Abstract

BackgroundSystematic reviews or randomised-controlled trials usually help to establish the effectiveness of drugs and other health technologies, but are rarely sufficient by themselves to ensure actual clinical use of the technology. The process from innovation to routine clinical use is complex. Numerous computerised decision support systems (DSS) have been developed, but many fail to be taken up into actual use. Some developers construct technologically advanced systems with little relevance to the real world. Others did not determine whether a clinical need exists. With NHS investing £5 billion in computer systems, also occurring in other countries, there is an urgent need to shift from a technology-driven approach to one that identifies and employs the most cost-effective method to manage knowledge, regardless of the technology. The generic term, 'decision tool' (DT), is therefore suggested to demonstrate that these aids, which seem different technically, are conceptually the same from a clinical viewpoint.DiscussionMany computerised DSSs failed for various reasons, for example, they were not based on best available knowledge; there was insufficient emphasis on their need for high quality clinical data; their development was technology-led; or evaluation methods were misapplied. We argue that DSSs and other computer-based, paper-based and even mechanical decision aids are members of a wider family of decision tools. A DT is an active knowledge resource that uses patient data to generate case specific advice, which supports decision making about individual patients by health professionals, the patients themselves or others concerned about them. The identification of DTs as a consistent and important category of health technology should encourage the sharing of lessons between DT developers and users and reduce the frequency of decision tool projects focusing only on technology. The focus of evaluation should become more clinical, with the impact of computer-based DTs being evaluated against other computer, paper- or mechanical tools, to identify the most cost effective tool for each clinical problem.SummaryWe suggested the generic term 'decision tool' to demonstrate that decision-making aids, such as computerised DSSs, paper algorithms, and reminders are conceptually the same, so the methods to evaluate them should be the same.

Highlights

  • Systematic reviews or randomised-controlled trials usually help to establish the effectiveness of drugs and other health technologies, but are rarely sufficient by themselves to ensure actual clinical use of the technology

  • Systematic reviews or randomised-controlled trials of new health technologies published in prestigious journals are a linchpin of evidence based medicine and help to establish the effectiveness of drugs or procedures, but are rarely enough to ensure that the technology is used

  • In cardiovascular disease prevention, despite the systematic reviews, evidence-based guidelines and decision tools, there is continuing evidence to suggest that these approaches have not yet changed actual clinical practice[2,3]

Read more

Summary

Discussion

Problems with current decision support systems Some developers seem to construct technologically advanced systems with little relevance to the real world, while others create DSSs without first determining whether a clinical need exists[8,9]. Definition and characteristics of a decision tool We propose the following definition of a decision tool: A 'decision tool' is an active knowledge resource that uses patient data to generate case-specific advice which support decision making about individual patients by health professionals, the patients themselves or others concerned about them. This definition is an updated and more general version of Wyatt and Spiegelhalter's 1991 definition of computer decision aids Does tool use before health health professional or real individual knowledge to assist professional or patient patient?

12. Distance learning material used
17. Audit on clinical activities in a GP surgery
Summary
Kennedy I
Monkman D
Wyatt JC
18. Gremy F
24. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call