Clinical decision support system

clinical decision system support ( CDSS ) is a health information technology system designed to Provide That Is physicians and other health professionals with clinical decision support ( CDS ), That Is, assist with clinical decision-making tasks. Robert Hayward of the Center for Health Evidence: “Clinical decision-making support for health care. Citation needed ] CDSSs constitute a major topic in artificial intelligence in medicine .


The evidence of the effectiveness of CDSS is mixed. A 2014 systematic review of the use of electronic health records . [1] There may be some benefits, however, in terms of other outcomes. [1]

A 2005 systematic review concluded that CDSSs improved practitioner performance in 64% of the studies. The CDSSs improved patient outcomes in 13% of the studies. Sustainable CDSSs include the following:

  • Automatic electronic devices

Both the number and the methodological quality of studies of CDSSs increased from 1973 through 2004. [2]

Another 2005 systematic review found … “Decision support systems Improved practice practice in 68% of trials.” The CDSS features associated with success include the following: [3]

  • The CDSS is integrated into the clinical workflow rather than as a separate log-in or screen.
  • The CDSS is electronic rather than paper-based templates.
  • The CDSS provides decision support at the time and location of the patient.
  • The CDSS provides (active voice) recommendations for care, not just assessments.

HOWEVER, other systematic reviews are less optimistic about the effects of CDS with one from 2011 Stating “There is a wide gap entre les postulated and empirically Demonstrated benefits of [CDSS and other] eHealth technologies … Their cost-effectiveness HAS yet to Be demonstrated “ . [4]

A 5-year evaluation of the effectiveness of CDSS in implementing rational treatment of bacterial infections was published in 2014; According to the authors, it was the first long term study of a CDSS. [5]


A clinical decision support system has been defined as an active knowledge system , which uses two or more items of patient data to generate case-specific advice. [6] This Implies That has CDSS is simply a decision support system That Is Focused on using knowledge management in Such a way so as to accomplish achieve clinical advice for patient care is based multiple items of patient data.


The main purpose of modern CDSS is to assist clinicians at the point of care. [7] This means clustering That clinicians interact with CDSS has to help to analysis, and reach a diagnosis based on, data patient.

In the early days, CDSSs were conceived as being used to literally make decisions for the clinician. The clinician Would input the information and wait for the CSDH to output the “right” choice and the clinician Would simply act On That output. HOWEVER, the modern methodology of using CDSSs to assist clinician means clustering que la Interacts with the CSDH Utilizing Both Their Own knowledge and the SSDC, to make a better analysis of the patient’s data than human Either gold CDSS Could we make Their Own. Typically, a CDSS Makes suggestions for the clinician to look through, and the clinician is expected to pick out Useful Information from the presented results and discount CDSS erroneous suggestions. [6]

There are two main types of CDSS: [7]

  • Knowledge-based
  • Non-knowledge-based

As detailed below.

An example of a clinical decision support system could be used by a CDSS, a DDSS (diagnosis decision support systems). A DDSS requests some of the patients’ data and in response, proposed a set of appropriate diagnoses. The doctor then takes the output of the DDSS and determines which diagnoses might be relevant and which are not, [7] and if necessary further tests to narrow down the diagnosis.

Another example of a CDSS would be a case-based reasoning (CBR) system. [8] A CBR system was used to determine the appropriate amount of beams and the optimal beam angles for use in radiotherapy for brain cancer patients; Medical physicists and oncologists would then review the recommended treatment plan to determine its viability. [9]

Another important classification of a CDSS is based on the timing of its use. Doctors use these systems to assist in the management of the disease. Citation needed ] Pre-diagnosis CDSS systems are used to help the physician prepare the diagnosis. CDSS used during diagnosis and diagnosis. Post-diagnosis of cardiovascular disease in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. [7] It has been asserted that it will support the decision of the future clinicians in common tasks in the future. [10]

Another approach, used by the National Health Service in England, is to use a DDGS (Either, in the past, operated by the patient, or, today, by a phone operative who is not medically-trained) to triage medical condition out of Hours by suggesting a suitable next step to the patient (eg call an ambulance , or see a general practitioner on the next working day). The suggestion, which may be disregarded by either the patient or the guinea-pig, suggests otherwise, is based on the known information and an implicit conclusion about what the worst-case diagnosis is likely to be To the patient,

Knowledge-based CDSS

Most CDSSs consist of three parts: the knowledge base, an inference engine , and a mechanism to communicate. IF-THEN rules. The IF-THEN rules. If this drug has been taken into consideration, then it is safe to use it. Using another interface, an advanced user could edit the knowledge base to keep it up to date with new drugs. The inference engine combines the rules from the knowledge base with the patient’s data. The communication mechanism allows the system to show the results to the user. [6] [7]

