Patient-focused outcomes are infrequently reported in pediatric health information technology trials: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Billions of dollars have been invested in Health Information Technologies (HITs), and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted to identify the effects of these interventions. Our objective was to identify the types of outcomes that were measured and reported in these RCTs. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We completed a systematic review (Medline, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases) of RCTs involving children (<18 years) and utilizing HIT interventions. RESULTS: We identified 45 RCTs involving 323,945 children. Most studies reported process outcomes (n = 40/45 (88.9%)) but did not include patient-focused outcomes such as patient/carer functioning (n = 12/45 (26.7%)), clinical/physiological health (n = 10/45, 22.2%), quality of life (n = 3/45, 6.7%), or mortality (n = 1/45, 2.2%). Only 3 of 45 (6.7%) studies reported an evaluation of adverse events. In only 14 of 45 (31.1%) studies was it clear that all outcomes that were measured were reported. CONCLUSION: It is difficult to use RCTs to fully evaluate the benefits and risks of using HIT interventions in pediatric health care settings because patient-focused outcomes and adverse events are rarely reported. Measures to improve the quality of future trials may include the publication of study protocols and the development of an outcome reporting framework or core outcome set.

Pediatric acute asthma scoring systems: a systematic review and survey of UK practice.

BACKGROUND: Acute exacerbations of asthma are common in children. Multiple asthma severity scores exist, but current emergency department (ED) use of severity scores is not known. METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken to identify the parameters collected in pediatric asthma severity scores. A survey of Paediatric Emergency Research in the United Kingdom and Ireland (PERUKI) sites was undertaken to ascertain routinely collected asthma data and information about severity scores. Included studies examined severity of asthma exacerbation in children 5-18 years of age with extractable severity parameters. RESULTS: Sixteen articles were eligible, containing 17 asthma severity scores. The severity scores assessed combinations of 15 different parameters (median, 6; range, 2-8). The most common parameters considered were expiratory wheeze (15/17), inspiratory wheeze (13/17), respiratory rate (10/17), and general accessory muscle use (9/17). Fifty-nine PERUKI centers responded to the questionnaire. Twenty centers (33.1%) currently assess severity, but few use a published score. The most commonly recorded routine data required for severity scores were oxygen saturations (59/59, 100%), heart rate, and respiratory rate (58/59, 98.3% for both). Among well-validated scores like the Pulmonary Index Score (PIS), Pediatric Asthma Severity Score (PASS), Childhood Asthma Score (CAS), and the Pediatric Respiratory Assessment Measure (PRAM), only 6/59 (10.2%), 3/59 (5.1%), 1/59 (1.7%), and 0 (0%) of units respectively routinely collect the data required to calculate them. CONCLUSION: Standardized published pediatric asthma severity scores are infrequently used. Improved routine data collection focusing on the key parameters common to multiple scores could improve this, facilitating research and audit of pediatric acute asthma.

A systematic review of the effects of implementing clinical pathways supported by health information technologies.

OBJECTIVE: Health information technology (HIT) interventions include electronic patient records, prescribing, and ordering systems. Clinical pathways are multidisciplinary plans of care that enable the delivery of evidence-based healthcare. Our objective was to systematically review the effects of implementing HIT-supported clinical pathways. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review protocol was developed including Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL database searches. We recorded data relating to study design, participants, intervention, and outcome characteristics and formally assessed risk of bias. RESULTS: Forty-four studies involving more than 270 000 patients were included. Investigation methodologies included before-after (n = 16, 36.4%), noncomparative (n = 14, 31.8%), interrupted time series (n = 5, 11.4%), retrospective cohort (n = 4, 9.1%), cluster randomized (n = 2, 4.5%), controlled before-after (n = 1, 2.3%), prospective case-control (n = 1, 2.3%), and prospective cohort (n = 1, 2.3%) study designs. Clinical decision support (n = 25, 56.8%), modified electronic documentation (n = 23, 52.3%), and computerized provider order entry (n = 23, 52.3%) were the most frequently utilized HIT interventions. The majority of studies (n = 38, 86.4%) reported benefits associated with HIT-supported pathways. These included reported improvements in objectively measured patient outcomes (n = 15, 34.1%), quality of care (n = 29, 65.9%), and healthcare resource utilization (n = 10, n = 22.7%). DISCUSSION: Although most studies reported improvements in outcomes, the strength of evidence was limited by the study designs that were utilized. CONCLUSIONS: Ongoing evaluations of HIT-supported clinical pathways are justified but would benefit from study designs that report key outcomes (including adverse events) and minimize the risk of bias.