Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37988076›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2023

Physicians' Perceptions of Clinical Decision Support to Treat Patients With Heart Failure in the ED.

Scott D Casey, Mary E Reed, Chris LeMaster, Dustin G Mark, Jesse Gaskin, Robert P Norris, Dana R Sax

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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 · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Scott D CaseyKaiser Permanente Division of Research, Oakland, California.
Mary E ReedKaiser Permanente Division of Research, Oakland, California.
Chris LeMasterThe Permanente Medical Group, Oakland, California.
Dustin G MarkThe Permanente Medical Group, Oakland, California.
Jesse GaskinThe Permanente Medical Group Consulting Services, The Permanente Medical Group, Oakland, California.
Robert P NorrisThe Permanente Medical Group, Sacramento, California.
Dana R SaxKaiser Permanente Division of Research, Oakland, California.
Colorado Permanente Medical Group · USKaiser Permanente · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Decision Support Systems, ClinicalHeart FailurePhysiciansClinical Decision-MakingFemaleHumansMalePatients

Identifiers

PMID37988076
PMCPMC10663967
OpenAlexW4388860386

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.