Cargando…
New Standards for Clinical Decision Support: A Survey of The State of Implementation
Objectives: To review the current state of research on designing and implementing clinical decision support (CDS) using four current interoperability standards: Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR); Substitutable Medical Applications and Reusable Technologies (SMART); Clinical Quality L...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Georg Thieme Verlag KG
2021
|
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8416232/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34479387 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1726502 |
_version_ | 1783748136403992576 |
---|---|
author | Taber, Peter Radloff, Christina Del Fiol, Guilherme Staes, Catherine Kawamoto, Kensaku |
author_facet | Taber, Peter Radloff, Christina Del Fiol, Guilherme Staes, Catherine Kawamoto, Kensaku |
author_sort | Taber, Peter |
collection | PubMed |
description | Objectives: To review the current state of research on designing and implementing clinical decision support (CDS) using four current interoperability standards: Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR); Substitutable Medical Applications and Reusable Technologies (SMART); Clinical Quality Language (CQL); and CDS Hooks. Methods: We conducted a review of original studies describing development of specific CDS tools or infrastructures using one of the four targeted standards, regardless of implementation stage. Citations published any time before the literature search was executed on October 21, 2020 were retrieved from PubMed. Two reviewers independently screened articles and abstracted data according to a protocol designed by team consensus. Results: Of 290 articles identified via PubMed search, 44 were included in this study. More than three quarters were published since 2018. Forty-three (98%) used FHIR; 22 (50%) used SMART; two (5%) used CQL; and eight (18%) used CDS Hooks. Twenty-four (55%) were in the design stage, 15 (34%) in the piloting stage, and five (11%) were deployed in a real-world setting. Only 12 (27%) of the articles reported an evaluation of the technology under development. Three of the four articles describing a deployed technology reported an evaluation. Only two evaluations with randomized study components were identified. Conclusion: The diversity of topics and approaches identified in the literature highlights the utility of these standards. The infrequency of reported evaluations, as well as the high number of studies in the design or piloting stage, indicate that these technologies are still early in their life cycles. Informaticists will require a stronger evidence base to understand the implications of using these standards in CDS design and implementation. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8416232 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Georg Thieme Verlag KG |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-84162322021-09-07 New Standards for Clinical Decision Support: A Survey of The State of Implementation Taber, Peter Radloff, Christina Del Fiol, Guilherme Staes, Catherine Kawamoto, Kensaku Yearb Med Inform Objectives: To review the current state of research on designing and implementing clinical decision support (CDS) using four current interoperability standards: Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR); Substitutable Medical Applications and Reusable Technologies (SMART); Clinical Quality Language (CQL); and CDS Hooks. Methods: We conducted a review of original studies describing development of specific CDS tools or infrastructures using one of the four targeted standards, regardless of implementation stage. Citations published any time before the literature search was executed on October 21, 2020 were retrieved from PubMed. Two reviewers independently screened articles and abstracted data according to a protocol designed by team consensus. Results: Of 290 articles identified via PubMed search, 44 were included in this study. More than three quarters were published since 2018. Forty-three (98%) used FHIR; 22 (50%) used SMART; two (5%) used CQL; and eight (18%) used CDS Hooks. Twenty-four (55%) were in the design stage, 15 (34%) in the piloting stage, and five (11%) were deployed in a real-world setting. Only 12 (27%) of the articles reported an evaluation of the technology under development. Three of the four articles describing a deployed technology reported an evaluation. Only two evaluations with randomized study components were identified. Conclusion: The diversity of topics and approaches identified in the literature highlights the utility of these standards. The infrequency of reported evaluations, as well as the high number of studies in the design or piloting stage, indicate that these technologies are still early in their life cycles. Informaticists will require a stronger evidence base to understand the implications of using these standards in CDS design and implementation. Georg Thieme Verlag KG 2021-08 2021-09-03 /pmc/articles/PMC8416232/ /pubmed/34479387 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1726502 Text en IMIA and Thieme. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License, which permits unrestricted reproduction and distribution, for non-commercial purposes only; and use and reproduction, but not distribution, of adapted material for non-commercial purposes only, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Taber, Peter Radloff, Christina Del Fiol, Guilherme Staes, Catherine Kawamoto, Kensaku New Standards for Clinical Decision Support: A Survey of The State of Implementation |
title | New Standards for Clinical Decision Support: A Survey of The State of Implementation |
title_full | New Standards for Clinical Decision Support: A Survey of The State of Implementation |
title_fullStr | New Standards for Clinical Decision Support: A Survey of The State of Implementation |
title_full_unstemmed | New Standards for Clinical Decision Support: A Survey of The State of Implementation |
title_short | New Standards for Clinical Decision Support: A Survey of The State of Implementation |
title_sort | new standards for clinical decision support: a survey of the state of implementation |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8416232/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34479387 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1726502 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT taberpeter newstandardsforclinicaldecisionsupportasurveyofthestateofimplementation AT radloffchristina newstandardsforclinicaldecisionsupportasurveyofthestateofimplementation AT delfiolguilherme newstandardsforclinicaldecisionsupportasurveyofthestateofimplementation AT staescatherine newstandardsforclinicaldecisionsupportasurveyofthestateofimplementation AT kawamotokensaku newstandardsforclinicaldecisionsupportasurveyofthestateofimplementation |