ArticleJAMA network open2023
Physicians' Perceptions of Clinical Decision Support to Treat Patients With Heart Failure in the ED.
Article in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk-stratification tools for emergency department patients with syncope: A systematic review and meta-analysis of direct evidence for SAEM GRACE.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Early emergency department decision support for heart failure hospitalization using triage-level unstructured and structured data: a retrospective cohort study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- User-Centered Redesign of a Clinical Decision Support System for Pneumonia in the Emergency Department.Applied clinical informatics · 2026Article
- "I worry we'll blow right by it:" Barriers to Uptake of the STRATIFY-CDS for Acute Heart Failure.Applied clinical informatics · 2025Article
- A systematic review of clinicians' acceptance and use of clinical decision support systems over time.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Integrating the BAN-ADHF diuretic resistance score into same day emergency care centres for heart failure management: a conceptual framework.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2025Article
- Pilot trial of an electronic decision support to improve care for emergency department patients with acute heart failure.ESC heart failure · 2024Article
- General practitioners' user experience of the nationwide digital decision support system in primary care.Digital 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Clinical decision support (CDS) could help emergency department (ED) physicians treat patients with heart failure (HF) by estimating risk, collating relevant history, and assisting with medication prescribing if physicians' perspectives inform its design and implementation. Objective: To evaluate CDS usability and workflow integration in the hands of ED physician end users who use it in clinical practice. Design, Setting, and Participants: This mixed-methods qualitative study administered semistructured interviews to ED physicians from 2 community EDs of Kaiser Permanente Northern California in 2023. The interview guide, based on the Usability Heuristics for User Interface Design and the Sociotechnical Environment models, yielded themes used to construct an electronic survey instrument sent to all ED physicians. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes were physicians' perceptions of using CDS to complement clinical decision-making, usability, and integration into ED clinical workflow. Results: Seven key informant physicians (5 [71.4%] female, median [IQR] 15.0 [9.5-15.0] years in practice) were interviewed and survey responses from 51 physicians (23 [45.1%] female, median [IQR] 14.0 [9.5-17.0] years in practice) were received from EDs piloting the CDS intervention. Response rate was 67.1% (51 of 76). Physicians suggested changes to CDS accessibility, functionality, and workflow integration. Most agreed that CDS would improve patient care and fewer than half of physicians expressed hesitation about their capacity to consistently comply with its recommendations, citing workload concerns. Physicians preferred a passive prompt that encouraged, but did not mandate, interaction with the CDS. Conclusions and Relevance: In this qualitative study of physicians who were using a novel CDS intervention to assist with ED management of patients with acute HF, several opportunities were identified to improve usability as well as several key barriers and facilitators to CDS implementation.
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.