Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40321887›Full record

ArticleDigital health

Feasibility of a computerized clinical decision support system delivered via a socially assistive robot during grand rounds: A pilot study.

Valentino Šafran, Urška Smrke, Bojan Ilijevec, Samo Horvat, Vojko Flis, Nejc Plohl, Izidor Mlakar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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.

Valentino ŠafranFaculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3664-3564
Urška SmrkeFaculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.
Bojan IlijevecUniversity Division of Surgery, University Medical Centre Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.
Samo HorvatUniversity Division of Surgery, University Medical Centre Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.
Vojko FlisUniversity Division of Surgery, University Medical Centre Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.
Nejc PlohlFaculty of Arts, Department of Psychology, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.
Izidor MlakarFaculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4910-1879

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aims and Objective: The aim of this study was to explore the feasibility, usability and acceptance of integrating Clinical Decision Support Systems with Socially Assistive Robots into hospital grand rounds. Background: Adopting Clinical Decision Support Systems in healthcare faces challenges such as complexity, poor integration with workflows, and concerns about data privacy and quality. Issues such as too many alerts, confusing errors, and difficulty using the technology in front of patients make adoption challenging and prevent it from fitting into daily workflows. Making Clinical Decision Support System simple, intuitive and user-friendly is essential to enable its use in daily practice to improve patient care and decision-making. Methods: This six-month pilot study had two participant groups, with total of 40 participants: a longitudinal intervention group (n = 8) and a single-session evaluation group (n = 32). Participants were medical doctors at the University Clinical Center Maribor. The intervention involved implementing a Clinical Decision Support System delivered via a Socially Assistive Robot during hospital grand rounds. We developed a system that employed the HL7 FHIR standard for integrating data from hospital monitors, electronic health records, and patient-reported outcomes into a single dashboard. A Pepper-based SAR provided patient specific recommendations through a voice and SAR tablet enabled interface. Key evaluation metrics were assessed using the System Usability Scale (SUS) and the Unified Theory of Acceptance, Use of Technology (UTAUT2) questionnaire, including Effort Expectancy, Performance Expectancy and open ended questions. The longitudinal group used the system for 6 months and completed the assessments twice, after one week and at the end of the study. The single-session group completed the assessment once, immediately after the experiment. Qualitative data were gathered through open-ended questions. Data analysis included descriptive statistics, paired t-tests, and thematic analysis. Results: System usability was rated highly across both groups, with the longitudinal group reporting consistently excellent scores (M = 82.08 at final evaluation) compared to the acceptable scores of the single-session group (M = 68.96). Extended exposure improved user engagement, reflected in significant increases in Effort Expectancy and Habit over time. Participants found the system enjoyable to use, and while no significant changes were seen in Performance Expectancy, feedback emphasized its efficiency in saving time and improving access to clinical data, supporting its feasibility and acceptability. Conclusions: This research supports the potential of robotic technologies to transform CDSS into more interactive, efficient, and user-friendly tools for healthcare professionals. The paper also suggests further research directions and technical improvements to maximize the impact of innovative technologies in healthcare.

Indexed as

clinical decision-makingClinical decision support systemshospital grand roundspatient data integrationperceived quality of caresocially assistive robotsusability and familiarityuser experience questionnaireworkload reduction

Identifiers

PMID40321887
PMCPMC12046174

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.