ArticleBMJ open quality2024
Deployment of a human-centred clinical decision support system for pulmonary embolism: evaluation of impact on quality of diagnostic decisions.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Supporting the implementation of a Maternal Early Warning System (MEWS) protocol using Human-Centred Design.BMC health services research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a serious condition that presents a diagnostic challenge for which diagnostic errors often happen. The literature suggests that a gap remains between PE diagnostic guidelines and adherence in healthcare practice. While system-level decision support tools exist, the clinical impact of a human-centred design (HCD) approach of PE diagnostic tool design is unknown.
designBefore-after (with a preintervention period as non-concurrent control) design study.
settingInpatient units at two tertiary care hospitals.
participantsGeneral internal medicine physicians and their patients who underwent PE workups.
interventionAfter a 6-month preintervention period, a clinical decision support system (CDSS) for diagnosis of PE was deployed and evaluated over 6 months. A CDSS technical testing phase separated the two time periods. MEASUREMENTS: PE workups were identified in both the preintervention and CDSS intervention phases, and data were collected from medical charts. Physician reviewers assessed workup summaries (blinded to the study period) to determine adherence to evidence-based recommendations. Adherence to recommendations was quantified with a score ranging from 0 to 1.0 (the primary study outcome). Diagnostic tests ordered for PE workups were the secondary outcomes of interest.
resultsOverall adherence to diagnostic pathways was 0.63 in the CDSS intervention phase versus 0.60 in the preintervention phase (p=0.18), with fewer workups in the CDSS intervention phase having very low adherence scores. Further, adherence was significantly higher when PE workups included the Wells prediction rule (median adherence score=0.76 vs 0.59, p=0.002). This difference was even more pronounced when the analysis was limited to the CDSS intervention phase only (median adherence score=0.80 when Wells was used vs 0.60 when Wells was not used, p=0.001). For secondary outcomes, using both the D-dimer blood test (42.9% vs 55.7%, p=0.014) and CT pulmonary angiogram imaging (61.9% vs 75.4%, p=0.005) was lower during the CDSS intervention phase.
conclusionA clinical decision support intervention with an HCD improves some aspects of the diagnostic decision, such as the selection of diagnostic tests and the use of the Wells probabilistic prediction rule for PE.
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.