Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25954389›Full record

ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2014

Clinical Decision Support-based Quality Measurement (CDS-QM) Framework: Prototype Implementation, Evaluation, and Future Directions.

Polina V Kukhareva, Kensaku Kawamoto, David E Shields, Darryl T Barfuss, Anne M Halley, Tyler J Tippetts, Phillip B Warner, Bruce E Bray, Catherine J Staes

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Polina V KukharevaDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.
Kensaku KawamotoDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.
David E ShieldsDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.
Darryl T BarfussQuality Improvement and Safety Department, University of Utah Healthcare, Salt Lake City, UT.
Anne M HalleyQuality Improvement and Safety Department, University of Utah Healthcare, Salt Lake City, UT.
Tyler J TippettsDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.
Phillip B WarnerDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.
Bruce E BrayDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.
Catherine J StaesDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Electronic quality measurement (QM) and clinical decision support (CDS) are closely related but are typically implemented independently, resulting in significant duplication of effort. While it seems intuitive that technical approaches could be re-used across these two related use cases, such reuse is seldom reported in the literature, especially for standards-based approaches. Therefore, we evaluated the feasibility of using a standards-based CDS framework aligned with anticipated EHR certification criteria to implement electronic QM. The CDS-QM framework was used to automate a complex national quality measure (SCIP-VTE-2) at an academic healthcare system which had previously relied on time-consuming manual chart abstractions. Compared with 305 manually-reviewed reference cases, the recall of automated measurement was 100%. The precision was 96.3% (CI:92.6%-98.5%) for ascertaining the denominator and 96.2% (CI:92.3%-98.4%) for the numerator. We therefore validated that a standards-based CDS-QM framework can successfully enable automated QM, and we identified benefits and challenges with this approach.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalElectronic Health RecordsQuality ImprovementAcademic Medical CentersFeasibility StudiesHumansSurgical Procedures, OperativeUtah

Identifiers

PMID25954389
PMCPMC4419969

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.