Evaluating the costs and consequences of computerized clinical decision support systems in hospitals: a scoping review and recommendations for future practice.
Nicole M White, Hannah E Carter, Sanjeewa Kularatna, David N Borg, David C Brain, Amina Tariq, Bridget Abell, Robin Blythe, Steven M McPhail
Author Information
Nicole M White: Australian Centre for Health Services Innovation and Centre for Healthcare Transformation, School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. ORCID
Hannah E Carter: Australian Centre for Health Services Innovation and Centre for Healthcare Transformation, School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. ORCID
Sanjeewa Kularatna: Australian Centre for Health Services Innovation and Centre for Healthcare Transformation, School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. ORCID
David N Borg: Australian Centre for Health Services Innovation and Centre for Healthcare Transformation, School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. ORCID
David C Brain: Australian Centre for Health Services Innovation and Centre for Healthcare Transformation, School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. ORCID
Amina Tariq: Australian Centre for Health Services Innovation and Centre for Healthcare Transformation, School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. ORCID
Bridget Abell: Australian Centre for Health Services Innovation and Centre for Healthcare Transformation, School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. ORCID
Robin Blythe: Australian Centre for Health Services Innovation and Centre for Healthcare Transformation, School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. ORCID
Steven M McPhail: Australian Centre for Health Services Innovation and Centre for Healthcare Transformation, School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. ORCID
OBJECTIVE: Sustainable investment in computerized decision support systems (CDSS) requires robust evaluation of their economic impacts compared with current clinical workflows. We reviewed current approaches used to evaluate the costs and consequences of CDSS in hospital settings and presented recommendations to improve the generalizability of future evaluations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A scoping review of peer-reviewed research articles published since 2010. Searches were completed in the PubMed, Ovid Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases (last searched February 14, 2023). All studies reported the costs and consequences of a CDSS-based intervention compared with current hospital workflows. Findings were summarized using narrative synthesis. Individual studies were further appraised against the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation and Reporting (CHEERS) 2022 checklist. RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies published since 2010 were included. Studies evaluated CDSS for adverse event surveillance (5 studies), antimicrobial stewardship (4 studies), blood product management (8 studies), laboratory testing (7 studies), and medication safety (5 studies). All studies evaluated costs from a hospital perspective but varied based on the valuation of resources affected by CDSS implementation, and the measurement of consequences. We recommend future studies follow guidance from the CHEERS checklist; use study designs that adjust for confounders; consider both the costs of CDSS implementation and adherence; evaluate consequences that are directly or indirectly affected by CDSS-initiated behavior change; examine the impacts of uncertainty and differences in outcomes across patient subgroups. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Improving consistency in the conduct and reporting of evaluations will enable detailed comparisons between promising initiatives, and their subsequent uptake by decision-makers.
