Using computerised decision support to improve compliance of cancer multidisciplinary meetings with evidence-based guidance

BMJ Open

Volumn 2, Issue 3, 2012, Pages

  Patkar, Vivek ^a,b,c   Acosta, Dionisio ^b   Davidson, Tim ^a   Jones, Alison ^a,c   Fox, John ^d   Keshtgar, Mohammed ^a,b  

^a ROYAL FREE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER SURVIVOR; CLINICAL DECISION MAKING; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); COMPUTER PROGRAM; COMPUTER SYSTEM; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; HUMAN; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; MULTIDISCIPLINARY TEAM; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; NEOPLASM; NURSE; ONCOLOGY; PATIENT CARE; PHYSICIAN; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; QUESTIONNAIRE; TEAMWORK; UNITED KINGDOM;

EID: 84863693198     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000439     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Westert GP, Faber M. Commentary: the Dutch approach to unwarranted medical practice variation. BMJ 2011;342:d1429.
2. Wishart GC, Greenberg DC, Chou P, et al. Treatment and survival in breast cancer in the Eastern Region of England. Ann Oncol 2010;21:291-6.
3. Taylor C, Munro AJ, Glynne-Jones R, et al. Multidisciplinary team working in cancer: what is the evidence? BMJ 2010;340:c951.
4. Lamb BW, Brown KF, Nagpal K, et al. Quality of care management decisions by multidisciplinary cancer teams: a systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol 2011;18:2116-25.
5. Mazzaferro V, Majno P. Principles for the best multidisciplinary meetings. Lancet Oncol 2011;12:323-5.
6. Lamb BW, Green JS, Vincent C, et al. Decision making in surgical oncology. Surg Oncol 2011;20:163-8.
7. National Cancer Peer Review Programme Report 2009/2010. An overview of the findings from the 2009/2010 National Cancer Peer Review of Cancer Services in England. National Cancer Peer Review Programme: National Cancer Action Team, 2010.
8. Patkar V, Acosta D, Davidson T, et al. Cancer multidisciplinary team meetings: evidence, challenges, and the role of clinical decision support technology. Int J Breast Cancer 2011;2011:831605.
9. Rosenbloom ST, Denny JC, Xu H, et al. Data from clinical notes: a perspective on the tension between structure and flexible documentation. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2011;18:181-6.
10. Webb SB Jr, Bracken MB, Wagner FC Jr. Retrospective versus prospective audit: a trial of two methods. Hosp Med Staff 1978;7:13-17.
11. Scott IA, Harper CM. Guideline-discordant care in acute myocardial infarction: predictors and outcomes. Med J Aust 2002;177:26-31. (Pubitemid 34763856)
12. Peterson ED, Roe MT, Mulgund J, et al. Association between hospital process performance and outcomes among patients with acute coronary syndromes. JAMA 2006;295:1912-20.
13. Bahtsevani C, Uden G, Willman A. Outcomes of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2004;20:427-33. (Pubitemid 39491489)
14. Lara PN Jr, Higdon R, Lim N, et al. Prospective evaluation of cancer clinical trial accrual patterns: identifying potential barriers to enrollment. J Clin Oncol 2001;19:1728-33. (Pubitemid 32230874)
15. Bouvier AM, Bauvin E, Danzon A, et al. Place of multidisciplinary consulting meetings and clinical trials in the management of colorectal cancer in France in 2000. Gastroenterol Clin Biol 2007;31:286-91. (Pubitemid 46562330)
16. Schreiber G, Akkermans H, Anjewierden A, et al. Knowledge Engineering and Management: The Common KADS Methodology. The MIT Press, 1999.
17. Golbeck J, Fragoso G, Hartel F, et al. The national cancer institutes thesaurus and ontology. J Web Semantics 2003;1:75-80. (Pubitemid 44920077)
18. Sutton DR, Fox J. The syntax and semantics of the PROforma guideline modeling language. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2003;10:433-43. (Pubitemid 37093332)
19. Acosta D, et al. Challenges in delivering decision support systems: the MATE experience. In: Knowledge Representation for Health-Care. Data, Processes and Guidelines. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2010:124-40. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-11808-1-11
20. Lemieux-Charles L, McGuire W. What do we know about health care team effectiveness? A review of the literature. Med Care Res Rev 2006;63:263-300. (Pubitemid 43667960)
21. Garg AX, Adhikari NK, McDonald H, et al. Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA 2005;293:1223-38. (Pubitemid 40327908)
22. Campbell NC, Murray E, Darbyshire J, et al. Designing and evaluating complex interventions to improve health care. BMJ 2007;334:455-9. (Pubitemid 46586602)
23. Choy ET, Chiu A, Butow P, et al. A pilot study to evaluate the impact of involving breast cancer patients in the multidisciplinary discussion of their disease and treatment plan. Breast 2007;16:178-89. (Pubitemid 46488812)