POEMs

Clinical Decision Support Linked to EMRs Does Not Decrease Mortality

 


FREE PREVIEW. AAFP members and paid subscribers: Log in to get free access. All others: Purchase online access.


FREE PREVIEW. Purchase online access to read the full version of this article.

Am Fam Physician. 2015 Mar 15;91(6):404.

Clinical Question

Do computerized decision support systems linked to electronic medical records (EMRs) improve patient outcomes?

Bottom Line

Despite several decades of the use of EMRs and computerized decision support systems, the overall quality of data supporting their use is poor and those data show these systems do not save lives or save money. Whether patient morbidity is improved is even less certain. (Level of Evidence = 1a)

Synopsis

The authors searched several databases to identify randomized trials that evaluated the effectiveness of computerized decision support systems linked to EMRs. They defined these systems as information systems that support clinical decision making and linked patient-specific information within an EMR. These systems facilitate practicing evidence-based medicine by stealth. Clinicians receive case-specific guidance messages based on rules or algorithms. Several authors independently and blindly determined study inclusion and study quality, and extracted data. They resolved disagreements by discussion. They ultimately included 28 randomized trials—nine assessed morbidity, 16 assessed mortality, and 17 reported economic outcomes. Overall, 18 studies evaluated clinical outcomes and 10 reported only economic data. The authors only included the studies that evaluated clinical outcomes for meta-analysis. Only one of the 18 studies was considered at low risk of bias. Of the nine studies (of nearly 14,000 patients) that assessed morbidity, the authors report that inconsistent and selective reporting of various outcomes threaten the data that suggest that computerized decision support systems appear to be associated with small degrees of improvement in morbidity. Sixteen trials of more than 37,000 patients found no overall effect on mortality (approximately 6% in each group). Finally, the studies reporting economic outcomes did not demonstrate any consistent cost savings associated with computerized decision support systems.

Study design: Meta-analysis (randomized controlled trials)

Funding source: Government

Setting: Various (meta-analysis)

Reference: Moja L, Kwag KH, Lytras T, et al. Effectiveness of computerized decision support systems linked to electronic health records: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Public Health.. 2014; 104( 12): e12– e22.

POEMs (patient-oriented evidence that matters) are provided by EssentialEvidence Plus, a point-of-care clinical decision support system published by Wiley-Blackwell. For more information, please see http://www.essentialevidenceplus.com. Copyright Wiley-Blackwell. Used with permission.

For definitions of levels of evidence used in POEMs, see http://www.essentialevidenceplus.com/product/ebm_loe.cfm?show=oxford.

To subscribe to a free podcast of these and other POEMs that appear in AFP,search in iTunes for “POEM of the Week” or go to http://goo.gl/3niWXb.

This series is coordinated by Sumi Sexton, MD, Associate Medical Editor.

A collection of POEMs published in AFP is available at http://www.aafp.org/afp/poems.



 

Want to use this article elsewhere? Get Permissions


More in AFP


Editor's Collections


Related Content


More in Pubmed

MOST RECENT ISSUE


Dec 1, 2016

Access the latest issue of American Family Physician

Read the Issue


Email Alerts

Don't miss a single issue. Sign up for the free AFP email table of contents.

Sign Up Now

Navigate this Article