An eHealth App (CAPABLE) Providing Symptom Monitoring, Well-Being Interventions, and Educational Material for Patients With Melanoma Treated With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: Protocol for an Exploratory Intervention Trial.

BACKGROUND: Since treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) is becoming standard therapy for patients with high-risk and advanced melanoma, an increasing number of patients experience treatment-related adverse events such as fatigue. Until now, studies have demonstrated the benefits of using eHealth tools to provide either symptom monitoring or interventions to reduce treatment-related symptoms such as fatigue. However, an eHealth tool that facilitates the combination of both symptom monitoring and symptom management in patients with melanoma treated with ICIs is still needed. OBJECTIVE: In this pilot study, we will explore the use of the CAPABLE (Cancer Patients Better Life Experience) app in providing symptom monitoring, education, and well-being interventions on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes such as fatigue and physical functioning, as well as patients' acceptance and usability of using CAPABLE. METHODS: This prospective, exploratory pilot study will examine changes in fatigue over time in 36 patients with stage III or IV melanoma during treatment with ICI using CAPABLE (a smartphone app and multisensory smartwatch). This cohort will be compared to a prospectively collected cohort of patients with melanoma treated with standard ICI therapy. CAPABLE will be used for a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 6 months. The primary endpoint in this study is the change in fatigue between baseline and 3 and 6 months after the start of treatment. Secondary end points include HRQoL outcomes, usability, and feasibility parameters. RESULTS: Study inclusion started in April 2023 and is currently ongoing. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study will explore the effect, usability, and feasibility of CAPABLE in patients with melanoma during treatment with ICI. Adding the CAPABLE system to active treatment is hypothesized to decrease fatigue in patients with high-risk and advanced melanoma during treatment with ICIs compared to a control group receiving standard care. The Medical Ethics Committee NedMec (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) granted ethical approval for this study (reference number 22-981/NL81970.000.22). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05827289; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05827289. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/49252.

Effects of a clinical decision support system and patient portal for preventing medication-related falls in older fallers: Protocol of a cluster randomized controlled trial with embedded process and economic evaluations (ADFICE_IT).

BACKGROUND: Falls are the leading cause of injury-related mortality and hospitalization among adults aged ≥ 65 years. An important modifiable fall-risk factor is use of fall-risk increasing drugs (FRIDs). However, deprescribing is not always attempted or performed successfully. The ADFICE_IT trial evaluates the combined use of a clinical decision support system (CDSS) and a patient portal for optimizing the deprescribing of FRIDs in older fallers. The intervention aims to optimize and enhance shared decision making (SDM) and consequently prevent injurious falls and reduce healthcare-related costs. METHODS: A multicenter, cluster-randomized controlled trial with process evaluation will be conducted among hospitals in the Netherlands. We aim to include 856 individuals aged ≥ 65 years that visit the falls clinic due to a fall. The intervention comprises the combined use of a CDSS and a patient portal. The CDSS provides guideline-based advice with regard to deprescribing and an individual fall-risk estimation, as calculated by an embedded prediction model. The patient portal provides educational information and a summary of the patient's consultation. Hospitals in the control arm will provide care-as-usual. Fall-calendars will be used for measuring the time to first injurious fall (primary outcome) and secondary fall outcomes during one year. Other measurements will be conducted at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months and include quality of life, cost-effectiveness, feasibility, and shared decision-making measures. Data will be analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Difference in time to injurious fall between the intervention and control group will be analyzed using multilevel Cox regression. DISCUSSION: The findings of this study will add valuable insights about how digital health informatics tools that target physicians and older adults can optimize deprescribing and support SDM. We expect the CDSS and patient portal to aid in deprescribing of FRIDs, resulting in a reduction in falls and related injuries. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05449470 (7-7-2022).

The need to strengthen the evaluation of the impact of Artificial Intelligence-based decision support systems on healthcare provision.

