Published 27 April 2009, doi:10.1136/bmj.b1440
Cite this as: BMJ 2009;338:b1440

Research

Effect of guideline based computerised decision support on decision making of multidisciplinary teams: cluster randomised trial in cardiac rehabilitation

¹ Department of Medical Informatics, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 15, 1100 DD, Amsterdam, Netherlands, ² Horten Centre, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland, ³ Health Informatics Centre, University of Dundee, Dundee DD2 4BF

Objective To determine the extent to which computerised decision support can improve concordance of multidisciplinary teams with therapeutic decisions recommended by guidelines.

Design Multicentre cluster randomised trial.

Participants Multidisciplinary cardiac rehabilitation teams in Dutch centres and their cardiac rehabilitation patients.

Interventions Teams received an electronic patient record system with or without additional guideline based decision support.

Main outcome measures Concordance with guideline recommendations assessed for two standard rehabilitation treatments—exercise and education therapy—and for two new but evidence based rehabilitation treatments—relaxation and lifestyle change therapy; generalised estimating equations were used to account for intra-cluster correlation and were adjusted for patient’s age, sex, and indication for cardiac rehabilitation and for type and volume of centre.

Results Data from 21 centres, including 2787 patients, were analysed. Computerised decision support increased concordance with guideline recommended therapeutic decisions for exercise therapy by 7.9% (control 84.7%; adjusted difference 3.5%, 95% confidence 0.1% to 5.2%), for education therapy by 25.7% (control 63.9%; adjusted difference 23.7%, 15.5% to 29.4%), and for relaxation therapy by 25.5% (control 34.1%; adjusted difference 41.6%, 25.2% to 51.3%). The concordance for lifestyle change therapy increased by 3.2% (control 54.1%; adjusted difference 7.1%, –2.9% to 18.3%). Computerised decision support reduced cases of both overtreatment and undertreatment.

Conclusions In a multidisciplinary team motivated to adopt a computerised decision support aid that assists in formulating guideline based care plans, computerised decision support can be effective in improving the team’s concordance with guidelines. Therefore, computerised decision support may also be considered to improve implementation of guidelines in such settings.

Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN36656997 [controlled-trials.com] .

© Goud et al 2009
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Secondary prevention for patients after a myocardial infarction: summary of NICE guidance

J S Skinner, A Cooper, and G S Feder
BMJ 2007 334: 1112-1113. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Improving clinical practice using clinical decision support systems: a systematic review of trials to identify features critical to success

Kensaku Kawamoto, Caitlin A Houlihan, E Andrew Balas, and David F Lobach
BMJ 2005 330: 765. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Effect of computerised evidence based guidelines on management of asthma and angina in adults in primary care: cluster randomised controlled trial

Martin Eccles, Elaine McColl, Nick Steen, Nikki Rousseau, Jeremy Grimshaw, David Parkin, and Ian Purves
BMJ 2002 325: 941. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Detecting differences in quality of care: the sensitivity of measures of process and outcome in treating acute myocardial infarction

Jonathan Mant and Nicholas Hicks
BMJ 1995 311: 793-796. [Extract] [Full Text]

Computer aided diagnosis of acute abdominal pain: a multicentre study.

I D Adams, M Chan, P C Clifford, W M Cooke, V Dallos, F T de Dombal, M H Edwards, D M Hancock, D J Hewett, and N McIntyre
Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1986 293: 800-804. [Abstract] [PDF]

Online poll

Find out more on doc2doc >>