OREM, UT – Healthcare providers are looking to new clinical decision support (CDS) tools to help them improve care. But do CDS tools deliver? For a new report, "Clinical Decision Support 2011: Understanding the Impact," KLAS interviewed 344 providers to rate their tools' performance.
KLAS measured levels of impact by asking providers to rate their influence on clinical decisions and standardizing care. The study found most tools did well in one of these main arenas, but rarely in both.
[See also: The CDS challenge: There’s more to do than just MU ]Measured CDS areas included care plans, diagnostic tools, disease reference tools, drug databases, drug reference tools, order sets and surveillance tools.
The study examined vendors such as Cerner, EBSCO, Elsevier, First DataBank, Isabel, Logical Images, Thomson Reuters, Wolters Kluwer, and Zynx.
Respondents say poor integration with clinical workflow is the Achilles heel hindering CDS success.
[See also: AMIA maps the road to decision support]Also, many reported issues with alert fatigue – describing it as an "overly sensitive mess." Though every CDS segment had key challenges, KLAS noted that providers are optimistic about the future as CDS tools increase in workflow integration, usability, and adoption.
