In a similar way, one can conceptualise the introduction of the co-decision procedure in the Treaty on European Union (TEU) as an important institutional change.
However, as Greenhalgh et al. [ 14] conclude in their extensive review of the literature of electronic patient records, research has only scratched the surface of what the introduction of clinical decision support systems means, at the level of fine-grained detail, for a health care organisation and the staff and patients who practise and interact in that setting.
Owing to the introduction of the response time decision-making, the intrusion response system can apply different response strategies to achieve different response goals set by administrators.
One was to shift the introduction of the DA about decisions for and against catheterization (CATH) in stable CAD to immediately follow stress testing.
A study investigating the attitudes of Dutch GPs to the introduction of a decision support system specifically aiding them with conducting medication reviews revealed that the majority were positively inclined towards using such a system [ 28].
Four of the eight analyses reported significant savings after the introduction of patient decision support interventions; savings ranged from $8 to $3068 per patient.
The introduction of new decision support tools, however, has raised a critical question: What is the best way to evaluate the performance of these new diagnostic tools?
The introduction of clinical decision support (CDS) into a health care environment takes into consideration the kinds of CDS, technical aspects involved in providing them, and the approaches needed to make the deployment successful.
For study question 3, which addresses the effect of the introduction of decision support compared to usual care on patient well-being, the intervention group is compared to the usual care group.
