Impact on process results of clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) applied to medication use: overview of systematic reviews

Objective: The purpose of this overview (systematic review of systematic reviews) is to evaluate the impact of clinical decision support systems (CDSS) applied to medication use in the care process. Methods: A search for systematic reviews that address CDSS was performed on Medline following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Cochrane recommendations. Terms related to CDSS and systematic reviews were used in combination with Boolean operators and search field tags to build the electronic search strategy. There was no limitation of date or language for inclusion. We included revisions that investigated, as a main or secondary objective, changes in process outcomes. The Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) score was used to evaluate the quality of the studies. Results: The search retrieved 954 articles. Five articles were added through manual search, totaling an initial sample of 959 articles. After screening and reading in full, 44 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. In the medication-use processes where CDSS was used, the most common stages were prescribing (n=38 (86.36%) and administering (n=12 (27.27%)). Most of the systematic reviews demonstrated improvement in the health care process (30/44 - 68.2%). The main positive results were related to improvement of the quality of prescription by the physicians (14/30 - 46.6%) and reduction of errors in prescribing (5/30 - 16.6%). However, the quality of the studies was poor, according to the score used. Conclusion: CDSSs represent a promising technology to optimize the medication-use process, especially related to improvement in the quality of prescriptions and reduction of prescribing errors, although higher quality studies are needed to establish the predictors of success in these systems (AU)

No disponible

Impact on process results of clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) applied to medication use: overview of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this overview (systematic review of systematic reviews) is to evaluate the impact of clinical decision support systems (CDSS) applied to medication use in the care process. METHODS: A search for systematic reviews that address CDSS was performed on Medline following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Cochrane recommendations. Terms related to CDSS and systematic reviews were used in combination with Boolean operators and search field tags to build the electronic search strategy. There was no limitation of date or language for inclusion. We included revisions that investigated, as a main or secondary objective, changes in process outcomes. The Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) score was used to evaluate the quality of the studies. RESULTS: The search retrieved 954 articles. Five articles were added through manual search, totaling an initial sample of 959 articles. After screening and reading in full, 44 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. In the medication-use processes where CDSS was used, the most common stages were prescribing (n=38 (86.36%) and administering (n=12 (27.27%)). Most of the systematic reviews demonstrated improvement in the health care process (30/44 - 68.2%). The main positive results were related to improvement of the quality of prescription by the physicians (14/30 - 46.6%) and reduction of errors in prescribing (5/30 - 16.6%). However, the quality of the studies was poor, according to the score used. CONCLUSION: CDSSs represent a promising technology to optimize the medication-use process, especially related to improvement in the quality of prescriptions and reduction of prescribing errors, although higher quality studies are needed to establish the predictors of success in these systems.

Predominant learning styles among pharmacy students at the Federal University of Paraná, Brazil.

BACKGROUND: Learning styles are cognitive, emotional, and physiological traits, as well as indicators of how learners perceive, interact, and respond to their learning environments. According to Honey-Mumford, learning styles are classified as active, reflexive, theoretical, and pragmatic. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify the predominant learning styles among pharmacy students at the Federal University of Paraná, Brazil. METHODS: An observational, cross-sectional, and descriptive study was conducted using the Honey-Alonso Learning Style Questionnaire. Students in the Bachelor of Pharmacy program were invited to participate in this study. The questionnaire comprised 80 randomized questions, 20 for each of the four learning styles. The maximum possible score was 20 points for each learning style, and cumulative scores indicated the predominant learning styles among the participants. Honey-Mumford (1986) proposed five preference levels for each style (very low, low, moderate, high, and very high), called a general interpretation scale, to avoid student identification with one learning style and ignoring the characteristics of the other styles. Statistical analysis was performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20.0. RESULTS: This study included 297 students (70% of all pharmacy students at the time) with a median age of 21 years old. Women comprised 77.1% of participants. The predominant style among pharmacy students at the Federal University of Paraná was the pragmatist, with a median of 14 (high preference). The pragmatist style prevails in people who are able to discover techniques related to their daily learning because such people are curious to discover new strategies and attempt to verify whether the strategies are efficient and valid. Because these people are direct and objective in their actions, pragmatists prefer to focus on practical issues that are validated and on problem situations. There was no statistically significant difference between genders with regard to learning styles. CONCLUSION: The pragmatist style is the prevailing style among pharmacy students at the Federal University of Paraná. Although students may have a learning preference that preference is not the only manner in which students can learn, neither their preference is the only manner in which students can be taught. Awareness of students' learning styles can be used to adapt the methodology used by teachers to render the teaching-learning process effective and long lasting. The content taught to students should be presented in different manners because varying teaching methods can develop learning skills in students.