Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Research

Effect of point-of-care computer reminders on physician behaviour: a systematic review

Kaveh G. Shojania, Alison Jennings, Alain Mayhew, Craig Ramsay, Martin Eccles and Jeremy Grimshaw
CMAJ March 23, 2010 182 (5) E216-E225; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.090578
Kaveh G. Shojania
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alison Jennings
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alain Mayhew
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Craig Ramsay
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Martin Eccles
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jeremy Grimshaw
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Tables

Figures

  • Tables
  • Figure1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint

    Figure 1: Results of literature search. *Excluded topics included expert systems (e.g., artificial intelligence or neural network applications) for facilitating diagnosis or for estimating prognosis; decision support not directly related to patient care (e.g., coding medical records); and reminders directed primarily at nonphysicians.

  • Figure2
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint

    Figure 2: Median absolute improvements in adherence to processes of care between intervention and control groups in each study. Each study is represented by the median and interquartile range for its reported outcomes; studies with single data points reported only one eligible outcome.

  • Figure3
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint

    Figure 3: Median effects for adherence to processes of care by study feature. *Kruskall–Wallis test; all other p values reflect Mann–Whitney test. †Quasi-RCT refers to randomized controlled trials in which intervention status was assigned on the basis of an arbitrary but not truly random process, such as even or odd patient (or provider) identification numbers. ‡The total number of comparisons for the analysis of sample size is 31 because one study did not report the number of patients. §Studies classified as having no cointervention were those in which a computer reminder alone was compared with usual care; studies classified as having co-interventions were those in which the intervention group received a computer reminder plus one or more other quality improvement interventions, while the control group received those same quality improvement interventions but no computer reminder.

  • Figure4
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint

    Figure 4: Median effects for adherence to processes of care by reminder feature. *Underuse = targeting improvements to increase the percentage of patients who receive targeted process of care (e.g., increasing the percentage of patients receiving the influenza vaccine); overuse = targeting improvements to reduce the percentage of patients receiving inappropriate care (e.g., reducing the percentage of patients who receive antibiotics for viral upper respiratory tract infections). †Reminders with no patient-specific information were those triggered on the basis of demographic characteristics (e.g., age) or the intent to order a medication or investigation irrespective of any features of the patient involved or patient-specific laboratory results. The sample size is reduced because of the inability to accurately assess the presence or absence of the feature. ‡Active delivery refers to reminders that appeared automatically when triggering conditions were met, as opposed to passive reminders, where, for instance, users might be presented with the option to click on a link to receive decision support related to their current task. §CPOE = computerized order entry system; reminder systems without CPOE were typically electronic medical record systems.

Tables

  • Figures
  • Table 1: Description of 28 studies (32 comparisons) included in a systematic review of the effects of point-of-care computer reminders on physician behaviour (part 1 of 3)

    Table1
  • Table 1: Description of 28 studies (32 comparisons) included in a systematic review of the effects of point-of-care computer reminders on physician behaviour (part 2 of 3)

    Table2
  • Table 1: Description of 28 studies (32 comparisons) included in a systematic review of the effects of point-of-care computer reminders on physician behaviour (part 3 of 3)

    Table3
  • Table 2: Improvements in adherence to processes of care across the 28 studies (32 comparisons) included in the review

    Table4
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 182 (5)
CMAJ
Vol. 182, Issue 5
23 Mar 2010
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Effect of point-of-care computer reminders on physician behaviour: a systematic review
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Effect of point-of-care computer reminders on physician behaviour: a systematic review
Kaveh G. Shojania, Alison Jennings, Alain Mayhew, Craig Ramsay, Martin Eccles, Jeremy Grimshaw
CMAJ Mar 2010, 182 (5) E216-E225; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.090578

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Effect of point-of-care computer reminders on physician behaviour: a systematic review
Kaveh G. Shojania, Alison Jennings, Alain Mayhew, Craig Ramsay, Martin Eccles, Jeremy Grimshaw
CMAJ Mar 2010, 182 (5) E216-E225; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.090578
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Interpretation
    • Footnotes
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Highlights
  • A cluster randomized controlled Trial to Evaluate an Ambulatory primary care Management program for patients with dyslipidemia: the TEAM study
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Increasing uptake of NHS Health Checks: a randomised controlled trial using GP computer prompts
  • General practitioner and nurse practitioner attitudes towards electronic reminders in primary care: a qualitative analysis
  • Quality & Safety in the Literature: January 2021
  • Simulation: a key tool for refining guidelines and demonstrating they produce the desired behavioural change
  • Choosing quality problems wisely: identifying improvements worth developing and sustaining
  • Computerised clinical decision support systems and absolute improvements in care: meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials
  • Implementing clinical guidelines
  • Provider Communication, Prompts, and Feedback to Improve HPV Vaccination Rates in Resident Clinics
  • Enhancing problem list documentation in electronic health records using two methods: the example of prior splenectomy
  • Patient-Entered Wellness Data and Tailored Electronic Recommendations Increase Preventive Care
  • The electronic health record as a catalyst for quality improvement in patient care
  • Missed Opportunities for Influenza Vaccination Among Hospitalized Children With Influenza at a Tertiary Care Facility
  • Implementation of a Preventive Services Bundle in Academic Pediatric Primary Care Centers
  • Point-of-care decision support for reducing inappropriate test use: easier said than done
  • The Benefits and Concerns Surrounding the Automation of Clinical Guidelines
  • Electronic risk assessment for venous thromboembolism: investigating physicians' rationale for bypassing clinical decision support recommendations
  • Non-Visit-Based Cancer Screening Using a Novel Population Management System
  • Trends in adverse events over time: why are we not improving?
  • Unintended Consequences of Health Information Technology: Evidence From Veterans Affairs Colorectal Cancer Oncology Watch Intervention
  • Quality improvement collaboratives in the age of health informatics--new wine in new wineskins
  • Implementing and Evaluating Electronic Standing Orders in Primary Care Practice: A PPRNet Study
  • A Cluster Randomized Trial of an Enhanced eGFR Prompt in Chronic Kidney Disease
  • Delivery of preventive care: The national Canadian Family Physician Cancer and Chronic Disease Prevention Survey
  • Can evidence-based medicine and clinical quality improvement learn from each other?
  • 'Bench To Behavior': Translating Comparative Effectiveness Research Into Improved Clinical Practice
  • Computer reminders to clinicians during routine activities produce only small improvements in adherence to processes of care: median improvement 4.2%, IQR 0.8-18.8%
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Booster vaccination with inactivated whole-virus or mRNA vaccines and COVID-19–related deaths among people with multimorbidity: a cohort study
  • Association between virtual primary care and emergency department use during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario, Canada
  • Survival and health care costs after inpatient elective surgery: comparison of patients with and without chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Show more Research

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Health technology
    • Patient safety & quality improvement

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire