skip to page content
Talk to the Veterans Crisis Line now
U.S. flag
An official website of the United States government

Health Services Research & Development

Go to the ORD website
Go to the QUERI website

HSR&D Citation Abstract

Search | Search by Center | Search by Source | Keywords in Title

New Standards for Clinical Decision Support: A Survey of The State of Implementation.

Taber P, Radloff C, Del Fiol G, Staes C, Kawamoto K. New Standards for Clinical Decision Support: A Survey of The State of Implementation. Yearbook of medical informatics. 2021 Aug 1; 30(1):159-171.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.
   Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions


OBJECTIVES: To review the current state of research on designing and implementing clinical decision support (CDS) using four current interoperability standards: Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR); Substitutable Medical Applications and Reusable Technologies (SMART); Clinical Quality Language (CQL); and CDS Hooks. METHODS: We conducted a review of original studies describing development of specific CDS tools or infrastructures using one of the four targeted standards, regardless of implementation stage. Citations published any time before the literature search was executed on October 21, 2020 were retrieved from PubMed. Two reviewers independently screened articles and abstracted data according to a protocol designed by team consensus. RESULTS: Of 290 articles identified via PubMed search, 44 were included in this study. More than three quarters were published since 2018. Forty-three (98%) used FHIR; 22 (50%) used SMART; two (5%) used CQL; and eight (18%) used CDS Hooks. Twenty-four (55%) were in the design stage, 15 (34%) in the piloting stage, and five (11%) were deployed in a real-world setting. Only 12 (27%) of the articles reported an evaluation of the technology under development. Three of the four articles describing a deployed technology reported an evaluation. Only two evaluations with randomized study components were identified. CONCLUSION: The diversity of topics and approaches identified in the literature highlights the utility of these standards. The infrequency of reported evaluations, as well as the high number of studies in the design or piloting stage, indicate that these technologies are still early in their life cycles. Informaticists will require a stronger evidence base to understand the implications of using these standards in CDS design and implementation.

Questions about the HSR&D website? Email the Web Team

Any health information on this website is strictly for informational purposes and is not intended as medical advice. It should not be used to diagnose or treat any condition.