least 1 completed note available during the intervention period. Portal use and electronic messaging by patients and surveys focusing on participants' perceptions of behaviors, benefits, and negative consequences. 11 797 of 13 564 patients with visit notes available opened at least 1 note (84% at BIDMC, 92% at GHS, and 47% at HMC). Of 5391 patients who opened at least 1 note and completed a postintervention survey, 77% to 87% across the 3 sites reported that open notes helped them feel more in control of their care; 60% to 78% of those taking medications reported increased medication adherence; 26% to 36% had privacy concerns; 1% to 8% reported that the notes caused confusion, worry, or offense; and 20% to 42% reported sharing notes with others. The volume of electronic messages from patients did not change. After the intervention, few doctors reported longer visits (0% to 5%) or more time addressing patients' questions outside of visits (0% to 8%), with practice size having little effect; 3% to 36% of doctors reported changing documentation content; and 0% to 21% reported taking more time writing notes. Looking ahead, 59% to 62% of patients believed that they should be able to add comments to a doctor's note. One out of 3 patients believed that they should be able to approve the notes' contents, but 85% to 96% of doctors did not agree. At the end of the experimental period, 99% of patients wanted open notes to continue and no doctor elected to stop. Only 3 geographic areas were represented, and most participants were experienced in using portals. Doctors volunteering to participate and patients using portals and completing surveys may tend to offer favorable feedback, and the response rate of the patient surveys (41%) may further limit generalizability. Patients accessed visit notes frequently, a large majority reported clinically relevant benefits and minimal concerns, and virtually all patients wanted the practice to continue. With doctors experiencing no more than a modest effect on their work lives, open notes seem worthy of widespread adoption. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Drane Family Fund, the Richard and Florence Koplow Charitable Foundation, and the National Cancer Institute.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Qual Saf
                BMJ Qual Saf
                qhc
                bmjqs
                BMJ Quality & Safety
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-5415
                2044-5423
                October 2013
                13 July 2013
                : 22
                : Suppl 2 , Diagnostic Error in Medicine
                : ii40-ii51
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Biomedical Informatics, UCSD , San Diego, California, USA
                [2 ]Division of Hospital Medicine, UCSD , San Diego, California, USA
                [3 ]American Medical Association , Chicago, Illinois, USA
                [4 ]Division of General Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital , Boston, Massachusetts, USA
                [5 ]Harvard Medical School , Boston, Massachusetts, USA
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Robert El-Kareh, Division of Biomedical Informatics, UC San Diego, 9500 Gilman Dr, #0505, La Jolla, CA 92093-0505, USA; relkareh@ 123456ucsd.edu
                Article
                bmjqs-2013-001884
                10.1136/bmjqs-2013-001884
                3786650
                23852973
                8f56b114-6522-4a7c-b013-e31e13809d2b
                Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions

                this is an open access article distributed in accordance with the creative commons attribution non commercial (cc by-nc 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. see: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/

                History
                : 5 February 2013
                : 30 June 2013
                : 2 July 2013
                Categories
                1506
                1507
                Narrative Review
                Custom metadata
                unlocked
                editors-choice

                Public health
                diagnostic errors,clinical decision support systems,health information technology,clinical informatics,patient safety

                Comments

                Comment on this article