Hi All,
I am currently part of OpenEMR MU2 certification team. I need someone to help me understand following test case related to Clinical Decision Support test criteria
Source Attributes: Enable a user to review the attributes as indicated for all clinical decision support resources:
(A) For evidence-based decision support interventions:
Bibliographic citation of the intervention (Clinical research/guideline);
Developer of the intervention (translation from clinical research/guideline);
Funding source of the intervention development technical implementation and
Release and, if applicable, revision date(s) of the intervention or reference source
(B) For linked referential clinical decision support and drug-drug, drug-allergy interaction checks, the developer of the intervention, and where clinically indicated, the bibliographic citation of the intervention
We are essentially trying to figure out official citations of the rules in the current decision rules engine. I figured this would be a good way to contribute for clinicians whom wanted to directly help out with MU2 certification. I made the following wiki page so we can enter this in(if the rule is incorrect and/or there is no citation to back it up, then also need to know): http://www.open-emr.org/wiki/index.php/Clinical_rules_citations
For citations, what is needed is described at the bottom of page 2 of the link given above by Vamsi:
Bibliographic citation of the intervention (clinical research/guideline)
Developer of the intervention (translation from clinical research/guideline)
Funding source of the intervention development technical implementation
Release and , if applicable, revision date(s) of the intervention or reference source.
So, this is essentially a request for any clinicians or clinically minded folks to directly help with MU2 and collect this information for the current rules in OpenEMR and place them on the above wiki page (ie. desperate plea )
Actually, according to post by Vamsi, I think we may first need to figure out if each rule is either a:
“evidence-based decision support intervention”
or
“linked referential clinical decision support”
Not sure how they differ, but in the end they still seem to require the same citation information. any thoughts?
I do not want to be negative. But an Internet search brought me to this information:
Background
The value of citation searches as part of the systematic review process is currently unknown. While the major guides to conducting systematic reviews state that citation searching should be carried out in addition to searching bibliographic databases there are still few studies in the literature that support this view. Rather than using a predefined search strategy to retrieve studies, citation searching uses known relevant papers to identify further papers.
In Holland we have for General Physicians/Family doctors, an institution for Scientific Research called “The Netherlands General Practitioners Foundation”, (Nederlands Huisartsen Genootschap).
The NHG produces several scientific extract,called “NHG-standards” these NHG standards are usually one or two pages A4, the most. Quite a few cover the topics you mention in your WIKI page. These NHG -standards have usually a supporting explanation of several (many) pages, where you can read how they came to conclusions as stated in the “standard”. Also filled with Citations for completeness.
Some time ago there was a tendency to translate these NHG standards in English, since there was much interest from General physicians in other countries.
For Holland these NHG-standards are the way to go. If you want to do it differently, you need to be sure to motivate why you are taking a different road.
If you think it will be of any value, I can make a list of topics discussed in the Dutch NHG-standards, and compare with your WIKI Page. From there we might be able to make some kind of connection to the International literature used to build the “NHG-standards” and us these to start working towards the CITATIONS needed for MU2 certification.
And then each specialty in US seems to post their own usually more aggressive guidelines.
Since MU2 is US centric, likely best to source from US groups, but I am guessing that the above US Preventative Services Task are going to be very similar to The Netherlands General Practitioners Foundation.
With many guidelines, called SIGN, on many relevant OpenEMR medical topics.
Diabetes control and Mental Deterioration are also available as an APP for the Mobil phone.
Now the doctors of the USA have to follow with similar Guidelines… and than it is back to the drawing boards to make these guidelines with CITATIONS available in OpenEMR for the different specialties.
Can something like a Web Search in: Patient Education as option under Miscellaneous be a suggestion to go? Just send the User to the sites of their likings with an explanation on how these websites became the favorite for the different specialties…
Since MU2 is US centric, likely best to source from US groups, but I am guessing that the above US Preventative Services Task are going to be very similar to The Netherlands General Practitioners Foundation.
Most probably the Dutch Guidelines are better, hahahah … chauvinism… ;-))
But where to go with all these guidelines… how can these be implemented in OpenEMR? With a link to ICD9 or ICD10 or ICPC1 or ICPC2 coding, might be another option. Optional or obliged, to show as a Pop-up or just an extra HELP file.
Choice, choices, choices, we need input of as many practicing doctors as possible to find a correct solution for Vamsi Menta’s question. This can be a nice topic for the next OpenEMR weekly online-meetings for USERS who want the MU2 included.
There is a RATING SCALE to interpret the relevance of a publication.
NEMJ is one of the highest, while publications in USA today might be of a lower rating for medical specialists.
This does not mean that all original publications in USA today are of no value, but the relevance might be less important, meaning less convincing for MU2.
You did a wonderful job including it in the WIKI-pages. My question is, should it be included in OpenEMR so you can see what you are doing without reference to the WIKI pages? Can a referral to the correct WIKI-page be enough. In that case a link comparable with the Manual-link can be included on the prevention pages in OpenEMR. Whenever there is a new CITATION this can be included in the WIKI page.
)