Objective To report the improvements achieved with clinical decision support systems and examine the heterogeneity from pooling effects across diverse clinical settings and intervention targets. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Medline up to August 2019. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies and methods Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials reporting absolute improvements in the percentage of patients receiving care recommended by clinical decision support systems. Multilevel meta-analysis accounted for within study clustering. Meta-regression was used to assess the degree to which the features of clinical decision support systems and study characteristics reduced heterogeneity in effect sizes. Where reported, clinical endpoints were also captured. Results In 108 studies (94 randomised, 14 quasi-randomised), reporting 122 trials that provided analysable data from 1 203 053 patients and 10 790 providers, clinical decision support systems increased the proportion of patients receiving desired care by 5.8% (95% confidence interval 4.0% to 7.6%). This pooled effect exhibited substantial heterogeneity (I 2 =76%), with the top quartile of reported improvements ranging from 10% to 62%. In 30 trials reporting clinical endpoints, clinical decision support systems increased the proportion of patients achieving guideline based targets (eg, blood pressure or lipid control) by a median of 0.3% (interquartile range −0.7% to 1.9%). Two study characteristics (low baseline adherence and paediatric settings) were associated with significantly larger effects. Inclusion of these covariates in the multivariable meta-regression, however, did not reduce heterogeneity. Conclusions Most interventions with clinical decision support systems appear to achieve small to moderate improvements in targeted processes of care, a finding confirmed by the small changes in clinical endpoints found in studies that reported them. A minority of studies achieved substantial increases in the delivery of recommended care, but predictors of these more meaningful improvements remain undefined.

Physician misconduct is of serious concern to patient safety and quality of care. Currently, there are limited data on disciplinary proceedings involving internal medicine (IM) physicians.The aim of this study was to investigate the number and nature of disciplinary cases among IM physicians compared with those of other disciplined physicians.Our retrospective study reviewed information from all provincial Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons (CPS) and compiled a database of all disciplined physicians from 2000 to 2013 in Canada. Disciplinary rate differences (RDs) were calculated for IM physicians and compared with other physicians.From 2000 to 2013, overall disciplinary rates were low (9.6 cases per 10,000 physician years). There were 899 disciplinary cases, 49 of which involved 45 different IM physicians. IM physicians comprised 10.8% of all disciplined physicians and were disciplined at a lower rate than non-IM physicians, incurring 5.18 fewer cases per 10,000 physician years than other physicians (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.62–6.73; P < 0.001). They were significantly less likely to be disciplined for: unprofessional conduct (RD 1.16; CI 0.45–1.87; P = 0.001); unlicensed activity (RD 0.78; CI 0.37–1.19; P < 0.001); standard of care issues (RD 1.37; CI 0.49–2.26; P = 0.002); sexual misconduct (RD 1.65; CI 0.90–2.40; P < 0.001); miscellaneous (RD 0.80; CI 0.11–1.50; P = 0.020); mental illness (RD 0.06; CI 0.01–0.12; P = 0.025); inappropriate prescribing (RD 0.74; CI 0.15–1.33; P = 0.010); and criminal conviction (RD 0.33; CI 0.00–0.65; P = 0.048). No significant differences were found with respect to unclear violations, fraudulent behavior/prevarication, or offenses involving drugs/alcohol (all RDs less than 0.32). IM physicians were also less likely to incur the following penalties: voluntary license surrender (RD 0.53; CI 0.37–0.69; P < 0.001); suspension (RD 2.39; CI 1.26–3.51; P < 0.001); retraining/assessment (RD 1.58; CI 0.77–2.39; P < 0.001); restriction (RD 1.60; CI 0.74–2.46; P < 0.001); other (RD 0.52; CI 0.07–0.97; P = 0.030); formal reprimand (RD 2.78; CI 1.77–3.79; P < 0.001); or fine (RD 3.28; CI 1.89–4.67; P < 0.001). No significant differences were found with respect to revocation or mandated counseling/rehabilitation (all RDs less than 0.46).Generally, disciplinary rates among physicians were low. Compared with other physicians, IM physicians have significantly lower disciplinary rates overall and are less likely to incur the majority of disciplinary offenses and penalties.

BackgroundThough previous work has examined some aspects of the dermatology workforce shortage and access to dermatologic care, little research has addressed the effect of rising interest in cosmetic procedures on access to medical dermatologic care. Our objective was to determine the wait times for Urgent and Non-Urgent medical dermatologic care and Cosmetic dermatology services at a population level and to examine whether wait times for medical care are affected by offering cosmetic services.MethodsA population-wide survey of dermatology practices using simulated calls asking for the earliest appointment for a Non-Urgent, Urgent and Cosmetic service.ResultsResponse rates were greater than 89% for all types of care. Wait times across all types of care were significantly different from each other (all P < 0.05). Cosmetic care was associated with the shortest wait times (3.0 weeks; Interquartile Range (IQR) = 0.4–3.4), followed by Urgent care (9.0 weeks; IQR = 2.1–12.9), then Non-Urgent Care (12.7 weeks; IQR = 4.4–16.4). Wait times for practices offering only Urgent care were not different from practices offering both Urgent and Cosmetic care (10.3 vs. 7.0 weeks).InterpretationLonger wait times and greater variation for Urgent and Non-Urgent dermatologic care and shorter wait times and less variation for Cosmetic care. Wait times were significantly longer in regions with lower dermatologist density. Provision of Cosmetic services did not increase wait times for Urgent care. These findings suggest an overall dermatology workforce shortage and a need for a more streamlined referral system for dermatologic care.