The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The state of the art in clinical knowledge management: An inventory of tools and techniques
Open accessAbstract
Purpose To explore the need for, and use of, high-quality, collaborative, clinical knowledge management (CKM) tools and techniques to manage clinical decision support (CDS) content.Methods In order to better understand the current state of the art in CKM, we developed a survey of potential CKM tools and techniques. We conducted an exploratory study by querying a convenience sample of respondents about their use of specific practices in CKM.Results The following tools and techniques should be priorities in organizations interested in developing successful computer-based provider order entry (CPOE) and CDS implementations: (1) a multidisciplinary team responsible for creating and maintaining the clinical content; (2) an external organizational repository of clinical content with web-based viewer that allows anyone in the organization to review it; (3) an online, collaborative, interactive, Internet-based tool to facilitate content development; (4) an enterprise-wide tool to maintain the controlled clinical terminology concepts. Even organizations that have been successfully using computer-based provider order entry with advanced clinical decision support features for well over 15 years are not using all of the CKM tools or practices that we identified.Conclusions If we are to further stimulate progress in the area of clinical decision support, we must continue to develop and refine our understanding and use of advanced CKM capabilities.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“A key challenge with clinical decision support is knowledge management as guidelines and best practices change over time,40–42 as well as governance.43–45”
From Clinician collaboration to improve clinical decision support: the Clickbusters initiative (2022) · cites this paper as [42]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Institute of Medicine (2000) · National Academies Press eBooks · doi:10.17226/9728 · Cited by 14,390
Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century
Baker, A. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7322.1192 · Cited by 10,779
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. E. (2001) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3250961 · Cited by 10,176
To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System
Hendee, W. R. (2001) · Journal of Vascular and Interventional Radiology · doi:10.1016/s1051-0443(01)70072-3 · Cited by 10,129
Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century
Committee on Quality of Health Care in America (2002) · Journal for Healthcare Quality · doi:10.1111/j.1945-1474.2002.tb00463.x · Cited by 8,508
Wall, A. (2000) · British Journal of Healthcare Management · doi:10.12968/bjhc.2000.6.9.19311 · Cited by 5,912
Chaudhry, B., Wang, J., Wu, S., Maglione, M., Mojica, W., Roth, E., Morton, S. C., & Shekelle, P. G. (2006) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-144-10-200605160-00125 · Cited by 3,159 · cited 1×
“Four of the six have been recognized for their excellence in implementation and use of advanced clinical information systems including use of clinical decision support features and functions [11,12].”
BackgroundProtocol-Based Computer Reminders, the Quality of Care and the Non-Perfectability of Man
McDonald, C. J. (1976) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm197612092952405 · Cited by 797 · cited 2×
“…that the organization felt was critical for their success [22], and many sites had a significant number of similarly functioning clinical decision support interventions developed within their systems before any of these relatively new standards were developed (see for example, McDonald, 1976 [23].”
Grand challenges in clinical decision support
Sittig, D. F., Wright, A., Osheroff, J. A., Middleton, B., Teich, J. M., Ash, J. S., Campbell, E., & Bates, D. W. (2008) · Journal of Biomedical Informatics · doi:10.1016/j.jbi.2007.09.003 · Cited by 582 · cited 1×
“In a recent article, we identified “disseminate best practices in Clinical Decision Support (CDS) design, development, and implementation” as one of the “grand challenges” in CDS [7].”
Self-citationElectronic Health Record Use and the Quality of Ambulatory Care in the United States
Linder, J. A., Ma, J., Bates, D. W., Middleton, B., & Stafford, R. S. (2007) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.167.13.1400 · Cited by 438 · cited 1×
“Recent reports have reiterated the fact that, for these clinical information systems to deliver their expected improvements in quality, they must be equipped with state of the art, real-time, point-of-care, clinical decision support (CDS) features [3].”
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Wright, 2008, A framework and model for evaluating clinical decision support architectures, J. Biomed. Inform.
- Sittig, 2008, Grand challenges in clinical decision support, J. Biomed. Inform., 41, 387, 10.1016/j.jbi.2007.09.003 · DOI · Paper page
- Dolin, 2004, Kaiser Permanente's convergent medical terminology, Medinfo, 11, 346
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–101 of 101
Laboratory and occupational medicine: considerations and perspectives regarding biological risk
D’Ovidio, M. C., Vonesch, N., Martini, A., & Signorini, S. G. (2012) · La Rivista Italiana della Medicina di Laboratorio - Italian Journal of Laboratory Medicine · doi:10.1007/s13631-012-0037-0
Metadata
- Authors
- Sittig, D. F., Wright, A., Simonaitis, L., Carpenter, J. D., Allen, G. O., Doebbeling, B. N., Sirajuddin, A. M., Ash, J. S., & Middleton, B.
- Affiliations
- Memorial Hermann (US)
- Regenstrief Institute (US)
- Health Services Research & Development (US)
- Oregon Health & Science University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Sittig, Dean F.
- Venue
- International Journal of Medical Informatics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-01
- Volume
- 79
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 44-57
- ISSN
- 1386-5056 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC2895508
- OpenAlex
- W1982907589
- Cited by
- 101
- References
- 39
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 14
- FWCI
- 21.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- International Journal of Medical Informatics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- IUScholarWorks (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
- Purdue University Indianapolis (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
- U.S. National Library of Medicine (R01LM006942, R56LM006942)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Knowledge Management and Technology
- Keywords
- clinical knowledge management, clinical decision support, collaborative content development
- MeSH terms
- Hospital Information Systems, Humans, Terminology as Topic, Patient Care Team, Software, United States, User-Computer Interface, Information Storage and Retrieval, Medical Records Systems, Computerized, Vocabulary, Controlled, Health Care Surveys, Decision Support Systems, Clinical, Internet, Interdisciplinary Communication
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
