Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35842722›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2022

An exploration of expectations and perceptions of practicing physicians on the implementation of computerized clinical decision support systems using a Qsort approach.

Wim Van Biesen, Daan Van Cauwenberge, Johan Decruyenaere, Tamara Leune, Sigrid Sterckx

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Wim Van BiesenDepartment of Nephrology, Ghent University Hospital, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 0K12IA, Ghent, Belgium. wim.vanbiesen@ugent.be.
Daan Van CauwenbergeConsortium for Justifiable Digital Healthcare, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Johan DecruyenaereConsortium for Justifiable Digital Healthcare, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Tamara LeuneDepartment of Nephrology, Ghent University Hospital, Corneel Heymanslaan 10, 0K12IA, Ghent, Belgium.
Sigrid SterckxConsortium for Justifiable Digital Healthcare, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere is increasing interest in incorporating clinical decision support (CDS) into electronic healthcare records (EHR). Successful implementation of CDS systems depends on acceptance of them by healthcare workers. We used a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods starting from Qsort methodology to explore expectations and perceptions of practicing physicians on the use of CDS incorporated in EHR.

methodsThe study was performed in a large tertiary care academic hospital. We used a mixed approach with a Q-sort based classification of pre-defined reactions to clinical case vignettes combined with a thinking-aloud approach, taking into account COREQ recommendations The open source software of Ken-Q Analysis version 1.0.6. was used for the quantitative analysis, using principal components and a Varimax rotation. For the qualitative analysis, a thematic analysis based on the four main themes was performed based on the audiotapes and field notes.

resultsThirty physicians were interviewed (7 in training, 8 junior staff and 15 senior staff; 16 females). Nearly all respondents were strongly averse towards interruptive messages, especially when these also were obstructive. Obstructive interruption was considered to be acceptable only when it increases safety, is adjustable to user expertise level and/or allows deviations when the end-user explains why a deviation is desirable in the case at issue. Transparency was deemed an essential feature, which seems to boil down to providing sufficient clarification on the factors underlying the recommendations of the CDS, so that these can be compared against the physicians' existing knowledge, beliefs and convictions.

conclusionAvoidance of disruptive workflows and transparency of the underlying decision processes are important points to consider when developing CDS systems incorporated in EHR.

Indexed as

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalPhysiciansElectronic Health RecordsFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansMotivationSoftwareArtificial intelligenceBig dataClinical decision supportMedicine

Identifiers

PMID35842722
PMCPMC9288707

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.