Randall W Grout1, Erika R Cheng2, Aaron E Carroll3, Nerissa S Bauer2, Stephen M Downs2. 1. Children's Health Services Research, Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA. Electronic address: rgrout@iu.edu. 2. Children's Health Services Research, Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA. 3. Pediatric and Adolescent Comparative Effectiveness Research, Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Long-term acceptability among computerized clinical decision support system (CDSS) users in pediatrics is unknown. We examine user acceptance patterns over six years of our continuous computerized CDSS integration and updates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Users of Child Health Improvement through Computer Automation (CHICA), a CDSS integrated into clinical workflows and used in several urban pediatric community clinics, completed annual surveys including 11 questions covering user acceptability. We compared responses across years within a single healthcare system and between two healthcare systems. We used logistic regression to assess the odds of a favorable response to each question by survey year, clinic role, part-time status, and frequency of CHICA use. RESULTS: Data came from 380 completed surveys between 2011 and 2016. Responses were significantly more favorable for all but one measure by 2016 (OR range 2.90-12.17, all p < 0.01). Increasing system maturity was associated with improved perceived function of CHICA (OR range 4.24-7.58, p < 0.03). User familiarity was positively associated with perceived CDSS function (OR range 3.44-8.17, p < 0.05) and usability (OR range 9.71-15.89, p < 0.01) opinions. CONCLUSION: We present a long-term, repeated follow-up of user acceptability of a CDSS. Favorable opinions of the CDSS were more likely in frequent users, physicians and advanced practitioners, and full-time workers. CHICA acceptability increased as it matured and users become more familiar with it. System quality improvement, user support, and patience are important in achieving wide-ranging, sustainable acceptance of CDSS.
OBJECTIVE: Long-term acceptability among computerized clinical decision support system (CDSS) users in pediatrics is unknown. We examine user acceptance patterns over six years of our continuous computerized CDSS integration and updates. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Users of Child Health Improvement through Computer Automation (CHICA), a CDSS integrated into clinical workflows and used in several urban pediatric community clinics, completed annual surveys including 11 questions covering user acceptability. We compared responses across years within a single healthcare system and between two healthcare systems. We used logistic regression to assess the odds of a favorable response to each question by survey year, clinic role, part-time status, and frequency of CHICA use. RESULTS: Data came from 380 completed surveys between 2011 and 2016. Responses were significantly more favorable for all but one measure by 2016 (OR range 2.90-12.17, all p < 0.01). Increasing system maturity was associated with improved perceived function of CHICA (OR range 4.24-7.58, p < 0.03). User familiarity was positively associated with perceived CDSS function (OR range 3.44-8.17, p < 0.05) and usability (OR range 9.71-15.89, p < 0.01) opinions. CONCLUSION: We present a long-term, repeated follow-up of user acceptability of a CDSS. Favorable opinions of the CDSS were more likely in frequent users, physicians and advanced practitioners, and full-time workers. CHICA acceptability increased as it matured and users become more familiar with it. System quality improvement, user support, and patience are important in achieving wide-ranging, sustainable acceptance of CDSS.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Aaron E Carroll; Paul G Biondich; Vibha Anand; Tamara M Dugan; Meena E Sheley; Shawn Z Xu; Stephen M Downs Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Vibha Anand; Aaron E Carroll; Paul G Biondich; Tamara M Dugan; Stephen M Downs Journal: Artif Intell Med Date: 2015-10-01 Impact factor: 5.326
Authors: Robert El-Kareh; Tejal K Gandhi; Eric G Poon; Lisa P Newmark; Jonathan Ungar; Stuart Lipsitz; Thomas D Sequist Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2009-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Jon D Duke; Justin Morea; Burke Mamlin; Douglas K Martin; Linas Simonaitis; Blaine Y Takesue; Brian E Dixon; Paul R Dexter Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2013-12-14 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Michiel C Meulendijk; Marco R Spruit; Floor Willeboordse; Mattijs E Numans; Sjaak Brinkkemper; Wilma Knol; Paul A F Jansen; Marjan Askari Journal: J Med Syst Date: 2016-01-20 Impact factor: 4.460
Authors: Hala K El Mikati; Lisa Yazel-Smith; Randall W Grout; Stephen M Downs; Aaron E Carroll; Tamara S Hannon Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2020-05-13 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Randall W Grout; Jeffrey Buchhalter; Anup D Patel; Amy Brin; Ann A Clark; Mary Holmay; Tyler J Story; Stephen M Downs Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2021-02-17 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: H Akhloufi; H van der Sijs; D C Melles; C P van der Hoeven; M Vogel; J W Mouton; A Verbon Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2022-05-10 Impact factor: 3.298