Despite the renewed interest in Artificial Intelligence-based clinical decision support systems (AI-CDS), there is still a lack of empirical evidence supporting their effectiveness. This underscores the need for rigorous and continuous evaluation and monitoring of processes and outcomes associated with the introduction of health information technology. We illustrate how the emergence of AI-CDS has helped to bring to the fore the critical importance of evaluation principles and action regarding all health information technology applications, as these hitherto have received limited attention. Key aspects include assessment of design, implementation and adoption contexts; ensuring systems support and optimise human performance (which in turn requires understanding clinical and system logics); and ensuring that design of systems prioritises ethics, equity, effectiveness, and outcomes. Going forward, information technology strategy, implementation and assessment need to actively incorporate these dimensions. International policy makers, regulators and strategic decision makers in implementing organisations therefore need to be cognisant of these aspects and incorporate them in decision-making and in prioritising investment. In particular, the emphasis needs to be on stronger and more evidence-based evaluation surrounding system limitations and risks as well as optimisation of outcomes, whilst ensuring learning and contextual review. Otherwise, there is a risk that applications will be sub-optimally embodied in health systems with unintended consequences and without yielding intended benefits.

Validation of the ADFICE_IT Models for Predicting Falls and Recurrent Falls in Geriatric Outpatients.

OBJECTIVES: Before being used in clinical practice, a prediction model should be tested in patients whose data were not used in model development. Previously, we developed the ADFICE_IT models for predicting any fall and recurrent falls, referred as Any_fall and Recur_fall. In this study, we externally validated the models and compared their clinical value to a practical screening strategy where patients are screened for falls history alone. DESIGN: Retrospective, combined analysis of 2 prospective cohorts. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Data were included of 1125 patients (aged ≥65 years) who visited the geriatrics department or the emergency department. METHODS: We evaluated the models' discrimination using the C-statistic. Models were updated using logistic regression if calibration intercept or slope values deviated significantly from their ideal values. Decision curve analysis was applied to compare the models' clinical value (ie, net benefit) against that of falls history for different decision thresholds. RESULTS: During the 1-year follow-up, 428 participants (42.7%) endured 1 or more falls, and 224 participants (23.1%) endured a recurrent fall (≥2 falls). C-statistic values were 0.66 (95% CI 0.63-0.69) and 0.69 (95% CI 0.65-0.72) for the Any_fall and Recur_fall models, respectively. Any_fall overestimated the fall risk and we therefore updated only its intercept whereas Recur_fall showed good calibration and required no update. Compared with falls history, Any_fall and Recur_fall showed greater net benefit for decision thresholds of 35% to 60% and 15% to 45%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The models performed similarly in this data set of geriatric outpatients as in the development sample. This suggests that fall-risk assessment tools that were developed in community-dwelling older adults may perform well in geriatric outpatients. We found that in geriatric outpatients the models have greater clinical value across a wide range of decision thresholds compared with screening for falls history alone.

Development and Internal Validation of a Prediction Model for Falls Using Electronic Health Records in a Hospital Setting.

OBJECTIVE: Fall prevention is important in many hospitals. Current fall-risk-screening tools have limited predictive accuracy specifically for older inpatients. Their administration can be time-consuming. A reliable and easy-to-administer tool is desirable to identify older inpatients at higher fall risk. We aimed to develop and internally validate a prognostic prediction model for inpatient falls for older patients. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of a large cohort drawn from hospital electronic health record data. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Older patients (≥70 years) admitted to a university medical center (2016 until 2021). METHODS: The outcome was an inpatient fall (≥24 hours of admission). Two prediction models were developed using regularized logistic regression in 5 imputed data sets: one model without predictors indicating missing values (Model-without) and one model with these additional predictors indicating missing values (Model-with). We internally validated our whole model development strategy using 10-fold stratified cross-validation. The models were evaluated using discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) and calibration (plot assessment). We determined whether the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) of the models were significantly different using DeLong test. RESULTS: Our data set included 21,286 admissions. In total, 470 (2.2%) had a fall after 24 hours of admission. The Model-without had 12 predictors and Model-with 13, of which 4 were indicators of missing values. The AUCs of the Model-without and Model-with were 0.676 (95% CI 0.646-0.707) and 0.695 (95% CI 0.667-0.724). The AUCs between both models were significantly different (P = .013). Calibration was good for both models. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Both the Model-with and Model-without indicators of missing values showed good calibration and fair discrimination, where the Model-with performed better. Our models showed competitive performance to well-established fall-risk-screening tools, and they have the advantage of being based on routinely collected data. This may substantially reduce the burden on nurses, compared with nonautomatic fall-risk-screening tools.

