ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2021
Supporting deprescribing in hospitalised patients: formative usability testing of a computerised decision support tool.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Exploring risk assessment tools for medicine-related problems among culturally and linguistically diverse patients in Australia: a systematic review.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2025Pooled it
- Methodological Development and Assessing Prescribing Determinants Through Cumulative Drug Exposure in Hospitalized Patients: Proof-of-Concept Retrospective Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Refining the Stroke Risk Screening Scales (SRSS) Through Two-Round Cognitive Interviews with Stroke Survivors and Healthcare Providers in Thailand.Vascular health and risk management · 2026Article
- Exploring Health Care Professionals' Engagement With a Precision Dosing Calculator and Supporting Clinical Information: Insights From an Eye-Tracking and Usability Study.Therapeutic drug monitoring · 2025Article
- Using human centred design and human factors to support a rapid health information technology patient safety response.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- The Unseen Hand: AI-Based Prescribing Decision Support Tools and the Evaluation of Drug Safety and Effectiveness.Drug safety · 2024Article
- Patient and Clinician Perceptions of the Pulse Oximeter in a Remote Monitoring Setting for COVID-19: Qualitative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- STOPP/START version 3: looks great, fits well, but itches.European geriatric medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- A stewardship program to facilitate anticholinergic and sedative medication deprescribing using the drug burden index in electronic medical records.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 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
- Polypharmacy and precision medicine.Cambridge prisms. Precision medicine · 2023Review
- Recent Updates on Risk and Management Plans Associated with Polypharmacy in Older Population.Geriatrics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- The anticholinergic burden: from research to practice.Australian prescriber · 2022Review
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
backgroundDespite growing evidence that deprescribing can improve clinical outcomes, quality of life and reduce the likelihood of adverse drug events, the practice is not widespread, particularly in hospital settings. Clinical risk assessment tools, like the Drug Burden Index (DBI), can help prioritise patients for medication review and prioritise medications to deprescribe, but are not integrated within routine care. The aim of this study was to conduct formative usability testing of a computerised decision support (CDS) tool, based on DBI, to identify modifications required to the tool prior to trialling in practice.
methodsOur CDS tool comprised a DBI MPage in the electronic medical record (clinical workspace) that facilitated review of a patient's DBI and medication list, access to deprescribing resources, and the ability to deprescribe. Two rounds of scenario-based formative usability testing with think-aloud protocol were used. Seventeen end-users participated in the testing, including junior and senior doctors, and pharmacists.
resultsParticipants expressed positive views about the DBI CDS tool but testing revealed a number of clear areas for improvement. These primarily related to terminology used (i.e. what is a DBI and how is it calculated?), and consistency of functionality and display. A key finding was that users wanted the CDS tool to look and function in a similar way to other decision support tools in the electronic medical record. Modifications were made to the CDS tool in response to user feedback.
conclusionUsability testing proved extremely useful for identifying components of our CDS tool that were confusing, difficult to locate or to understand. We recommend usability testing be adopted prior to implementation of any digital health intervention. We hope our revised CDS tool equips clinicians with the knowledge and confidence to consider discontinuation of inappropriate medications in routine care of hospitalised patients. In the next phase of our project, we plan to pilot test the tool in practice to evaluate its uptake and effectiveness in supporting deprescribing in routine hospital care.
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.