Clinical Decision Support Statistics

Steve Goldstein
Steve Goldstein
Business Formation Expert
Steve Goldstein runs LLCBuddy, helping entrepreneurs set up their LLCs easily. He offers clear guides, articles, and FAQs to simplify the process. His team keeps everything accurate and current, focusing on state rules, registered agents, and compliance. Steve’s passion for helping businesses grow makes LLCBuddy a go-to resource for starting and managing an LLC.

All Posts by Steve Goldstein →
Business Formation Expert  |   Fact Checked by Editorial Staff
Last updated: 
LLCBuddy™ offers informative content for educational purposes only, not as a substitute for professional legal or tax advice. We may earn commissions if you use the services we recommend on this site.
At LLCBuddy, we don't just offer information; we provide a curated experience backed by extensive research and expertise. Led by Steve Goldstein, a seasoned expert in the LLC formation sector, our platform is built on years of hands-on experience and a deep understanding of the nuances involved in establishing and running an LLC. We've navigated the intricacies of the industry, sifted through the complexities, and packaged our knowledge into a comprehensive, user-friendly guide. Our commitment is to empower you with reliable, up-to-date, and actionable insights, ensuring you make informed decisions. With LLCBuddy, you're not just getting a tutorial; you're gaining a trustworthy partner for your entrepreneurial journey.

Clinical Decision Support Statistics 2023: Facts about Clinical Decision Support outlines the context of what’s happening in the tech world.

LLCBuddy editorial team did hours of research, collected all important statistics on Clinical Decision Support, and shared those on this page. Our editorial team proofread these to make the data as accurate as possible. We believe you don’t need to check any other resources on the web for the same. You should get everything here only 🙂

Are you planning to form an LLC? Maybe for educational purposes, business research, or personal curiosity, whatever the reason is – it’s always a good idea to gather more information about tech topics like this.

How much of an impact will Clinical Decision Support Statistics have on your day-to-day? or the day-to-day of your LLC Business? How much does it matter directly or indirectly? You should get answers to all your questions here.

Please read the page carefully and don’t miss any words.

Top Clinical Decision Support Statistics 2023

☰ Use “CTRL+F” to quickly find statistics. There are total 37 Clinical Decision Support Statistics on this page 🙂

Clinical Decision Support “Latest” Statistics

  • 57% of qualified clinicians had achieved their version of that objective, which included reminding patients to engage in therapies or screenings under clinical recommendations.[1]
  • Most CDSSs were incorporated into already-in-use software platforms of 47/55 (85.5%) based on recommendations for particular disorders, sole doctors were the only audience for 49/55 (89.1%) counsel, which was given at the precise time and point of clinical necessity 52/55 (94.6%).[2]
  • Except for remote device alerts, clinic sizes with 4 doctors were linked to a slightly to somewhat higher chance of usage for all CDS functions, ranging from 2.1% genomics profiles utilized in orders to 10.2% clinical recommendations or protocols.[3]
  • The largest rates of utilization in 2016 were for preventive medicine (57%), clinical recommendations and protocols (54%), and basic drug screening (61%).[3]
  • The most focused clinical duties of doctors, according to a different research group led by berlin et al., were related to medication dosage 46% and drug treatment 22%.[4]
  • The order-entered trigger is by far the most often utilized trigger, accounting for 94% of all clinical rules investigated and 38% of all clinical rule types.[4]