External validation of the Johns Hopkins Fall Risk Assessment Tool in older Dutch hospitalized patients.

PURPOSE: Fall prevention is a safety goal in many hospitals. The performance of the Johns Hopkins Fall Risk Assessment Tool (JHFRAT) in older inpatients is largely unknown. We aimed to assess the JHFRAT performance in a large sample of Dutch older inpatients, including its trend over time. METHODS: We used an Electronic Health Records (EHR) dataset with hospitalized patients (≥ 70), admitted for ≥ 24 h between 2016 and 2021. Inpatient falls were extracted from structured and free-text data. We assessed the association between JHFRAT and falls using logistic regression. For test accuracy, we calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). Discrimination was measured by the AUC. For calibration, we plotted the predicted fall probability with the actual probability of falls. For time-related effects, we calculated the AUC per 6 months (using data of patients admitted during the 6 months' time interval) and plotted these different AUC values over time. Furthermore, we compared the model (JHFRAT and falls) with and without adjusting for seasonal influenza, COVID-19, spring, summer, fall or winter periods. RESULTS: Data included 17,263 admissions with at least 1 JHFRAT measurement, a median age of 76 and a percentage female of 47%. The in-hospital fall prevalence was 2.5%. JHFRAT [OR = 1.11 (1.03-1.20)] and its subcategories were significantly associated with falls. For medium/high risk of falls (JHFRAT > 5), sensitivity was 73%, specificity 51%, PPV 4% and NPV 99%. The overall AUC was 0.67, varying over time between 0.62 and 0.71 (for 6 months' time intervals). Seasonal influenza did affect the association between JHFRAT and falls. COVID-19, spring, summer, fall or winter did not affect the association. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show an association between JHFRAT and falls, a low discrimination by JHFRAT for older inpatients and over-prediction in the calibration. Improvements in the fall-risk assessment are warranted to improve efficiency.

Use of an open-source electronic health record to establish a "virtual hospital": A tale of two curricula.

BACKGROUND: The electronic health record (EHR) is central to medical informatics. Its use is also recognized as an important skill for future clinicians. Typically, medical students' first exposure to an EHR is when they start their clinical internships, and medical informatics students may or may not get experience with an EHR before graduation. We describe the process of implementing an open-source EHR in two curricula: Medicine and Medical informatics. For medical students, the primary goals were to allow students to practice analyzing information from the EHR, creating therapeutic plans, and communicating with their colleagues via the EHR before they start their first clinical rotations. For medical informatics students, the primary goal was to give students hands-on experience with creating decision support in an EHR. APPROACH: We used the OpenMRS electronic health record with a custom decision support module based on Arden Syntax. Medical students needed a secure, stable environment to practice medical reasoning. Medical informatics students needed a more isolated system to experiment with the EHR's internal configuration. Both student groups needed synthetic patient cases that were realistic, but in different aspects. For medical students, it is essential that these cases are clinically consistent, and events unfold in a logical order. By contrast, synthetic data for medical informatics students should mimic the data quality problems found in real patient data. OUTCOMES: Medical informatics students show more mature reasoning about data quality issues and workflow integration than prior to using the EHR. Comments on both course evaluations have been positive, including comments on how working with a real-world EHR provides a realistic experience. CONCLUSION: The open-source EHR OpenMRS has proven to be a valuable addition to both the medicine and medical informatics curriculum. Both sets of students experience use of the EHR as giving them valuable, realistic learning experiences.

General Practitioners' needs and wishes for clinical decision support Systems: A focus group study.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) can be beneficial for patients, healthcare professionals, but is often not applied in practice. A clinical decision support system (CDSS) can facilitate SDM. However, CDSS acceptance rates are rather low. One context in which SDM between a general practitioner (GP) and patient regarding medication can be of great value is older patients' medication-related fall risk. Applying user-centered design to optimally tailor the CDSS to the needs and wishes of GPs can help overcome the low CDSS-acceptance rates. The current study aims to learn GPs' needs and wishes for a CDSS focused on diminishing medication-related fall risk. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participants were recruited through the Amsterdam Academic Network of General Practice and were sent a web-lecture as preparation. Three online focus groups with a total of 13 GPs were performed and were led by two moderators. The focus groups were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analyzed using Atlas.ti. RESULTS: GPs' views on the workflow, risk presentation and advice of the system were elicited. The fit with the GPs' workflow was elaborately discussed, for instance how the CDSS could support the selection of patients at risk. GPs articulated a strong preference for a visual risk presentation, in the form of a gradient scale ranging from bright green to dark red. Furthermore, they preferred receiving both medication-related and non-medication-related advice, which should be presented on request. DISCUSSION: The findings provide a valuable insight into GPs' needs and wishes for a CDSS focused on medication-related fall prevention. This will inform the design of a first prototype of the CDSS which will be subjected to usability tests. The findings of this study can also be used to support the development of medication-related CDSSs in a broader context.

The Role of Formative Evaluation in Promoting Digitally-based Health Equity and Reducing Bias for Resilient Health Systems: The Case of Patient Portals.

OBJECTIVES: Patient portals are increasingly implemented to improve patient involvement and engagement. We here seek to provide an overview of ways to mitigate existing concerns that these technologies increase inequity and bias and do not reach those who could benefit most from them. METHODS: Based on the current literature, we review the limitations of existing evaluations of patient portals in relation to addressing health equity, literacy and bias; outline challenges evaluators face when conducting such evaluations; and suggest methodological approaches that may address existing shortcomings. RESULTS: Various stakeholder needs should be addressed before deploying patient portals, involving vulnerable groups in user-centred design, and studying unanticipated consequences and impacts of information systems in use over time. CONCLUSIONS: Formative approaches to evaluation can help to address existing shortcomings and facilitate the development and implementation of patient portals in an equitable way thereby promoting the creation of resilient health systems.

Exploring supportive care and information needs through a proposed eHealth application among melanoma patients undergoing systemic therapy: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: During and after systemic therapy, patients with high risk and advanced melanoma experience challenges regarding cancer-related symptoms, treatment-related adverse events, and an impact of these symptoms on their physical and psychosocial well-being. Few studies have investigated the specific needs of these patients and the potential role of eHealth applications in meeting those needs. OBJECTIVE: To explore the supportive care and information needs of high risk and advanced melanoma patients, and how these needs can be supported by eHealth applications. METHODS: In this qualitative study, semi-structured interviews with high risk and advanced melanoma patients during or after systemic treatment were conducted to understand their needs and requirements as possible end-users of mobile eHealth applications. Interview transcripts were independently coded and thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Thirteen participants consented to be interviewed, aged 31 to 71 years. Nearly all patients (n = 12, 92%) experienced unmet information and supportive care needs during and after active treatment. Patients expected to value eHealth applications that facilitate information gathering, wellbeing interventions, and symptom management. The majority of patients (n = 10, 77%) anticipated various advantages from using an eHealth application, including increased autonomy, higher quality of life, and improved disease self-management. DISCUSSION: High risk and advanced melanoma patients have unmet supportive care and information needs during and after systemic treatment. The use of eHealth applications might be an effective way to meet these unmet needs. Patients anticipate a variety of advantages from using these applications, including deriving various benefits from the use of these applications, such as enhanced autonomy.

Development of the ADFICE_IT Models for Predicting Falls and Recurrent Falls in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Pooled Analyses of European Cohorts With Special Attention to Medication.

