Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40453765›Full record

ArticleJAMIA open2025

Help us document what we already do: pilot study of clinical decision support tools targeting social risk-informed care.

Maura Pisciotta, Suzanne Morrissey, Arwen Bunce, Laura M Gottlieb, Jenna Donovan, Shelby L Watkins, Mary Middendorf, Christina R Sheppler, Anna C Edelmann, Rachel Gold

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMIA open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. 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

10 authors.

Maura PisciottaOCHIN, Inc., Portland, OR 97228, United States.
Suzanne MorrisseyVA Bedford Healthcare System, Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research (CHOIR), Bedford, MA 01730, United States.
Arwen BunceOCHIN, Inc., Portland, OR 97228, United States.
Laura M GottliebDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94110, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2669-4066
Jenna DonovanOCHIN, Inc., Portland, OR 97228, United States.
Shelby L WatkinsOCHIN, Inc., Portland, OR 97228, United States.
Mary MiddendorfOCHIN, Inc., Portland, OR 97228, United States.
Christina R ShepplerKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente, Portland, OR 97227, United States.
Anna C EdelmannKaiser Permanente Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente, Portland, OR 97227, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6919-2915
Rachel GoldOCHIN, Inc., Portland, OR 97228, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6326-5012

Funding

COHERE – COntextualized care in cHcs’ Electronic health RecordsR01MD014886 · NIMHD · KAISER FOUNDATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI GOLD, RACHEL, GOTTLIEB, LAURA · 2020 to 2024
$3.1M
NIMHD NIH HHS R01 MD014886
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Little is known about how clinical decision support (CDS) tools can support care teams in changing clinical decisions to account for patients' social risks. We piloted a suite of electronic health record (EHR)-based CDS tools designed to facilitate social risk-informed care decisions to assess how the tools were used in practice and how they could be improved. Materials and Methods: After developing CDS tools through a process involving clinic staff and patient engagement, the tools were implemented in three community health center clinics. Data from staff interviews, observations of meetings with clinic staff, and the EHR were used to understand tool use patterns, and to yield insights that were then used to inform tool revisions. Results: The overarching suggestion derived from the study data was that the tools should shift from making care recommendations to instead supporting documentation of social risk-related actions that clinical team members had already taken. Other revisions were guided by four additional insights: the CDS tools should: (1) facilitate documentation in standardized, short formats, (2) make documentation easy and consistent, (3) support work distribution across care team members, and (4) ensure documentation could serve multiple purposes. Discussion: The CDS tools were revised to improve usefulness and acceptability for primary care teams in community clinics that serve patients with social risks. Numerous challenges exist in designing tools that can accommodate diverse clinics and workflows. Conclusion: These findings provide insights on how CDS tools can be optimized for social risk-informed care while minimizing care team burdens.

Indexed as

clinicaldecision support systemselectronic health recordsrisk factorssocial determinants of health

Identifiers

PMID40453765
PMCPMC12124400

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.