Clinical Decision Support “Other” Statistics

  • The University of Harding and Health-White County Medical Center readmissions may be cut by 52% and emergency room visits could be cut by 42%.[1]
  • Only 12.4% of otherwise eligible articles reported uptake, although it is the first and most important step in any behavioural or patient.[2]
  • Developers of the CDSS composed 87.3% of the study authors; see full study characteristics additional file.[2]
  • Only 12% of trials that otherwise matched the eligibility requirements to include in the models reported uptake, if and when uptake reporting improves over time, it is feasible that new significant predictors of CDSS uptake may emerge.[2]
  • Adults made up most of the studies, 41/55 (74.6%), which were done in outpatient settings and were done in the USA 36/55 (65.5%).[2]
  • The total adoption of CDSS, according to the meta-analysis of 60 CDSS research arms including 373,608 patients and 3,607 providers, was 34.2%.[2]
  • Conclusion if a practice is wholly based on the EMR/EHR, a CDSS is regularly utilized between 68% and 100% of primary care in the USA, primarily under the categories of basic preventative reminders and medication interaction warnings.[5]
  • 62% of ambulatory clinics connected to a health system used one or more of the seven CDS functionalities that were assessed.[3]
  • 64% of clinics offered primary care, and 72% of them were connected to a multi-hospital network.[3]
  • The number of reported health systems decreased by 113 (7%), most likely as a result of mergers and acquisitions.[3]
  • Of the clinics in our sample of 980, 4.85% reported using a cds capability in one year and not using it in the next year.[3]
  • Commercial goods make up virtually all of the systems that doctors will utilize, although accounting for just 21% of the systems assessed.[6]
  • To deem a system effective in the absence of a main result, at least 50% of reported outcomes required to be significant.[6]
  • Effective systems are those that enhance the primary or 50% of secondary reported outcomes of the process of care or patient health, according to the main outcome metrics.[6]
  • Prescribers did not continue with the medicine order in 57% of the cases after the computer alert, compared to just 13% in the control group.[6]
  • In 52-64% of studies across all six analyses, computerized systems enhanced the delivery of medical treatment, while only 15-31% of those assessed for their effect on patients’ health shown a beneficial influence on usual surrogate patient outcomes.[6]
  • They judged a system successful when it improved 50% of all reported measures in either the process of care or patient outcomes category when no outcomes were explicitly pre-specified.[6]
  • Since the cooperation began, there has been a 25% increase in patient visits because of these modifications, which have improved clinic workflow.[7]
  • Using antidepressants and antipsychotics with strong anticholinergic characteristics for three years increases the risk of dementia by 50% .[8]
  • 10% of healthcare expenditures are spent excessively, causing more damage than good.[8]
  • Mistakes in drug-drug interactions up to 65% of inpatients are exposed to one or more potentially hazardous combinations, making DDI prevalent and avoidable.[9]
  • Up to 95% of CDSS warnings, according to studies, are unimportant, and doctors often disagree with or mistrust notifications.[9]
  • 91.6% of 202 medication consultations could be switched automatically by the CDSS without any mistakes. Enhancing safety while decreasing effort and providers’ costs.[9]
  • With up to 93% accuracy, this was done for grading and predicting recurrence of urinary bladder tumors.[9]
  • Only 48% of Dutch hospital pharmacies reported employing an advanced CDSS in a recent survey that was sent to all of them.[4]
  • Physicians ignore 49-96% of the most recent drug safety warnings from both basic and sophisticated CDSS linked to medications due to alert fatigue.[4]
  • Reminders led to 51.5% of patients obtaining recommended osteoporosis therapy at 6 months after a fracture, compared to 5.9% of controls.[10]
  • 22% of intervention patients began practice consultations with their doctors compared to 34% of controls.[10]
  • Compared to the control physician group, intervention doctors ordered the suggested tests 46.3% of the time, as opposed to 21.9% of the time.[10]
  • Blocker prescriptions were written for 74% of the patients in the reminder group and 66% of the patients in the control group.[10]
  • 70% of the time, treat recommended the proper administration of antibiotics, compared to 57% of the time for doctors.[10]

Also Read

How Useful is Clinical Decision Support

One of the primary benefits of CDS systems is their ability to assist healthcare providers in making well-informed decisions quickly. By analyzing patient data and cross-referencing it with established guidelines and best practices, CDS systems can offer recommendations and alerts that can help avoid potential errors or oversights. This real-time support can ultimately lead to more accurate diagnoses and treatment plans, improving patient safety and outcomes.

Additionally, CDS systems can also help streamline workflows and increase efficiency within healthcare settings. By automating certain tasks, such as alerting providers to recommended screenings or treatments, CDS systems can help free up time for clinicians to focus on other aspects of patient care. This can lead to reduced administrative burden and improved overall productivity, benefitting both healthcare providers and patients alike.

Furthermore, CDS systems can also aid in creating a standardized approach to care, ensuring that all patients are receiving the most up-to-date and evidence-based treatments available. By disseminating guidelines and best practices across a healthcare system, CDS systems can help promote consistency in care delivery and reduce variability among providers. This can ultimately lead to better outcomes and increased patient satisfaction.

However, despite these benefits, the utility of CDS systems is not without its challenges. One common criticism is the potential for information overload and alert fatigue among healthcare providers. With a constant stream of alerts and recommendations, clinicians may become desensitized to the information being presented, leading to instances where critical alerts are missed or ignored. It is important for CDS systems to strike a balance between providing useful guidance and overwhelming providers with unnecessary information.

Additionally, CDS systems are only as effective as the data they are fed. Inaccurate or outdated information can lead to incorrect recommendations or potentially harm patients if not caught in time. It is imperative for healthcare organizations to ensure that the data being input into CDS systems is accurate, up-to-date, and relevant to the patient’s specific needs.

In conclusion, while Clinical Decision Support systems can offer numerous benefits in enhancing the quality of care and patient outcomes, their effectiveness ultimately depends on how they are implemented and integrated into healthcare workflows. By addressing challenges such as alert fatigue and ensuring the accuracy of data, healthcare organizations can maximize the utility of CDS systems and continue to improve the delivery of care for patients.


  1. healthitanalytics –
  2. biomedcentral –
  3. ajmc –
  4. nih –
  5. nih –
  6. bmj –
  7. cdc –
  8. healthcatalyst –
  9. nature –
  10. nih –

Leave a Comment