ArticleApplied clinical informatics2012
Cognitive analysis of decision support for antibiotic ordering in a neonatal intensive care unit.
Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A case-based reasoning system for neonatal survival and LOS prediction in neonatal intensive care units: a development and validation study.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Distinct components of alert fatigue in physicians' responses to a noninterruptive clinical decision support alert.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022Article
- Is the Climb Worth the View? The Savings/Alert Ratio for Reducing Vitamin D Testing.Applied clinical informatics · 2020Article
- An Opportunity for Cognitive Task Analysis in Neonatal Resuscitation.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2019Review
- Impact of a Clinical Decision Support Alert on Informed Consent Documentation in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit.Pediatric quality & safetyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinical decision support systems (CDSS) are a method used to support prescribing accuracy when deployed within a computerized provider order entry system (CPOE). Divergence from using CDSS is exemplified by high alert override rates. Excessive cognitive load imposed by the CDSS may help to explain such high rates.
objectivesThe aim of this study was to describe the cognitive impact of a CPOE-integrated CDSS by categorizing system use problems according to the type of mental processing required to resolve them.
methodsA qualitative, descriptive design was used employing two methods; a cognitive walkthrough and a think-aloud protocol. Data analysis was guided by Norman's Theory of Action and a theory of cognitive distances which is an extension to Norman's theory.
resultsThe most frequently occurring source of excess cognitive effort was poor information timing. Information presented by the CDSS was often presented after clinicians required the information for decision making. Additional sources of effort included use of language that was not clear to the user, vague icons, and lack of cues to guide users through tasks.
conclusionsLack of coordination between clinician's task-related thought processes and those presented by a CDSS results in excessive cognitive work required to use the system. This can lead to alert overrides and user errors. Close attention to user's cognitive processes as they carry out clinical tasks prior to CDSS development may provide key information for system design that supports clinical tasks and reduces cognitive effort.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.