Non-knowledge-based CDSS

That CDSSs do not use a knowledge base uses a form of artificial intelligence called Expired machine learning , [11] qui allow computers to learn from past experiences and / or find patterns in clinical data. This eliminates the need for writing rules and for expert input. However, since they can not explain the reasons for their conclusions (they are so-called “black boxes”, because they do not know meaningful information about how they work can be discerned by human inspection) Diagnoses, for reliability and accountability reasons. [6] [7] Nevertheless, they can be useful as post-diagnostic systems,

Three types of non-knowledge-based systems are supported vector machines, artificial neural networks and genetic algorithms. [12]

  1. Artificial Neural Networks: A Discussion of the Neural Networks .
  2. Genetic algorithms are based on simplified evolutionary processes using CDSS results. The selection algorithms evaluate components of random sets of solutions to a problem. The solutions that come out on top are then recombined and mutated and run through the process again. This happens over and over until the proper solution is discovered. They are functionally similar to neural networks in which they are also “black boxes” that attempt to derive knowledge from patient data.
  3. Non-knowledge-based networks often focus on a narrow list of symptoms, such as symptoms for a single disease, as opposed to the knowledge based approach which cover the diagnosis of many different diseases. [6] [7]


United States

The HACCP and the American Academy of Health Research (HRCS). Through these initiatives, more hospitals and clinics are integrating electronic medical records (EMRs) and computerized physician order entry (CPOE) into their health information processing and storage. Consequently, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) Citation needed ] The IOM had published a report in 1999, To Err is Human , which focused on the patient safety crisis in the United States, pointing to the incredibly high number of deaths. This statistic attracted great attention to the quality of patient care. Citation needed ]

With the enactment of the HITECH Act in the ARRA, encouraging the adoption of health IT, more detailed case law for CDSS and EMRs are still when? ] Is defined by the Office of National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) and approved by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). A definition of “Meaningful use” is yet to be published. Clarification needed ]

Despite the absence of laws, the CDSS vendors would definitely be considered as having a legal duty of care to both patients and the patient. Citation needed ] clarification needed ] HOWEVER, duties of care Legal regulations are not Explicitly defined yet.

With recent effective legislations related to performance shift payment incentives, CDSS are becoming more attractive. Citation needed ] clarification needed ]

Challenges to adoption

Clinical challenges

Much effort has been made by many medical institutions to produce viable CDSSs to support all aspects of clinical tasks. However, with the complexity of clinical workflows and the demands on staff time high, care must be taken by the institution deploying the support system to ensure that the system becomes a fluid and integral part of the clinical workflow. Some CDSSs have met with varying amounts of success, while others have suffered from common problems preventing or reducing successful adoption and acceptance.

Two sectors of the healthcare domain in which CDSSs have had a broad impact on the pharmacy and billing sectors. There are no translations available. There are no translations available. Another sector of success for CDSS is in billing and claims filing. Since Many hospitals Rely on Medicare Reimbursements to stay in operation, systems-have-been created to help examines Both have Proposed treatment level and the current rules of Medicare in order to suggest a Plan That Attempts to address Both the care of the patient and the financial needs Of the institution.

Other CDSSs that are intended to be used in diagnosis, The Leeds Abdominal Pain System was operational in 1971 for the University of Leeds Hospital, and was reported to have a correct diagnosis in 91.8% of cases, compared to the clinicians’ success rate of 79.6%. Citation needed ]

Despite the wide range of efforts by institutions to produce and use these systems, widespread adoption and acceptance has still not been achieved for most offerings. One large roadblock to acceptance has historically been workflow integration. A CDSS existed, causing a deficiency in planning for the clinician will actually use the product in situ. Often CDSSs were stand-alone applications, requiring the clinician to cease working on their current system, switch to the CDSS, input the necessary data, and examined the results produced. The additional steps break the flow from the clinician’s perspective and cost precious time.

Technical challenges and barriers to implementation

Clinical decision support systems. Biological systems are profoundly complicated, and a clinical decision may be used in an enormous range of potentially relevant data. For example, an electronic evidence-based medicinesystem may potentially consider a patient’s symptoms, medical history, family history and genetics , as well as a patient’s course of treatment .

Clinically, a large deterrent to CDSS acceptance is workflow integration, as mentioned above.

Another source of contention with many medical support systems is a massive number of alerts. When it comes to the production of high volumes of warnings, aside from the annoyance, clinicians may pay attention to warnings, causing potentially critical alerts to be missed.


