Key result
AUC CDS system yields a low 1% positive predictive value and high provider time costs.
Why the study?
Little is known about the real-world costs and benefits of mandated Appropriate Use Criteria Clinical Decision Support systems.
Does an AUC CDS system provide sufficient positive predictive value and acceptable time costs for clinicians?
Observational
No
Does an AUC CDS system provide sufficient positive predictive value and acceptable time costs for clinicians?
Absolute Event Rate: 1% vs 8%
p-value: p=<0.001
The implementation of an AUC CDS system for radiology orders resulted in low positive predictive value and high provider time costs, suggesting limited real-world effectiveness.
Low PPV and high time costs limit AUC CDS utility; leaves open whether refined systems enhance value.
Appropriate Use Criteria Clinical Decision Support (AUC CDS) was legislatively mandated in the United States in 2014, and multiple CDS vendors were designated as qualified Clinical Decision Support Mechanisms by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Little is known about the costs and benefits of these systems in real-world settings. We evaluated the effectiveness of an AUC CDS system and the time costs it imposes on clinicians at an academic medical center. Our U.S. academic medical center's enterprise data warehouse was queried for AUC CDS alert events and timestamps occurring between July 1, 2021, and June 30, 2022. We calculated the percentage of altered orders and alert-related timespans, and used these to calculate CDS positive predictive value (PPV), time costs, and the cost–benefit ratio of minutes of provider time per altered order. Based on the medical literature and expert opinion on well-performing CDS, we hypothesized a CDS PPV of 8%. Overall PPV was 1%, leading us to reject our hypothesis that our CDS was well-performing (p < 0.001). Median time costs per alert were high (12 seconds load time, 2 seconds dwell time), yielding a CDS cost–benefit ratio of 38 provider minutes per altered order. Despite using one of three market-leading AUC CDS tools, our CDS demonstrated long load times, short dwell times, and low PPV. Provider attention is not free—policymakers should consider both CDS effectiveness and costs (including time costs) when designing AUC policy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lees et al. (2025) conducted an observational in Radiology Appropriate Use Criteria Clinical Decision Support. Appropriate Use Criteria Clinical Decision Support (AUC CDS) vs. Hypothesized well-performing CDS was evaluated on CDS positive predictive value (PPV) (p=<0.001). An AUC CDS system demonstrated a low positive predictive value of 1% (vs hypothesized 8%, p<0.001) and high time costs, yielding a cost-benefit ratio of 38 provider minutes per altered order.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: