Clinical Decision Support Systems for Pressure Ulcer Management: Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The clinical decision-making process in pressure ulcer management is complex, and its quality depends on both the nurse's experience and the availability of scientific knowledge. This process should follow evidence-based practices incorporating health information technologies to assist health care professionals, such as the use of clinical decision support systems. These systems, in addition to increasing the quality of care provided, can reduce errors and costs in health care. However, the widespread use of clinical decision support systems still has limited evidence, indicating the need to identify and evaluate its effects on nursing clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: The goal of the review was to identify the effects of nurses using clinical decision support systems on clinical decision making for pressure ulcer management. METHODS: The systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) recommendations. The search was conducted in April 2019 on 5 electronic databases: MEDLINE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Cochrane, and CINAHL, without publication date or study design restrictions. Articles that addressed the use of computerized clinical decision support systems in pressure ulcer care applied in clinical practice were included. The reference lists of eligible articles were searched manually. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies. RESULTS: The search strategy resulted in 998 articles, 16 of which were included. The year of publication ranged from 1995 to 2017, with 45% of studies conducted in the United States. Most addressed the use of clinical decision support systems by nurses in pressure ulcers prevention in inpatient units. All studies described knowledge-based systems that assessed the effects on clinical decision making, clinical effects secondary to clinical decision support system use, or factors that influenced the use or intention to use clinical decision support systems by health professionals and the success of their implementation in nursing practice. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence in the available literature about the effects of clinical decision support systems (used by nurses) on decision making for pressure ulcer prevention and treatment is still insufficient. No significant effects were found on nurses' knowledge following the integration of clinical decision support systems into the workflow, with assessments made for a brief period of up to 6 months. Clinical effects, such as outcomes in the incidence and prevalence of pressure ulcers, remain limited in the studies, and most found clinically but nonstatistically significant results in decreasing pressure ulcers. It is necessary to carry out studies that prioritize better adoption and interaction of nurses with clinical decision support systems, as well as studies with a representative sample of health care professionals, randomized study designs, and application of assessment instruments appropriate to the professional and institutional profile. In addition, long-term follow-up is necessary to assess the effects of clinical decision support systems that can demonstrate a more real, measurable, and significant effect on clinical decision making. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42019127663; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=127663.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".