One of the core challenges facing CDSS is the difficulty in incorporating the extensive amount of clinical research being published on an ongoing basis. In a given year. [13] Currently, each one of these studies must be manually read, evaluated for scientific legitimacy, and incorporated into the CDSS in an accurate way. In 2004, it was stated that the process of gathering clinical data and medical knowledge and putting it in a form that computers can manipulate to assist in clinical decision-support is “still in its infancy”. [14]

Nevertheless, it is more feasible for a business to do this centrally, even if incompletely, than for each individual doctor to try to keep up with all the research being published.

In addition to being laborious, integration of new data can sometimes be difficult to quantify or incorporate into the existing decision support scheme, particularly in instances where different clinical papers may appear conflicting. Properly Resolving thesis spells of Discrepancies Often is the subject of clinical papers Itself (see meta-analysis ), qui Often take months to full.


In order for a CDSS to offer value, it must demonstrably improve clinical workflow or outcome. Evaluation of CDSS is the process of quantifying the value of CDSS. Because different CDSSs serve different purposes, there is no generic metric which applies to all such systems; However, attributes such as consistency (with itself, and with experts) often apply across a wide spectrum of systems. [15]

The benchmark for a CDSS depends on the system’s goal: for example, a diagnosis decision support system may be rated based on the consistency and accuracy of its classification of disease. An evidence-based medicine system could be rated based upon a high incidence of patient improvement, or higher financial reimbursement for care providers.

Combining with electronic health records

Implementing electronic health records (EHR) was an inevitable challenge. The reasons behind this challenge are a relatively uncharted area, and there are many issues and complications during the implementation phase of an EHR. This can be seen in the numerous studies that have been undertaken. Citation needed ] HOWEVER, Challenges in Implementing electronic health records (EHRs) received-have Some attention purpose less is Known about the process of transitioning from legacy EHRs to newer systems. [16]

With all of that said, electronic health records are the way of the future for healthcare industry. They are a way to capture and use real-time data to provide high-quality patient care, ensuring efficient and effective use of time and resources. Incorporating EHR and CDSS together in the process of medicine has the potential to change the way medicine has been taught and practiced. [17] It has been said that “the highest level of EHR is a CDSS”. [18]

Since the clinical decision support system (CDSS) is a computer system designed to impact clinician decision making on individual patients at the point in time that these decisions are made “, [17] it is clear that it would be beneficial to have a fully integrated CDSS And EHR.

EHR has the advantage of being able to provide a reliable and cost-effective solution to the problem. The success and effectiveness Can Be Measured by the Increase in patient care and being white Delivered Reduced adverse events Occurring. In addition to this, there would be a saving of time and resources, and benefits in terms of autonomy and financial benefits to the healthcare facility / organization. [19]

Benefits of CDSS combined with EHR

A successful CDSS / EHR integration will allow the provision of best practice, high quality care to the patient, which is the ultimate goal of healthcare.

Errors have always occurred in healthcare, so trying to minimize them as much as possible is important in order to provide quality patient care. Three areas that can be addressed with the CDSS and Electronic Health Records (EHRs), are:

  1. Medication prescription errors
  2. Adverse drug events
  3. Other medical errors

[1] [1] Titles of Documents and Works [1] Titles of Monographs [1] Titles of Monographs [1] Titles of Monographs [1] Titles of Periodicals

Effectiveness section above. The measurable benefits of clinical decision support .


Implementing electronic health records (EHR) in healthcare settings incurs challenges; none more significant than Maintaining efficiency and safety During rollout, [20] purpose in order for the implementation process to be effective, an understanding of the EHR users’ perspectives is key to the success of EHR implementation projects. [21] In addition to this, adoption needs to be actively fostered through a bottom-up, clinical-needs-first approach. [22]The same can be said for CDSS.

EHR / CDSS system are:

  1. Privacy
  2. Confidentiality
  3. User-friendliness
  4. Document accuracy and completeness
  5. Integration
  6. Uniformity
  7. acceptance
  8. Alert desensitisation

[23] As a consequence of the existence of the potential for adverse events from occurring. These aspects include whether:

  • Correct data is being used
  • All the data has been entered into the system
  • Current best practice is followed
  • The data is evidence-based clarification needed ]

A service oriented architecture has been proposed as a technical means to address some of these barriers. [24]

Status in Australia

As of July 2015, the planned transition to EHRs in Australia is facing difficulties. EHRs, or are moving towards such a transition phase.

Victoria has attempted to implement EHR across the state with its HealthSMART program, but due to unexpectedly high costs it has canceled the project. [25]

South Australia (SA) but is slightly more successful than Victoria in the implementation of an EHR. This may be due to all public healthcare organizations in SA being centrally run. (Also, on the other hand, the UK’s National Health Service is also centrally administered, and its National Program for IT in the 2000s, which included EHRs in its remit, was an expensive disaster.)

