Abstract
Communication between the translational evidence organization, clinicians, and patients is through the electronic chart. Through the chart, clinical inquiries are made, patient data from provider assessments and practice cost schedules are collected and encrypted (HIPAA standards), then inputted into the central database. Outputs are made within a time frame suitable to private practice and patient flow. The output consists of a clinical practice guideline that responds to the clinical inquiry with decision, utility, and cost data (based on the “average patient”) for shared decision-making within informed consent. This shared decision-making allows for patients to “game” treatment scenarios using personal choice inputs. Accompanying the clinical practice guideline is a decision analysis that explains the optimized clinical decision. The resultant clinical decision is returned to the central database using the clinical practice guideline. The result is subsequently used to update current best evidence, indicate the need for new evidence, and analyze the changes made in best evidence implementation. When updates in knowledge occur, these are transmitted to the provider as alerts or flags through patient charts and other communication modalities.
Keywords
- Oral Health
- Clinical Practice Guideline
- Central Database
- Treatment Scenario
- Comparative Effectiveness Research
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
The Congress of the United States O Congressional Budget Office (2009) Research on the comparative effectiveness of medical treatments: Issues and options for an expanded federal role. Dec 2007. http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/88xx/doc8891/12-18-ComparativeEffectiveness.pdf. Accessed 18 Aug 2009
Health and Human Services (2009) Comparative effectiveness research funding: draft definition of comparative effectiveness research for the Federal Coordinating Council. Draft definition, prioritization criteria, and strategic framework for public comment. http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/cer/draftdefinition.html. Accessed 18 Aug 2009
Bauer J (2006). Process of evidence-based dental decision-making. US Patent Application No. 60/757,647, 9 Jan 2006, For: methods of producing evidence-based decision, Filed
Bakken S, McArthur J (2001) Evidence-based nursing practice: a call to action for nursing informatics. J Am Med Inform Assoc 8:289–290
Integrated Healthcare Association (2009) Pay for Performance (P4P) 2008 Results Report. http://www.iha.org/p4pyr6/02%20-%20P4P%202008%20ResultsReport.pdf. Accessed 29 Aug 2009
Vargas CM, Kramarow EA, Yellowitz JA (2001). The oral health of older Americans. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Centers for Health Sciences. Aging Trends (3):1–8. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ahcd/agingtrends/03oral.pdf. Accessed 27 Nov 2009
Bauer JG, Spackman S (2007) Clinical decision making tree for older dental patients. In: Chiappelli F (ed) A manual of evidence-based research for health sciences: relevance to dentistry. Nova Publishers, New York, Chapter 13
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bauer, J.G., Chiappelli, F. (2012). The Translation Evidence Mechanism. In: Chiappelli, F. (eds) Comparative Effectiveness and Efficacy Research and Analysis for Practice (CEERAP). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23144-5_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23144-5_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-23143-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-23144-5
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)