ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2015
Multiple perspectives on clinical decision support: a qualitative study of fifteen clinical and vendor organizations.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Stakeholder Perspectives of Clinical Artificial Intelligence Implementation: Systematic Review of Qualitative Evidence.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Pooled it
- Mind the Gap. A systematic review to identify usability and safety challenges and practices during electronic health record implementation.Applied clinical informatics · 2016Pooled it
- How Implementation Context Shapes Clinician Acceptance and Engagement with Guideline-Based Clinical Decision Support Systems in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study.Journal of healthcare leadership · 2026Article
- High effectiveness of the digitalization of the GESIDA clinical guideline for HIV patient management.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Designing the User Interface of a Nitroglycerin Dose Titration Decision Support System: User-Centered Design Study.Applied clinical informatics · 2024Article
- Development and Integration of Machine Learning Algorithm to Identify Peripheral Arterial Disease: Multistakeholder Qualitative Study.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Usability of the IDDEAS prototype in child and adolescent mental health services: A qualitative study for clinical decision support system development.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- Barriers and enablers to implementing and using clinical decision support systems for chronic diseases: a qualitative systematic review and meta-aggregation.Implementation science communications · 2022Review
- Article
- The future of medical scribes documenting in the electronic health record: results of an expert consensus conference.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Article
- A Sociotechnical Multiple Perspectives Approach to the Use of Medical Scribes: A Deeper Dive into the Scribe-Provider Interaction.AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2019Article
- Clinical decision support alert malfunctions: analysis and empirically derived taxonomy.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2018Article
- How to improve vital sign data quality for use in clinical decision support systems? A qualitative study in nine Swedish emergency departments.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2016Article
- Tailoring implementation strategies for evidence-based recommendations using computerised clinical decision support systems: protocol for the development of the GUIDES tools.Implementation science : IS · 2016Article
- The Homeless People in China During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Victims of the Strict Pandemic Control Measures of the Government.Frontiers in public healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundComputerized clinical decision support (CDS) can help hospitals to improve healthcare. However, CDS can be problematic. The purpose of this study was to discover how the views of clinical stakeholders, CDS content vendors, and EHR vendors are alike or different with respect to challenges in the development, management, and use of CDS.
methodsWe conducted ethnographic fieldwork using a Rapid Assessment Process within ten clinical and five health information technology (HIT) vendor organizations. Using an inductive analytical approach, we generated themes from the clinical, content vendor, and electronic health record vendor perspectives and compared them.
resultsThe groups share views on the importance of appropriate manpower, careful knowledge management, CDS that fits user workflow, the need for communication among the groups, and for mutual strategizing about the future of CDS. However, views of usability, training, metrics, interoperability, product use, and legal issues differed. Recommendations for improvement include increased collaboration to address legal, manpower, and CDS sharing issues.
conclusionsThe three groups share thinking about many aspects of CDS, but views differ in a number of important respects as well. Until these three groups can reach a mutual understanding of the views of the other stakeholders, and work together, CDS will not reach its potential.
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.