TY - JOUR
T1 - Longitudinal clinical decision support for assessing decisions over time
T2 - State-of-the-art and future directions
AU - Loftus, Tyler J.
AU - Balch, Jeremy A.
AU - Marquard, Jenna L.
AU - Ray, Jessica M.
AU - Alper, Brian S.
AU - Ojha, Neeraj
AU - Bihorac, Azra
AU - Melton-Meaux, Genevieve
AU - Khanna, Gopal
AU - Tignanelli, Christopher J.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2024.
PY - 2024/1/1
Y1 - 2024/1/1
N2 - Objective: Patients and clinicians rarely experience healthcare decisions as snapshots in time, but clinical decision support (CDS) systems often represent decisions as snapshots. This scoping review systematically maps challenges and facilitators to longitudinal CDS that are applied at two or more timepoints for the same decision made by the same patient or clinician. Methods: We searched Embase, PubMed, and Medline databases for articles describing development, validation, or implementation of patient- or clinician-facing longitudinal CDS. Validated quality assessment tools were used for article selection. Challenges and facilitators to longitudinal CDS are reported according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Results: Eight articles met inclusion criteria; each article described a unique CDS. None used entirely automated data entry, none used living guidelines for updating the evidence base or knowledge engine as new evidence emerged during the longitudinal study, and one included formal readiness for change assessments. Seven of eight CDS were implemented and evaluated prospectively. Challenges were primarily related to suboptimal study design (with unique challenges for each study) or user interface. Facilitators included use of randomized trial designs for prospective enrollment, increased CDS uptake during longitudinal exposure, and machine-learning applications that are tailored to the CDS use case. Conclusions: Despite the intuitive advantages of representing healthcare decisions longitudinally, peer-reviewed literature on longitudinal CDS is sparse. Existing reports suggest opportunities to incorporate longitudinal CDS frameworks, automated data entry, living guidelines, and user readiness assessments. Generating best practice guidelines for longitudinal CDS would require a greater depth and breadth of published work and expert opinion.
AB - Objective: Patients and clinicians rarely experience healthcare decisions as snapshots in time, but clinical decision support (CDS) systems often represent decisions as snapshots. This scoping review systematically maps challenges and facilitators to longitudinal CDS that are applied at two or more timepoints for the same decision made by the same patient or clinician. Methods: We searched Embase, PubMed, and Medline databases for articles describing development, validation, or implementation of patient- or clinician-facing longitudinal CDS. Validated quality assessment tools were used for article selection. Challenges and facilitators to longitudinal CDS are reported according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Results: Eight articles met inclusion criteria; each article described a unique CDS. None used entirely automated data entry, none used living guidelines for updating the evidence base or knowledge engine as new evidence emerged during the longitudinal study, and one included formal readiness for change assessments. Seven of eight CDS were implemented and evaluated prospectively. Challenges were primarily related to suboptimal study design (with unique challenges for each study) or user interface. Facilitators included use of randomized trial designs for prospective enrollment, increased CDS uptake during longitudinal exposure, and machine-learning applications that are tailored to the CDS use case. Conclusions: Despite the intuitive advantages of representing healthcare decisions longitudinally, peer-reviewed literature on longitudinal CDS is sparse. Existing reports suggest opportunities to incorporate longitudinal CDS frameworks, automated data entry, living guidelines, and user readiness assessments. Generating best practice guidelines for longitudinal CDS would require a greater depth and breadth of published work and expert opinion.
KW - CDS
KW - CDSS
KW - Shared decision-making
KW - evolve
KW - healthcare
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85192351869&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85192351869&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/20552076241249925
DO - 10.1177/20552076241249925
M3 - Review article
C2 - 38708184
AN - SCOPUS:85192351869
SN - 2055-2076
VL - 10
JO - Digital Health
JF - Digital Health
ER -