Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36721265›Full record

Trial reportBMC health services research2023

Effect of a computerized decision support system on the treatment approach of stage III or IV pressure injury in patients with spinal cord injury: a feasibility study.

Anke Scheel-Sailer, Kamran Koligi, Patricia Lampart, Carina Fähndrich, Hans Peter Gmünder, Stefan Metzger, Dirk Schaefer, Klaus Schmitt, Stefan Stalder, Reto Wettstein and 1 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC health services research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. 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

11 authors.

Anke Scheel-Sailer *Swiss Paraplegic Centre, Nottwil, Switzerland. anke.scheel-sailer@paraplegie.ch.
Kamran Koligi *Swiss Paraplegic Centre, Nottwil, Switzerland.
Patricia LampartSwiss Paraplegic Centre, Nottwil, Switzerland.
Carina FähndrichSwiss Paraplegic Centre, Nottwil, Switzerland.
Hans Peter GmünderSwiss Paraplegic Centre, Nottwil, Switzerland.
Stefan MetzgerSwiss Paraplegic Centre, Nottwil, Switzerland.
Dirk SchaeferDepartment of Plastic, Reconstructive, Aesthetic and Hand Surgery, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Klaus SchmittSwiss Paraplegic Centre, Nottwil, Switzerland.
Stefan StalderSwiss Paraplegic Centre, Nottwil, Switzerland.
Reto WettsteinDepartment of Plastic, Reconstructive, Aesthetic and Hand Surgery, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Armin GemperliDepartment of Health Sciences and Medicine, University of Lucerne, Lucerne, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStage III and IV pressure injuries (PIs) in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) require complex interdisciplinary and interprofessional treatment approaches that are difficult to implement. Practical aspects, such as information exchange and coordination, remain challenging. We investigated whether a computerized decision support system (CDSS) could increase treatment adherence and improve clinical outcomes and interprofessional collaboration.

methodIn this feasibility study, a core team developed the initial treatment process and adapted it based on several discussions with clinical experts and information technologists. The CDSS followed the Basel Decubitus Approach and was used in a clinic specializing in SCI. Thirty patients with SCI admitted for stage III/IV PI between July 2016 and May 2017 were randomly allocated to standard or CDSS-supported care. Between-group differences in treatment adherence, complication rates, length of stay, and costs were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The use of the CDSS and potential barriers and facilitators were evaluated through interprofessional focus groups, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analyzed (30 participants).

resultsNo differences in SCI characteristics, comorbidities, or PI characteristics (localization: ischium [number (n) = 19 PI, 63%], sacrum [n = 10 PI, 33%], recurrent PI [n = 21, 70%]) were found between the two groups. Furthermore, no statistically significant differences were observed in treatment adherence, frequency of major (20% vs. 13% between CDSS and control group) and minor (33% vs 27%) complications, and length of stay (98 [±28] vs 81 [±23] days). Healthcare professionals found the CDSS to be helpful for visualizing the treatment process. However, the high workload and difficulties in the information technology processes, such as missing reminders, slow computer performance and data processing, and poor accessibility, hindered the effective implementation of the CDSS.

conclusionThe implementation of the CDSS to support the treatment of stage III/IV PI in patients with SCI was feasible and included definitions of milestones, interventions, and outcomes. However, to assess the impact of the CDSS, a longer observation period is required. Further, the technical difficulties must be addressed, and solid integration of the CDSS into the clinical information system is necessary.

trial registrationThis quality improvement project received a declaration of no objection from the Ethics Committee of Northwest and Central Switzerland (EKNZ UBE-16/003), and ethical approval was received for the focus groups (EKNZ Req-2017-00860).

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalPressure UlcerSpinal Cord InjuriesAmbulatory Care FacilitiesCognitionControl GroupsFeasibility StudiesHumansBasel Decubitus ApproachClinical Decision Support SystemsComputer SystemsInterprofessional CollaborationPressure InjuryProcess ManagementRehabilitationSpinal Cord Injury

Identifiers

PMID36721265
PMCPMC9890825

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.