Michael Musty

Effect of Clinical Decision-Support Systems: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND Despite increasing emphasis on the role of clinical decision-support systems (CDSSs) for improving care and reducing costs, evidence to support widespread use is lacking. PURPOSE To evaluate the effect of CDSSs on clinical outcomes, health care processes, workload and efficiency, patient satisfaction, cost, and provider use and implementation. DATA SOURCES MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science through January 2011. STUDY SELECTION Investigators independently screened reports to identify randomized trials published in English of electronic CDSSs that were implemented in clinical settings; used by providers to aid decision making at the point of care; and reported clinical, health care process, workload, relationship-centered, economic, or provider use outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION Investigators extracted data about study design, participant characteristics, interventions, outcomes, and quality. DATA SYNTHESIS 148 randomized, controlled trials were included. A total of 128 (86%) assessed health care process measures, 29 (20%) assessed clinical outcomes, and 22 (15%) measured costs. Both commercially and locally developed CDSSs improved health care process measures related to performing preventive services (n= 25; odds ratio [OR], 1.42 [95% CI, 1.27 to 1.58]), ordering clinical studies (n= 20; OR, 1.72 [CI, 1.47 to 2.00]), and prescribing therapies (n= 46; OR, 1.57 [CI, 1.35 to 1.82]). Few studies measured potential unintended consequences or adverse effects. LIMITATIONS Studies were heterogeneous in interventions, populations, settings, and outcomes. Publication bias and selective reporting cannot be excluded. CONCLUSION Both commercially and locally developed CDSSs are effective at improving health care process measures across diverse settings, but evidence for clinical, economic, workload, and efficiency outcomes remains sparse. This review expands knowledge in the field by demonstrating the benefits of CDSSs outside of experienced academic centers. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Thrombophilic risk of individuals with rare compound factor V Leiden and prothrombin G20210A polymorphisms: an international case series of 100 individuals

The risk of thrombosis in individuals with rare compound thrombophilias, homozygous factor V Leiden (FVL) plus heterozygous prothrombin G20210A (PTM), homozygous PTM plus heterozygous FVL, and homozygous FVL plus homozygous PTM, is unknown. We identified, worldwide, individuals with these compound thrombophilias, predominantly through mailing members of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis. Physicians were sent a clinical questionnaire. Confirmatory copies of the genetic results were obtained. One hundred individuals were enrolled; 58% were female. Seventy‐one individuals had a venous thrombosis (includes superficial and deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism), 4 had an arterial thrombosis and 6 had both. Nineteen individuals had never had a thrombotic event. Thrombosis‐free survival curves demonstrated that 50% of individuals had experienced a thrombotic event by 35 yrs of age, while 50% had a first venous thromboembolic event (VTE; includes all venous thrombosis except superficial thrombosis) by 41 yrs of age; 38.2% of first VTEs were unprovoked. 37% of patients had at least one VTE recurrence. Seventy percent of first pregnancies carried to term and not treated with anticoagulation were thrombosis‐free. In conclusion, patients with these rare compound thrombophilias are not exceedingly thrombogenic, even though they have a substantial risk for VTE.

Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Reviews in Cardiovascular Disease

Background—Comparative effectiveness reviews offer a systematic method to critically appraise existing research and to identify unaddressed clinical areas in cardiovascular disease where significant morbidity, mortality, and variation in the use of resources persist. To delineate and help select areas where comparative effectiveness reviews are needed, the Effective Health Care Program of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality involved stakeholders in prioritization of the research agenda. Methods and Results—We involved a diverse panel of stakeholders representing a broad range of clinical, policy, and patient perspectives. To assist in prioritization of topics for evidence synthesis, we created a framework evaluating 12 cardiovascular disease subcategories that reflect American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association disease-based guidelines. We performed an environmental scan for each disease subcategory to populate this framework with existing knowledge, levels of evidence, and degrees of public interest. Through a formalized process, 4 disease subcategories were prioritized: chronic coronary artery disease, ventricular arrhythmias, heart failure, and cerebrovascular disease. Within these subcategories, 11 topics that address the comparative safety and effectiveness of existing treatments and evaluate emerging treatments were nominated by the stakeholder panel to proceed for feasibility assessment before developing comparative effectiveness reviews. Conclusions—Using a systematic process deriving consensus from multiple stakeholders across cardiovascular disease states, we generated a prioritized list of evidence synthesis topics to inform decision makers. The topics vetted through this process seek to determine the comparative safety and effectiveness of a range of treatments, both established and emerging, and are immediately relevant for prevalent disease states.

Opportunities to implement a sustainable genomic medicine program: lessons learned from the IGNITE Network

PurposeWhile there is growing scientific evidence for and significant advances in the use of genomic technologies in medicine, there is a significant lag in the clinical adoption and sustainability of genomic medicine. Here we describe the findings from the National Human Genome Research Institute’s (NHGRI) Implementing GeNomics In pracTicE (IGNITE) Network in identifying key constructs, opportunities, and challenges associated with driving sustainability of genomic medicine in clinical practice.MethodsNetwork members and affiliates were surveyed to identify key drivers associated with implementing and sustaining a genomic medicine program. Tallied results were used to develop and weigh key constructs/drivers required to support sustainability of genomic medicine programs.ResultsThe top three driver–stakeholder dyads were (1) genomic training for providers, (2) genomic clinical decision support (CDS) tools embedded in the electronic health record (EHR), and (3) third party reimbursement for genomic testing.ConclusionPriorities may differ depending on healthcare systems when comparing the current state of key drivers versus projected needs for supporting genomic medicine sustainability. Thus we provide gap-filling guidance based on IGNITE members’ experiences. Although results are limited to findings from the IGNITE network, their implementation, scientific, and clinical experience may be used as a road map by others considering implementing genomic medicine programs.