Duke University School of Medicine (L Stilwell, S Kaplan), Durham, NC; Sanford School of Public Policy (L Stilwell, E Gifford), Durham, NC.
Center for Child and Family Policy (M Golonka, E Gifford), Durham, NC; Department of Psychology and Neuroscience (M Golonka), Center for the Study of Adolescent Risk and Resilience, Duke University, Durham, NC.
Acad Pediatr. 2022 Jul;22(5):718-728. doi: 10.1016/j.acap.2022.01.017. Epub 2022 Feb 4.
To prevent missed cases and standardize care, health systems are beginning to implement EHR-based screens (EHR-CA-S) and clinical decision supports systems (EHR-CA-CDSS) for the identification and management of child maltreatment. This study aimed to 1) document the existing research evidence on the performance of EHR-CA-S and EHR-CA-CDSS and 2) examine clinical perspectives regarding the use of such tools and factors that affect uptake.
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, EBSCO, Scopus, and CINAHL databases for English language articles published prior to November 2021 that describe and/or evaluated an EHR-CA-S and/or EHR-CA-CDSS involving 0 to 18-year olds. We performed semistructured interviews with 20 individuals who have experience in identifying, evaluating, and/or treating child maltreatment and/or conducting research on these topics.
Our search identified 574 articles; 16 met inclusion criteria. Studies examined screening, alerts and triggers, and quality improvement. None evaluated long-term clinical outcomes. Sensitivity ranged from 0.14 to 1.00, specificity from 0.865 to 1.00, positive predictive value from 0.03 to 1.00 and negative predictive value from 0.55 to 1.00. A variety of EHR-CA-S and/or EHR-CA-CDSS have been implemented at institutions in our sample. Interviewees cited missed cases, policy requirements, and the lack of standardization of care as impetuses for adopting these tools, yet expressed concerns regarding insufficient evidence, bias, and time-intensiveness of implementation.
Interviewees and the literature agree that current evidence does not support adoption of a particular CA-S or CA-CDSS. Further refinement and research on EHR-CA-S and EHR-CA-CDSS is necessary for these tools to be feasibly implemented and sustained, reliable for clinical practice, and not cause any unintentional harms.
为了防止漏诊病例并规范照护,医疗系统开始实施基于电子健康记录的筛查(EHR-CA-S)和临床决策支持系统(EHR-CA-CDSS),以识别和管理儿童虐待问题。本研究旨在:1)记录现有关于 EHR-CA-S 和 EHR-CA-CDSS 性能的研究证据;2)考察临床医生对使用此类工具的看法,以及影响工具采用的因素。
我们检索了 MEDLINE、Embase、EBSCO、Scopus 和 CINAHL 数据库,以获取截至 2021 年 11 月前发表的描述和/或评估针对 0 至 18 岁儿童的 EHR-CA-S 和/或 EHR-CA-CDSS 的英文文章。我们对 20 名具有识别、评估和/或治疗儿童虐待问题以及开展这些主题研究经验的人员进行了半结构化访谈。
我们的检索共确定了 574 篇文章,其中 16 篇符合纳入标准。这些研究考察了筛查、警报和触发因素以及质量改进。没有研究评估长期临床结局。敏感性范围为 0.14 至 1.00,特异性范围为 0.865 至 1.00,阳性预测值范围为 0.03 至 1.00,阴性预测值范围为 0.55 至 1.00。我们样本中的机构已经实施了各种 EHR-CA-S 和/或 EHR-CA-CDSS。受访者提到漏诊病例、政策要求以及照护缺乏标准化是采用这些工具的动力,但他们对证据不足、偏倚以及实施的时间密集性表示担忧。
受访者和文献均认为,现有证据不支持采用特定的 CA-S 或 CA-CDSS。为了使这些工具能够切实实施并持续运行、为临床实践提供可靠依据且不会造成任何非预期危害,还需要进一步改进和研究 EHR-CA-S 和 EHR-CA-CDSS。