The Case for Conceptual and Computable Cross-Fertilization Between Audit and Feedback and Clinical Decision Support.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Many patients do not receive care consistent with best practice. Health informatics interventions often attempt to address this problem by comparing care provided to patients (e.g., from electronic health record data) to quality standards (e.g., described in clinical guidelines) and feeding this information back to clinicians. Traditionally these interventions are delivered at the patient-level as computerized clinical decision support (CDS) or at the population level as audit and feedback (A&F). Both CDS and A&F can improve care for patients but are variably effective; the challenge is to understand how the efficacy can be maximized. Although CDS and A&F are traditionally considered separate approaches, we argue that the systems share common mechanisms, and efficacy may be improved by cross-fertilizing relevant features and concepts. We draw on the Health Informatics and Implementation Science literature to argue that common mechanisms include functions typically associated with the other system, in addition to other features that may prove fruitful for further research.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)419-23
Number of pages395
JournalStudies in Health Technology and Informatics
Volume216
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Keywords

  • 3
  • and sometimes they do
  • clinical decision support systems
  • healthcare quality
  • improvement
  • interventions work very well
  • medical audit
  • not
  • quality indicators

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The Case for Conceptual and Computable Cross-Fertilization Between Audit and Feedback and Clinical Decision Support.'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this