SA is in the process of implementing “Enterprise patient administration system (EPAS)”. This system is the foundation for all public hospitals and health care sites for an EHR within SA and it was expected that by the end of 2014 all facilities in SA will be connected to it. This would allow for the successful integration of CDSS into SA and increase the benefits of the EHR. [26] By July 2015 it was reported that only 3 out of 75 EPAS. [27]

With the largest healthcare system in the country and a federated model, New South Wales is making progress towards the implementation of EHRs. The current iteration of the state’s technology, eMR2, includes CDSS features such as a sepsis pathway for identifying at-risk patients based on data input to the electronic record. As of June 2016, 93 of 194 sites in-scope for the initial roll-out had implemented eMR2 [28]

See also

  • Gello Expression Language
  • International Health Terminology Standards Development Organization
  • Medical algorithm
  • Medical informatics
  • Personal Health Information Protection Act (Ontario)
  • Treatment decision support (decision support tools for patients)


  1. ^ Jump up to:a b Moja, L; Kwag, KH; Lytras, T; Bertizzolo, L; Brandt, L; Pecoraro, V; Rigon, G; Vaona, A; Ruggiero, F; Mangia, M; Iorio, A; Kunnamo, I; Bonovas, S (December 2014). “Effectiveness of computerized decision support systems linked to electronic health records: a systematic review and meta-analysis.” . American Journal of Public Health . 104 (12): e12-22. PMC  4232126  . PMID  25322302 . doi : 10.2105 / ajph.2014.302164 .
  2. Jump up^ Garg AX, Adhikari NK, McDonald H, Rosas-Arellano MP, Devereaux PJ, Beyene J, et al. (2005). “Effects of computerized clinical decision-making on a patient’s outcomes: a systematic review.” . JAMA . 293 (10): 1223-38. PMID  15755945 . Doi : 10.1001 / jama.293.10.1223 .
  3. Jump up^ Kensaku Kawamoto; Caitlin A Houlihan; E Andrew Balas; David F Lobach. (2005). “Improving clinical practice using clinical decision support systems: a systematic review of trials to identify features critical to success.” (PDF) . BMJ . 330 (7494): 765. PMC  555881  . PMID  15767266 . Doi : 10.1136 / bmj.38398.500764.8F .
  4. Jump up^ Black, AD; Because I.; Pagliari, C .; Anandan, C .; Cresswell, K .; Bokun, T .; McKinstry, B .; Procter, R .; Majeed, A .; Sheikh, A. (18 January 2011). “The impact of ehealth on the quality and safety of health care: A systematic overview.” . PLoS Medicine . 8 (1): e1000387. Doi :10.1371 / journal.pmed.1000387 .
  5. Jump up^ Nachtigall, I; Tafelski, S; Already, M; Halle, E; Grebe, MC; Tamarkin, A; Rothbart, A; Unrig, A; Meyer, E; Musial-Bright, L; Wernecke, KD; Spies, C (22 December 2014). “Long-term effect of computer-assisted decision-making for antibiotic treatment in critically ill patients: a prospective ‘before / after’ cohort study ‘ . BMJ Open . 4 (12): e005370. Doi : 10.1136 / bmjopen-2014-005370 .
  6. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e “Decision support systems.” 26 July 2005. 17 Feb. 2009 < >.
  7. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f g Berner, Eta S., ed. Clinical Decision Support Systems. New York, NY: Springer, 2007.
  8. Jump up^ Begum, Shahina; Ahmed, Mobyen Uddin; Funk, Peter; Xiong, Ning; Folke, Mia (July 2011). “Case-based reasoning systems in the health sciences: a survey of recent trends and developments”. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part C (Applications and Reviews) . 41 (4): 421-434. Doi : 10.1109 / TSMCC.2010.2071862 .
  9. Jump up^ Khussainova, Gulmira; Petrovic, Sanja; Jagannathan, Rupa (2015). “Retrieval with clustering in a case-based reasoning system for radiotherapy treatment planning” . Journal of Physics: Conference Series . 616 (1): 012013. ISSN  1742-6596 . doi : 10.1088 / 1742-6596 / 616/1/ 012013 .
  10. Jump up^ Khosla, Vinod (4 December 2012). “Technology will replace 80% of what doctors do” . CNN . Retrieved 25 April 2013 .
  11. Jump up^ “Syeda Tanveer Mahmood Plenary Talk: The Role of Machine Learning in Clinical Decision Support”. SPIE Newsroom . March 2015. doi : 10.1117 / 2.3201503.29 .
