Anne Miller1, Brian Moon2, Shilo Anders3, Rachel Walden3, Steven Brown4, Diane Montella4. 1. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, United States; U.S Department of Veteran's Affairs, United States. Electronic address: Anne.miller@vanderbilt.edu. 2. Perigean Technologies, United States. 3. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, United States. 4. Vanderbilt University Medical Center, United States; U.S Department of Veteran's Affairs, United States.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Computerized clinical decision support systems (CDSS) are an emerging means for improving healthcare safety, quality and efficiency, but meta-analyses findings are mixed. This meta-synthesis aggregates qualitative research findings as possible explanations for variable quantitative research outcomes. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Qualitative studies published between 2000 and 2013 in English, involving physicians, registered and advanced practice nurses' experience of CDSS use in clinical practice were included. SEARCH STRATEGY: PubMed and CINAHL databases were searched. Study titles and abstracts were screened against inclusion criteria. Retained studies were appraised against quality criteria. Findings were extracted iteratively from studies in the 4th quartile of quality scores. Two reviewers constructed themes inductively. A third reviewer applied the defined themes deductively achieving 92% agreement. RESULTS: 3798 unique records were returned; 56 met inclusion criteria and were reviewed against quality criteria. 9 studies were of sufficiently high quality for synthetic analysis. Five major themes (clinician-patient-system integration; user interface usability; the need for better 'algorithms'; system maturity; patient safety) were defined. CONCLUSIONS: Despite ongoing development, CDSS remains an emerging technology. Lack of understanding about and lack of consideration for the interaction between human decision makers and CDSS is a major reason for poor system adoption and use. Further high-quality qualitative research is needed to better understand human-system interaction issues. These issues may continue to confound quantitative study results if not addressed.
PURPOSE: Computerized clinical decision support systems (CDSS) are an emerging means for improving healthcare safety, quality and efficiency, but meta-analyses findings are mixed. This meta-synthesis aggregates qualitative research findings as possible explanations for variable quantitative research outcomes. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Qualitative studies published between 2000 and 2013 in English, involving physicians, registered and advanced practice nurses' experience of CDSS use in clinical practice were included. SEARCH STRATEGY: PubMed and CINAHL databases were searched. Study titles and abstracts were screened against inclusion criteria. Retained studies were appraised against quality criteria. Findings were extracted iteratively from studies in the 4th quartile of quality scores. Two reviewers constructed themes inductively. A third reviewer applied the defined themes deductively achieving 92% agreement. RESULTS: 3798 unique records were returned; 56 met inclusion criteria and were reviewed against quality criteria. 9 studies were of sufficiently high quality for synthetic analysis. Five major themes (clinician-patient-system integration; user interface usability; the need for better 'algorithms'; system maturity; patient safety) were defined. CONCLUSIONS: Despite ongoing development, CDSS remains an emerging technology. Lack of understanding about and lack of consideration for the interaction between human decision makers and CDSS is a major reason for poor system adoption and use. Further high-quality qualitative research is needed to better understand human-system interaction issues. These issues may continue to confound quantitative study results if not addressed.
Authors: Barbara E Jones; Dave S Collingridge; Caroline G Vines; Herman Post; John Holmen; Todd L Allen; Peter Haug; Charlene R Weir; Nathan C Dean Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2019-01-02 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Kristen Miller; Muge Capan; Danielle Weldon; Yaman Noaiseh; Rebecca Kowalski; Rachel Kraft; Sanford Schwartz; William S Weintraub; Ryan Arnold Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2018-05-21 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Luca F Roggeveen; Tingjie Guo; Ronald H Driessen; Lucas M Fleuren; Patrick Thoral; Peter H J van der Voort; Armand R J Girbes; Rob J Bosman; Paul Elbers Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2020-05-15 Impact factor: 5.810
Authors: Stijn Van de Velde; Pavel Roshanov; Tiina Kortteisto; Ilkka Kunnamo; Bert Aertgeerts; Per Olav Vandvik; Signe Flottorp Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2016-03-05 Impact factor: 7.327