From: The effectiveness of computerized clinical guidelines in the process of care: a systematic review
CATEGORY | FEATURE | EXPLANATION | PROPORTION |
---|---|---|---|
General system features | Presence of networks * | User has access to recommendation in computer terminals, available at several workstations in the hospital. | 0.20 |
 | Type of suggestion * | Recommendation is provided in different ways including reminders of overdue health care tasks, alerts of critical values, prompts for various active care issues. | 0.78 |
 | Conflict of interest * | Software designer or producer is involved in the design of study. | 0.38 |
 | Degree of automation * | User automatically receives prompts (complete automation) instead of active initiation of the system by user (incomplete automation). | 0.80 |
Clinician-system interaction feature | Automatic provision of recommendation in paper version as part of clinician workflow ** | Recommendations printed on paper forms and attached to patient charts by clinical support staff, so that clinicians do not need to look for the computer advice. | 0.29 |
 | Automatic provision of recommendation in electronic version as part of clinician workflow ** | Electronic recommendations linked to patient charts display automatically to clinicians when a clinician accesses the database. | 0.82 |
 | Data updating via network * | Data of patient are updated via network link to servers storing information about all contacts of patient with the hospital. | 0.33 |
 | Request documentation of the reason for not following recommendation ** | The user is asked to justify the decision of disagreement with a reason such as "the patient refused" or "I disagree with the recommendation". | 0.56 |
 | Provision of recommendation at time and location of decision making ** | Recommendations provided as chart reminders during an encounter, rather than as monthly reports listing all the patients in need of services. | 0.13 |
 | Recommendation executed by noting agreement ** | Computerised system provides recommendations in response to an order and the user simply clicks "OK" to order the recommended tests. | 0.11 |
Communication content features | Provision of a recommendation, not just an assessment ** | Systems show better actions to perform, rather than simply providing a diagnosis. | 0.11 |
 | Promotion of action rather than inaction ** | Systems recommend an alternative view, rather than simply recommending the order to be cancelled. | 0.11 |
 | Justification of recommendation via provision of reasoning ** | Recommendation for a check justified by noting date of last exam and recommended frequency of testing. | 0.18 |
Auxiliary features | Local user involvement in development process ** | Recommendation design finalised after testing preliminary versions of software (beta version) with representatives from targeted user group. | 0.09 |
 | Provision of recommendations to patients as well as providers ** | As well as providing chart reminders for clinicians, system generates postcards that are sent to patients to inform them of existing recommendation. | 0.18 |
 | Recommendation accompanied by periodic performance feedback ** | Users are sent e-mails periodically that summarise users compliance with recommendations. | 0.02 |
 | Recommendation accompanied by conventional education ** | Implementation of a recommendation is accompanied by a presentation or an appropriate explanation for following such suggestion. | 0.27 |
 | User training * | A training period is provided for users to experience the basic features of the software. | 0.22 |
Guidelines features | Type of guideline* | Recommendations are focused on preventive or treatment issues or both options. | 0.31 0.62 0.07 |
 | Type of condition* | Recommendations are oriented towards acute or chronic patients or both options. | 0.16 0.60 0.24 |
 | Type of intervention* | Recommendations suggest to administrate tests or/and drugs to patients or to perform other type of intervention on them or both options. | 0.53 0.16 0.31 |