BACKGROUND: Use of fall prevention strategies requires detection of high-risk patients. Our goal was to develop prediction models for falls and recurrent falls in community-dwelling older adults and to improve upon previous models by using a large, pooled sample and by considering a wide range of candidate predictors, including medications. METHODS: Harmonized data from 2 Dutch (LASA, B-PROOF) and 1 German cohort (ActiFE Ulm) of adults aged ≥65 years were used to fit 2 logistic regression models: one for predicting any fall and another for predicting recurrent falls over 1 year. Model generalizability was assessed using internal-external cross-validation. RESULTS: Data of 5 722 participants were included in the analyses, of whom 1 868 (34.7%) endured at least 1 fall and 702 (13.8%) endured a recurrent fall. Positive predictors for any fall were: educational status, depression, verbal fluency, functional limitations, falls history, and use of antiepileptics and drugs for urinary frequency and incontinence; negative predictors were: body mass index (BMI), grip strength, systolic blood pressure, and smoking. Positive predictors for recurrent falls were: educational status, visual impairment, functional limitations, urinary incontinence, falls history, and use of anti-Parkinson drugs, antihistamines, and drugs for urinary frequency and incontinence; BMI was a negative predictor. The average C-statistic value was 0.65 for the model for any fall and 0.70 for the model for recurrent falls. CONCLUSION: Compared with previous models, the model for recurrent falls performed favorably while the model for any fall performed similarly. Validation and optimization of the models in other populations are warranted.

Barriers and facilitators in using a Clinical Decision Support System for fall risk management for older people: a European survey.

PURPOSE: Fall-Risk Increasing Drugs (FRIDs) are an important and modifiable fall-risk factor. A Clinical Decision Support System (CDSS) could support doctors in optimal FRIDs deprescribing. Understanding barriers and facilitators is important for a successful implementation of any CDSS. We conducted a European survey to assess barriers and facilitators to CDSS use and explored differences in their perceptions. METHODS: We examined and compared the relative importance and the occurrence of regional differences of a literature-based list of barriers and facilitators for CDSS usage among physicians treating older fallers from 11 European countries. RESULTS: We surveyed 581 physicians (mean age 44.9 years, 64.5% female, 71.3% geriatricians). The main barriers were technical issues (66%) and indicating a reason before overriding an alert (58%). The main facilitators were a CDSS that is beneficial for patient care (68%) and easy-to-use (64%). We identified regional differences, e.g., expense and legal issues were barriers for significantly more Eastern-European physicians compared to other regions, while training was selected less often as a facilitator by West-European physicians. Some physicians believed that due to the medical complexity of their patients, their own clinical judgement is better than advice from the CDSS. CONCLUSION: When designing a CDSS for Geriatric Medicine, the patient's medical complexity must be addressed whilst maintaining the doctor's decision-making autonomy. For a successful CDSS implementation in Europe, regional differences in barrier perception should be overcome. Equipping a CDSS with prediction models has the potential to provide individualized recommendations for deprescribing FRIDs in older falls patients.

Potentially inappropriate medications and their effect on falls during hospital admission.

OBJECTIVE: to investigate the effect of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) on inpatient falls and to identify whether PIMs as defined by STOPPFall or the designated section K for falls of STOPP v2 have a stronger association with inpatient falls when compared to the general tool STOPP v2. METHODS: a retrospective observational matching study using an electronic health records dataset of patients (≥70 years) admitted to an academic hospital (2015-19), including free text to identify inpatient falls. PIMs were identified using the STOPP v2, section K of STOPP v2 and STOPPFall. We first matched admissions with PIMs to those without PIMs on confounding factors. We then applied multinomial logistic regression analysis and Cox proportional hazards analysis on the matched datasets to identify effects of PIMs on inpatient falls. RESULTS: the dataset included 16,678 hospital admissions, with a mean age of 77.2 years. Inpatient falls occurred during 446 (2.7%) admissions. Adjusted odds ratio (OR) (95% confidence interval (CI)) for the association between PIM exposure and falls were 7.9 (6.1-10.3) for STOPP section K, 2.2 (2.0-2.5) for STOPP and 1.4 (1.3-1.5) for STOPPFall. Adjusted hazard ratio (HR) (95% CI) for the effect on time to first fall were 2.8 (2.3-3.5) for STOPP section K, 1.5 (1.3-1.6) for STOPP and 1.3 (1.2-1.5) for STOPPFall. CONCLUSIONS: we identified an independent association of PIMs on inpatient falls for all applied (de)prescribing tools. The strongest effect was identified for STOPP section K, which is restricted to high-risk medication for falls. Our results suggest that decreasing PIM exposure during hospital stay might benefit fall prevention, but intervention studies are warranted.

Clinical validation of clinical decision support systems for medication review: A scoping review.

The aim of this scoping review is to summarize approaches and outcomes of clinical validation studies of clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) to support (part of) a medication review. A literature search was conducted in Embase and Medline. In total, 30 articles validating a CDSS were ultimately included. Most of the studies focused on detection of adverse drug events, potentially inappropriate medications and drug-related problems. We categorized the included articles in three groups: studies subjectively reviewing the clinical relevance of CDSS's output (21/30 studies) resulting in a positive predictive value (PPV) for clinical relevance of 4-80%; studies determining the relationship between alerts and actual events (10/30 studies) resulting in a PPV for actual events of 5-80%; and studies comparing output of CDSSs to chart/medication reviews in the whole study population (10/30 studies) resulting in a sensitivity of 28-85% and specificity of 42-75%. We found heterogeneity in the methods used and in the outcome measures. The validation studies did not report the use of a published CDSS validation strategy. To improve the effectiveness and uptake of CDSSs supporting a medication review, future research would benefit from a more systematic and comprehensive validation strategy.

Anticipated Benefits and Concerns of Sharing Hospital Outpatient Visit Notes With Patients (Open Notes) in Dutch Hospitals: Mixed Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: The past few years have seen an increase in interest in sharing visit notes with patients. Sharing visit notes with patients is also known as "open notes." Shared notes are seen as beneficial for patient empowerment and communication, but concerns have also been raised about potential negative effects. Understanding barriers is essential to successful organizational change, but most published studies on the topic come from countries where shared notes are incentivized or legally required. OBJECTIVE: We aim to gather opinions about sharing outpatient clinic visit notes from patients and hospital physicians in the Netherlands, where there is currently no policy or incentive plan for shared visit notes. METHODS: This multimethodological study was conducted in an academic and a nonacademic hospital in the Netherlands. We conducted a survey of patients and doctors in March-April 2019. In addition to the survey, we conducted think-aloud interviews to gather more insight into the reasons behind participants' answers. We surveyed 350 physicians and 99 patients, and think-aloud interviews were conducted with an additional 13 physicians and 6 patients. RESULTS: Most patients (81/98, 77%) were interested in viewing their visit notes, whereas most physicians (262/345, 75.9%) were opposed to allowing patients to view their visit notes. Most patients (54/90, 60%) expected the notes to be written in layman's terms, but most physicians (193/321, 60.1%) did not want to change their writing style to make it more understandable for patients. Doctors raised concerns that reading the note would make patients feel confused and anxious, that the patient would not understand the note, and that shared notes would result in more documentation time or losing a way to communicate with colleagues. Interviews also revealed concerns about documenting sensitive topics such as suspected abuse and unlikely but worrisome differential diagnoses. Physicians also raised concerns that documenting worrisome thoughts elsewhere in the record would result in fragmentation of the patient record. Patients were uncertain if they would understand the notes (46/90, 51%) and, in interviews, raised questions about security and privacy. Physicians did anticipate some benefits, such as the patients remembering the visit better, shared decision-making, and keeping patients informed, but 24% (84/350) indicated that they saw no benefit. Patients anticipated that they would remember the visit better, feel more in control, and better understand their health. CONCLUSIONS: Dutch patients are interested in shared visit notes, but physicians have many concerns that should be addressed if shared notes are pursued. Physicians' concerns should be addressed before shared notes are implemented. In hospitals where shared notes are implemented, the effects should be monitored (objectively, if possible) to determine whether the concerns raised by our participants have actualized into problems and whether the anticipated benefits are being realized.

Effect of Interventions With a Clinical Decision Support System for Hospitalized Older Patients: Systematic Review Mapping Implementation and Design Factors.

BACKGROUND: Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) form an implementation strategy that can facilitate and support health care professionals in the care of older hospitalized patients. OBJECTIVE: Our study aims to systematically review the effects of CDSS interventions in older hospitalized patients. As a secondary aim, we aim to summarize the implementation and design factors described in effective and ineffective interventions and identify gaps in the current literature. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review with a search strategy combining the categories older patients, geriatric topic, hospital, CDSS, and intervention in the databases MEDLINE, Embase, and SCOPUS. We included controlled studies, extracted data of all reported outcomes, and potentially beneficial design and implementation factors. We structured these factors using the Grol and Wensing Implementation of Change model, the GUIDES (Guideline Implementation with Decision Support) checklist, and the two-stream model. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Effective Practice and Organisation of Care risk of bias approach. RESULTS: Our systematic review included 18 interventions, of which 13 (72%) were effective in improving care. Among these interventions, 8 (6 effective) focused on medication review, 8 (6 effective) on delirium, 7 (4 effective) on falls, 5 (4 effective) on functional decline, 4 (3 effective) on discharge or aftercare, and 2 (0 effective) on pressure ulcers. In 77% (10/13) effective interventions, the effect was based on process-related outcomes, in 15% (2/13) interventions on both process- and patient-related outcomes, and in 8% (1/13) interventions on patient-related outcomes. The following implementation and design factors were potentially associated with effectiveness: a priori problem or performance analyses (described in 9/13, 69% effective vs 0/5, 0% ineffective interventions), multifaceted interventions (8/13, 62% vs 1/5, 20%), and consideration of the workflow (9/13, 69% vs 1/5, 20%). CONCLUSIONS: CDSS interventions can improve the hospital care of older patients, mostly on process-related outcomes. We identified 2 implementation factors and 1 design factor that were reported more frequently in articles on effective interventions. More studies with strong designs are needed to measure the effect of CDSS on relevant patient-related outcomes, investigate personalized (data-driven) interventions, and quantify the impact of implementation and design factors on CDSS effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews): CRD42019124470; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=124470.

Barriers and facilitators influencing medication-related CDSS acceptance according to clinicians: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: A medication-related Clinical Decision Support System (CDSS) is an application that analyzes patient data to provide assistance in medication-related care processes. Despite its potential to improve the clinical decision-making process, evidence shows that clinicians do not always use CDSSs in such a way that their potential can be fully realized. This systematic literature review provides an overview of frequently-reported barriers and facilitators for acceptance of medication-related CDSS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Search terms and MeSH headings were developed in collaboration with a librarian, and database searches were conducted in Medline, Scopus, Embase and Web of Science Conference Proceedings. After screening 5404 records and 140 full papers, 63 articles were included in this review. Quality assessment was performed for all 63 included articles. The identified barriers and facilitators are categorized within the Human, Organization, Technology fit (HOT-fit) model. RESULTS: A total of 327 barriers and 291 facilitators were identified. Results show that factors most often reported were related to (a lack of) usefulness and relevance of information, and ease of use and efficiency of the system. DISCUSSION: This review provides a valuable insight into a broad range of barriers and facilitators for using a medication-related CDSS as perceived by clinicians. The results can be used as a stepping stone in future studies developing medication-related CDSSs.

Managing Pandemic Responses with Health Informatics - Challenges for Assessing Digital Health Technologies.

OBJECTIVES: To highlight the role of technology assessment in the management of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: An overview of existing research and evaluation approaches along with expert perspectives drawn from the International Medical Informatics Association (IMIA) Working Group on Technology Assessment and Quality Development in Health Informatics and the European Federation for Medical Informatics (EFMI) Working Group for Assessment of Health Information Systems. RESULTS: Evaluation of digital health technologies for COVID-19 should be based on their technical maturity as well as the scale of implementation. For mature technologies like telehealth whose efficacy has been previously demonstrated, pragmatic, rapid evaluation using the complex systems paradigm which accounts for multiple sociotechnical factors, might be more suitable to examine their effectiveness and emerging safety concerns in new settings. New technologies, particularly those intended for use on a large scale such as digital contract tracing, will require assessment of their usability as well as performance prior to deployment, after which evaluation should shift to using a complex systems paradigm to examine the value of information provided. The success of a digital health technology is dependent on the value of information it provides relative to the sociotechnical context of the setting where it is implemented. CONCLUSION: Commitment to evaluation using the evidence-based medicine and complex systems paradigms will be critical to ensuring safe and effective use of digital health technologies for COVID-19 and future pandemics. There is an inherent tension between evaluation and the imperative to urgently deploy solutions that needs to be negotiated.