A Systematic Review of Electronic Medical Record Driven Quality Measurement and Feedback Systems

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Historically, quality measurement analyses utilize manual chart abstraction from data collected primarily for administrative purposes. These methods are resource-intensive, time-delayed, and often lack clinical relevance. Electronic Medical Records (EMRs) have increased data availability and opportunities for quality measurement. However, little is known about the effectiveness of Measurement Feedback Systems (MFSs) in utilizing EMR data. This study explores the effectiveness and characteristics of EMR-enabled MFSs in tertiary care. The search strategy guided by the PICO Framework was executed in four databases. Two reviewers screened abstracts and manuscripts. Data on effect and intervention characteristics were extracted using a tailored version of the Cochrane EPOC abstraction tool. Due to study heterogeneity, a narrative synthesis was conducted and reported according to PRISMA guidelines. A total of 14 unique MFS studies were extracted and synthesized, of which 12 had positive effects on outcomes. Findings indicate that quality measurement using EMR data is feasible in certain contexts and successful MFSs often incorporated electronic feedback methods, supported by clinical leadership and action planning. EMR-enabled MFSs have the potential to reduce the burden of data collection for quality measurement but further research is needed to evaluate EMR-enabled MFSs to translate and scale findings to broader implementation contexts.

Related collections

Most cited references 60

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

Matthew J L Page, Joanne E McKenzie, Patrick Bossuyt … (2024)

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

0 comments Cited 12856 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

David Moher, Alessandro Liberati, Jennifer Tetzlaff … (2011)

David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses

0 comments Cited 4929 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions

Connie Schardt, Martha Adams, Thomas Owens … (2007)

Background Supporting 21st century health care and the practice of evidence-based medicine (EBM) requires ubiquitous access to clinical information and to knowledge-based resources to answer clinical questions. Many questions go unanswered, however, due to lack of skills in formulating questions, crafting effective search strategies, and accessing databases to identify best levels of evidence. Methods This randomized trial was designed as a pilot study to measure the relevancy of search results using three different interfaces for the PubMed search system. Two of the search interfaces utilized a specific framework called PICO, which was designed to focus clinical questions and to prompt for publication type or type of question asked. The third interface was the standard PubMed interface readily available on the Web. Study subjects were recruited from interns and residents on an inpatient general medicine rotation at an academic medical center in the US. Thirty-one subjects were randomized to one of the three interfaces, given 3 clinical questions, and asked to search PubMed for a set of relevant articles that would provide an answer for each question. The success of the search results was determined by a precision score, which compared the number of relevant or gold standard articles retrieved in a result set to the total number of articles retrieved in that set. Results Participants using the PICO templates (Protocol A or Protocol B) had higher precision scores for each question than the participants who used Protocol C, the standard PubMed Web interface. (Question 1: A = 35%, B = 28%, C = 20%; Question 2: A = 5%, B = 6%, C = 4%; Question 3: A = 1%, B = 0%, C = 0%) 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the precision for each question using a lower boundary of zero. However, the 95% confidence limits were overlapping, suggesting no statistical difference between the groups. Conclusion Due to the small number of searches for each arm, this pilot study could not demonstrate a statistically significant difference between the search protocols. However there was a trend towards higher precision that needs to be investigated in a larger study to determine if PICO can improve the relevancy of search results.