BACKGROUND: Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) have the potential to improve adherence to guidelines, but only if they are designed to work in the complex environment of ambulatory clinics as otherwise physicians may not use them. OBJECTIVE: To gain input from primary care physicians in designing a CDSS for smoking cessation to ensure that the design is appropriate to a clinical environment before attempts to test this CDSS in a clinical trial. This approach is of general interest to those designing similar systems. Design and approach: We employed an iterative ethnographic process that used multiple evaluation methods to understand physician preferences and workflow integration. Using results from our prior survey of physicians and clinic managers, we developed a prototype CDSS, validated content and design with an expert panel, and then subjected it to usability testing by physicians, followed by iterative design changes based on their feedback. We then performed clinical testing with individual patients, and conducted field tests of the CDSS in two primary care clinics during which four physicians used it for routine patient visits. RESULTS: The CDSS prototype was substantially modified through these cycles of usability and clinical testing, including removing a potentially fatal design flaw. During field tests in primary care clinics, physicians incorporated the final CDSS prototype into their workflow, and used it to assist in smoking cessation interventions up to eight times daily. CONCLUSIONS: A multi-method evaluation process utilising primary care physicians proved useful for developing a CDSS that was acceptable to physicians and patients, and feasible to use in their clinical environment.
BACKGROUND: Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) have the potential to improve adherence to guidelines, but only if they are designed to work in the complex environment of ambulatory clinics as otherwise physicians may not use them. OBJECTIVE: To gain input from primary care physicians in designing a CDSS for smoking cessation to ensure that the design is appropriate to a clinical environment before attempts to test this CDSS in a clinical trial. This approach is of general interest to those designing similar systems. Design and approach: We employed an iterative ethnographic process that used multiple evaluation methods to understand physician preferences and workflow integration. Using results from our prior survey of physicians and clinic managers, we developed a prototype CDSS, validated content and design with an expert panel, and then subjected it to usability testing by physicians, followed by iterative design changes based on their feedback. We then performed clinical testing with individual patients, and conducted field tests of the CDSS in two primary care clinics during which four physicians used it for routine patient visits. RESULTS: The CDSS prototype was substantially modified through these cycles of usability and clinical testing, including removing a potentially fatal design flaw. During field tests in primary care clinics, physicians incorporated the final CDSS prototype into their workflow, and used it to assist in smoking cessation interventions up to eight times daily. CONCLUSIONS: A multi-method evaluation process utilising primary care physicians proved useful for developing a CDSS that was acceptable to physicians and patients, and feasible to use in their clinical environment.
Authors: Amit X Garg; Neill K J Adhikari; Heather McDonald; M Patricia Rosas-Arellano; P J Devereaux; Joseph Beyene; Justina Sam; R Brian Haynes Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-03-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Mindy Flanagan; Nicole Arbuckle; Jason J Saleem; Laura G Militello; David A Haggstrom; Bradley N Doebbeling Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2011-10-22
Authors: Marie-Pierre Gagnon; Marie Desmartis; Michel Labrecque; Josip Car; Claudia Pagliari; Pierre Pluye; Pierre Frémont; Johanne Gagnon; Nadine Tremblay; France Légaré Journal: J Med Syst Date: 2010-03-30 Impact factor: 4.460
Authors: Sandra A Mitchell; Cheryl A Fisher; Clare E Hastings; Leanne B Silverman; Gwenyth R Wallen Journal: Nurs Outlook Date: 2010 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 3.250
Authors: Sara Kalkhoran; Nicole A Appelle; Anna M Napoles; Ricardo F Munoz; Paula J Lum; Nicholas Alvarado; Steven E Gregorich; Jason M Satterfield Journal: J Subst Abuse Treat Date: 2015-06-06
Authors: Brian P Jenssen; Dean J Karavite; Shannon Kelleher; Ekaterina Nekrasova; Jeritt G Thayer; Raj Ratwani; Judy Shea; Emara Nabi-Burza; Jeremy E Drehmer; Jonathan P Winickoff; Robert W Grundmeier; Robert A Schnoll; Alexander G Fiks Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2022-05-18 Impact factor: 2.762
Authors: Jennifer L Reed; Judith W Dexheimer; Andrea M Kachelmeyer; Maurizio Macaluso; Evaline A Alessandrini; Jessica A Kahn Journal: J Adolesc Health Date: 2020-04-05 Impact factor: 5.012
Authors: E Melinda Mahabee-Gittens; Judith W Dexheimer; Meredith Tabangin; Jane C Khoury; Ashley L Merianos; Lara Stone; Gabe T Meyers; Judith S Gordon Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 5.043