ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2018
Integration of Clinical Decision Support and Electronic Clinical Quality Measurement: Domain Expert Insights and Implications for Future Direction.
Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automated feedback modestly improves perioperative treatment adherence of postoperative nausea and vomiting.Journal of clinical anesthesia · 2023Observational
- Generating and Reporting Electronic Clinical Quality Measures from Electronic Health Records: Strategies from EvidenceNOW Cooperatives.Applied clinical informatics · 2022Article
- Social dynamics of a population-level dashboard for antimicrobial stewardship: A qualitative analysis.American journal of infection control · 2021Article
- Integrating the Practical Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model With Best Practices in Clinical Decision Support Design: Implementation Science Approach.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The integration of clinical decision support (CDS) and electronic clinical quality measurement (eCQM) could help improve consistency, reduce redundancy, and ultimately help improve value. To guide efforts in this area, 15 leading experts in CDS and eCQM were interviewed to obtain insights on how CDS and eCQM could be better integrated. Four main themes emerged: cultural and business considerations for CDS, eCQM, and their integration trump the technical considerations; the purpose and goals of CDS and eCQM differ, and these differences must be accounted for; there is an oftentimes invisible overlap between CDS and eCQM, and with the larger domain of quality improvement; and despite the differences, synergies between CDS and eCQM should be pursued to amplify the effectiveness of each approach. A key implication of these findings is the need to bridge cultural and business differences between CDS and eCQM, with informaticists potentially playing a critical role.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30815112PMC6371250What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.