Decision support and patient safety: the time has come
Abstract
Decision support (DS) may help to improve patient safety by helping clinicians improve the evaluation, assessment, and treatment of patients. By providing best practice guidelines at critical decision points, errors can be prevented. Location of these decision points varies in different care environments, therefore DS must be customizable. Being able to customize the design, functionality, and clinical context of how a DS rule behaves may help each unique clinical environment improve performance. The ability to review aggregate data on the behavior of both the DS system and the providers will be necessary to further adapt the DS rule to the setting. A robust tool set and ongoing institutional engagement are critical elements for a successful DS implementation.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Alerts that give the prescriber a choice and require a reason for deviating from protocol may be more effective than alerts that can simply be over-ridden.
“Alerts that offer the prescriber choice, and require reasons for deviation from protocol may be more effective than those that can simply be over-ridden.20 26”
From ‘Too much, too late’: mixed methods multi-channel video recording study of computerized decision support systems and GP prescribing (2013) · cites this paper as [26]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 25 · Cited by 7
- Authors
- Hasley, S. K.
- Affiliations
- Magee-Womens Hospital (US)
- Corresponding author
- Hasley, Steve K.
- Venue
- American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-06
- Volume
- 204
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 461-465
- ISSN
- 0002-9378 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2011698466
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 25
- Citations by year
- 2017: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 2.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Keywords
- clinical decision support, patient safety, best practice guidelines, error prevention, institutional engagement
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Medical Informatics, Safety, Decision Support Systems, Clinical, Electronic Health Records
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review