  12. Jump up^ Wagholikar, Kavishwar; V. Sundararajan; Ashok Deshpande (2012). “Modeling Paradigms for Medical Diagnosis Decision Support: A Survey and Future Directions”. Journal of Medical Systems . Journal of Medical Systems. 36 : 3029-3049. Doi : 10.1007 / s10916-011-9780-4 .
  13. Jump up^ Gluud C, Nikolova D (2007). “Likely country of origin in publications on randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials during the last 60 years.” . Trials . 8 : 7. PMC  1808475  . PMID  17326823 . Doi :10.1186 / 1745-6215-8-7 .
  14. Jump up^ Gardner, Reed M (April 2004). “Computerized Clinical Decision-Support in Respiratory Care”. Respiratory Care . 49 : 378-388.
  15. Jump up^ Wagholikar, K; Kathy L. MacLaughlin; Thomas M Kastner; Petra M Casey; Michael Henry; Robert A Greenes; Hongfang Liu; Rajeev Chaudhry (2013). “Formative evaluation of the accuracy of a clinical decision support system for cervical cancer screening”. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association . Journal of American Medical Informatics Association. 20 : 747-759. Doi : 10.1136 / amiajnl-2013-001613 .
  16. Jump up^ Zandieh, Stephanie O .; Kahyun Yoon-Flannery; Gilad J. Kuperman; Daniel J. Langsam; Daniel Hyman; Rainu Kaushal (2008). “Challenges to EHR Implementation in Electronic- Versus Paper-based Office Practices”. Journal of Global Information Management : 755-761.
  17. ^ Jump up to:a b Berner, Eta S .; Tonya J.La Lande (2007). “1”. Clinical Decision Support Systems: Theory and Practice (2 ed.). New York: Springer Science and Business Media. pp. 3-22.
  18. Jump up^ Rothman, Brian; Joan. C. Leonard; Michael. Mr. Vigoda (2012). “Future of electronic health records: implications for decision support”. Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine . 79 (6): 757-768. Doi : 10.1002 / msj.21351 .
  19. Jump up^ Sambasivan, Murali; Pouyan Esmaeilzadeh; Naresh Kumar; Hossein Nezakati (2012). “Intention to adopt clinical decision support systems in a Developing Country: Effect of Perceived Physician’s professional autonomy, involvement and belief: a cross-sectional study.” BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making . 12 : 142-150. Doi : 10.1186 / 1472-6947-12-142 .
  20. Jump up^ Spellman Kennebeck, Stephanie; Nathan Timm; Michael K Farrell; S Andrew Spooner (2012). “Impact of electronic health record on patient pediatric emergency department”. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association . 19 : 443-447. Doi : 10.1136 / amiajnl-2011-000462 .
  21. Jump up^ McGinn, Carrie A; Marie-Pierre Gagnon; Nicola Shaw; Claude Sicotte; Luc Mathieu; Yvan Leduc; Sonya Attic; Julie Duplantie; Anis B Abdeljelil; France Légaré (2012). “Users’ perspectives of key factors to Implementing electronic health records in Canada: a Delphi study”. BMC Medical Informatics & Decision Making . 12 : 105-118. Doi : 10.1186 / 1472-6947-12-105 .
  22. Jump up^ Rozenblum, Ronen; Yeona Jang; Eyal Zimlichman; Claudia Salzberg; Melissa Tamblyn; David Buckeridge; Alan Forster; David W. Bates and Robyn Tamblyn (2011). “A qualitative study of Canada’s experience with the implementation of electronic health information technology”. Canadian Medical Association Journal : 281-288.
  23. Jump up^ Berner, Eta S .; Tonya J.La Lande (2007). “4”. Clinical Decision Support Systems: Theory and Practice (2 ed.). New York: Springer Science and Business Media. pp. 64-98.
  24. Jump up^ Loya, SR; Kawamoto, K; Chatwin, C; Huser, V (2014). “Service oriented architecture for clinical decision support: A systematic review and future directions”. Journal of Medical Systems . 38 (12): 140. PMID  25325996. Doi : 10.1007 / s10916-014-0140-z .
  25. Jump up^ Charette, Robert N. “Troubled HealthSMART System Finally Canceled in Victoria Australia” . Retrieved 18 May 2013 .
  26. Jump up^ South Australian Health. “EPAS program update” . South Australian Health . Retrieved 15 May 2013 .
  27. Jump up^ accessed on 26 July 2015
  28. Jump up^ The eMR turns 10. “eHealth News” (PDF) . EHealth NSW . Retrieved 6 August 2016 .

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *