Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2023 Jan 31;23(1):103.
doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-09045-y.

Effect of a computerized decision support system on the treatment approach of stage III or IV pressure injury in patients with spinal cord injury: a feasibility study

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Effect of a computerized decision support system on the treatment approach of stage III or IV pressure injury in patients with spinal cord injury: a feasibility study

Anke Scheel-Sailer et al. BMC Health Serv Res. .

Abstract

Background: Stage III and IV pressure injuries (PIs) in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI) require complex interdisciplinary and interprofessional treatment approaches that are difficult to implement. Practical aspects, such as information exchange and coordination, remain challenging. We investigated whether a computerized decision support system (CDSS) could increase treatment adherence and improve clinical outcomes and interprofessional collaboration.

Method: In this feasibility study, a core team developed the initial treatment process and adapted it based on several discussions with clinical experts and information technologists. The CDSS followed the Basel Decubitus Approach and was used in a clinic specializing in SCI. Thirty patients with SCI admitted for stage III/IV PI between July 2016 and May 2017 were randomly allocated to standard or CDSS-supported care. Between-group differences in treatment adherence, complication rates, length of stay, and costs were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The use of the CDSS and potential barriers and facilitators were evaluated through interprofessional focus groups, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analyzed (30 participants).

Results: No differences in SCI characteristics, comorbidities, or PI characteristics (localization: ischium [number (n) = 19 PI, 63%], sacrum [n = 10 PI, 33%], recurrent PI [n = 21, 70%]) were found between the two groups. Furthermore, no statistically significant differences were observed in treatment adherence, frequency of major (20% vs. 13% between CDSS and control group) and minor (33% vs 27%) complications, and length of stay (98 [±28] vs 81 [±23] days). Healthcare professionals found the CDSS to be helpful for visualizing the treatment process. However, the high workload and difficulties in the information technology processes, such as missing reminders, slow computer performance and data processing, and poor accessibility, hindered the effective implementation of the CDSS.

Conclusion: The implementation of the CDSS to support the treatment of stage III/IV PI in patients with SCI was feasible and included definitions of milestones, interventions, and outcomes. However, to assess the impact of the CDSS, a longer observation period is required. Further, the technical difficulties must be addressed, and solid integration of the CDSS into the clinical information system is necessary.

Trial registration: This quality improvement project received a declaration of no objection from the Ethics Committee of Northwest and Central Switzerland (EKNZ UBE-16/003), and ethical approval was received for the focus groups (EKNZ Req-2017-00860).

Keywords: Basel Decubitus Approach; Clinical Decision Support Systems; Computer Systems; Interprofessional Collaboration; Pressure Injury; Process Management; Rehabilitation; Spinal Cord Injury.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

All authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Treatment principles and milestones in the “ Basel Decubitus Approach”. Authors own work, copyright @anke.scheel-sailer

Similar articles

References

    1. Rotter T, Kinsman L, James E, Machotta A, Gothe H, Willis J, et al. Clinical pathways: effects on professional practice, patient outcomes, length of stay and hospital costs. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(3):CD006632. 10.1002/14651858.CD006632.pub2. PMID: 20238347. - PubMed
    1. Goodwin-Wilson C, Watkins M, Gardner-Elahi C. Developing evidence-based process maps for spinal cord injury rehabilitation. Spinal Cord. 2010;48(2):122. doi: 10.1038/sc.2009.94. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Haynes RB, Wilczynski NL. Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: Methods of a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review. Implement Sci. 2010;5(1):12. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-12. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hunt DL, et al. Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems on physician performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA. 1998;280(15):1339–1346. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.15.1339. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Garg AX, et al. Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA. 2005;293(10):1223–1238. doi: 10.1001/jama.293.10.1223. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types