S'abonner

COMPUTERIZED PROTOCOLS AND BEDSIDE DECISION SUPPORT - 08/09/11

Doi : 10.1016/S0749-0704(05)70069-5 
Alan H. Morris, MD *

Résumé

The clinical use of guidelines30 and algorithms favorably influences patient outcome.31, 75, 88 The most detailed and explicit algorithms in clinical decision making use rule-based computer systems.9, 40, 53, 55, 56 Bedside computerized protocols that standardize clinical decisions for mechanical ventilation for patients who have acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) have been used at the LDS hospital for several hundred thousand hours in hundreds of ARDS patients since 1987.22, 24, 57, 62 Survival of these patients has compared favorably with reported survival from centers in which traditional care methods without decision support are used.62 These computerized ARDS mechanical ventilation protocols were exported from the LDS hospital Health Evaluation through the Logical Processing (HELP) computer system24, 46, 69 to 11 other hospitals using both stand-alone personal computers and commercial-integrated ICU patient data-management systems. These 11 hospitals were uninvolved in the development of these protocols. They used the bedside computerized protocols to support 100 ARDS patients in a randomized clinical trial completed in 1998.43, 43 We are currently refining a new computerized protocol that will standardize clinical decisions for IV fluid and for hemodynamic support. This computerized protocol will be used in acute lung injury (ALI) or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients to be enrolled in a randomized clinical trial of pulmonary artery catheters (the National Institutes of Health [NIH] National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [NHLBI] ARDS Network's fifth randomized clinical trial).

Many clinicians are concerned that protocol supported care will become rote or cookbook care and will be generated without attention to the specific and changing needs of the individual patient. This is a legitimate concern. Several decision support products that include guidelines, critical paths, or other tools are primarily time driven and do risk the production of patient-invariant care (Table 1). In contrast, the computerized protocols for mechanical ventilation for patients who have ARDS20, 21, 34, 62 and computerized protocols for antibiotic treatment of hospitalized patients11, 12, 27, 66 are driven by patient data (or status). The antibiotic protocol delivers specific, individualized treatment suggestions or recommendations. The mechanical ventilation protocol delivers specific, individualized treatment instructions (actual physician's orders). Although the clinical decisions are standardized by the protocol instructions, the treatment delivered is individualized and is patient specific. This follows from the unique expression of the disease mounted by each individual patient. For example, a PEEP-responsive patient will receive a different therapy than will a PEEP-unresponsive patient, even though the rules for decision making are identical for both patients. The maintenance of individualized patient care while clinical decisions are standardized seems one of the most attractive attributes of the point-of-care clinical use of computerized protocols.

Such protocols constitute an explicit method for making clinical decisions. Because they are explicit and are defined in detail, they allow duplication of the decision-making method when they are exported to other clinical sites. Protocols developed for experimental purposes could be transferred to the clinical care environment. The initial protocol developed by my colleagues and me for standardization of clinical decision making for mechanical ventilation of ARDS patients was, at the request of clinicians after 2 years of experimental use,62 extended to ARDS patients not enrolled in the trial. They were subsequently transferred to other clinical investigative centers, including three community hospitals and two city-county hospitals.43, 43

Adequate experience has been gathered, therefore, to conclude that clinical care with computerized bedside protocols is achievable. It meets the requirements of reasonableness, face value, clinical experience, patient-specific instructions, and appropriate patient outcome. In addition, it complies with the ethical imperatives of modern clinical care.6, 41, 59, 76 What, then, are the potential advantages that this decision-support approach, with bedside computerized protocols, brings to the health care delivery system, and what contributions to clinical care and to clinical research might be anticipated from its widespread application? I have organized my response to this question within two broad categories: one, the reduction of error and two, the reduction of unnecessary variation, leading to the establishment of rigorous experimental outcomes laboratories and to reduction of variation in clinical practice.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Plan


 Address reprint requests to Alan H. Morris, MD, Pulmonary Division, LDS Hospital, 8th Avenue and C Street, Salt Lake City, UT 84143, e-mail: LDAMORRI@IHC.COM
Supported by the NIH (HL 36787, HR-46062), the AHCPR (HS 06594), the Deseret Foundation, the Respiratory Distress Syndrome Foundation, the LDS Hospital, and IHC, Inc.


© 1999  W. B. Saunders Company. Publié par Elsevier Masson SAS. Tous droits réservés.© 1998  © 1998  © 1998  © 1998 
Ajouter à ma bibliothèque Retirer de ma bibliothèque Imprimer
Export

    Export citations

  • Fichier

  • Contenu

Vol 15 - N° 3

P. 523-545 - juillet 1999 Retour au numéro
Article précédent Article précédent
  • ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD IN THE INTENSIVE CARE UNIT
  • Anthony S. Sado
| Article suivant Article suivant
  • COMPUTERIZED PHYSIOLOGIC MONITORING
  • Frank V.McL. Booth

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.

Déjà abonné à cette revue ?

Elsevier s'engage à rendre ses eBooks accessibles et à se conformer aux lois applicables. Compte tenu de notre vaste bibliothèque de titres, il existe des cas où rendre un livre électronique entièrement accessible présente des défis uniques et l'inclusion de fonctionnalités complètes pourrait transformer sa nature au point de ne plus servir son objectif principal ou d'entraîner un fardeau disproportionné pour l'éditeur. Par conséquent, l'accessibilité de cet eBook peut être limitée. Voir plus

Mon compte


Plateformes Elsevier Masson

Déclaration CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM est déclaré à la CNIL, déclaration n° 1286925.

En application de la loi nº78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, vous disposez des droits d'opposition (art.26 de la loi), d'accès (art.34 à 38 de la loi), et de rectification (art.36 de la loi) des données vous concernant. Ainsi, vous pouvez exiger que soient rectifiées, complétées, clarifiées, mises à jour ou effacées les informations vous concernant qui sont inexactes, incomplètes, équivoques, périmées ou dont la collecte ou l'utilisation ou la conservation est interdite.
Les informations personnelles concernant les visiteurs de notre site, y compris leur identité, sont confidentielles.
Le responsable du site s'engage sur l'honneur à respecter les conditions légales de confidentialité applicables en France et à ne pas divulguer ces informations à des tiers.


Tout le contenu de ce site: Copyright © 2026 Elsevier, ses concédants de licence et ses contributeurs. Tout les droits sont réservés, y compris ceux relatifs à l'exploration de textes et de données, a la formation en IA et aux technologies similaires. Pour tout contenu en libre accès, les conditions de licence Creative Commons s'appliquent.