Trial reportApplied clinical informatics2014
Measures of user experience in a streptococcal pharyngitis and pneumonia clinical decision support tools.
Trial report in Applied clinical informatics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Decision-support tools via mobile devices to improve quality of care in primary healthcare settings.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- E-Health Tools to Improve Antibiotic Use and Resistances: A Systematic Review.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Integrating data from an online diabetes prevention program into an electronic health record and clinical workflow, a design phase usability study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2016Article
- Combining expert knowledge and knowledge automatically acquired from electronic data sources for continued ontology evaluation and improvement.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2015Article
- A Framework for Usable and Effective Clinical Decision Support: Experience from the iCPR Randomized Clinical Trial.EGEMS (Washington, DC) · 2015Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo understand clinician adoption of CDS tools as this may provide important insights for the implementation and dissemination of future CDS tools. MATERIALS AND
methodsClinicians (n=168) at a large academic center were randomized into intervention and control arms to assess the impact of strep and pneumonia CDS tools. Intervention arm data were analyzed to examine provider adoption and clinical workflow. Electronic health record data were collected on trigger location, the use of each component and whether an antibiotic, other medication or test was ordered. Frequencies were tabulated and regression analyses were used to determine the association of tool component use and physician orders.
resultsThe CDS tool was triggered 586 times over the study period. Diagnosis was the most frequent workflow trigger of the CDS tool (57%) as compared to chief complaint (30%) and diagnosis/antibiotic combinations (13%). Conversely, chief complaint was associated with the highest rate (83%) of triggers leading to an initiation of the CDS tool (opening the risk prediction calculator). Similar patterns were noted for initiation of the CDS bundled ordered set and completion of the entire CDS tool pathway. Completion of risk prediction and bundled order set components were associated with lower rates of antibiotic prescribing (OR 0.5; CI 0.2-1.2 and OR 0.5; CI 0.3-0.9, respectively). DISCUSSION: Different CDS trigger points in the clinician user workflow lead to substantial variation in downstream use of the CDS tool components. These variations were important as they were associated with significant differences in antibiotic ordering.
conclusionsThese results highlight the importance of workflow integration and flexibility for CDS success.
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.