Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40768761›Full record

ArticleJMIR cardio2025

Electronic Clinical Decision Support System for Stroke Risk Screening in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation in Mental Health Care: Mixed Methods Study.

Dina Farran, Hou Wang Cheang, Juliana Onwumere, Mark Ashworth, Fiona Gaughran

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR cardio, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Dina FarranDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, 16 De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AB, United Kingdom, 44 7402011448.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3240-5884
Hou Wang CheangDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, 16 De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AB, United Kingdom, 44 7402011448.
Juliana OnwumereSouth London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7119-7451
Mark AshworthSchool of Life Course and Population Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Fiona GaughranDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, 16 De Crespigny Park, London, SE5 8AB, United Kingdom, 44 7402011448.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7414-5569

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Electronic clinical decision support systems (eCDSSs) are key to the digital transformation of health care. Despite their growing adoption, little is known about the perspectives of mental health clinicians on the implementation of eCDSS to assist them in managing physical health conditions within mental health care settings. Objective: This study aimed to explore how clinicians in older adult mental health services manage stroke risk in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and comorbid serious mental illness who are admitted to the hospital under their care. It also sought to examine clinicians' views on the potential role of an eCDSS in enhancing stroke risk assessment and management. Methods: A cross-sectional mixed methods study was conducted between March and May 2023 in 3 inpatient wards for mental health of older adults at South London and Maudsley NHS (National Health Service) Foundation Trust. Health care professionals, including psychiatrists and pharmacists, participated in a web-based survey and individual semistructured interviews. Ethical approval and informed consent were obtained. A descriptive analysis was conducted on the survey data, while interview data were analyzed thematically using an inductive approach. Results: In total, 10 clinicians participated in the study. Thematic analysis revealed 2 primary themes. First, clinicians reported significant challenges in clinical practice, including difficulties accessing patient medical histories, limited expertise in managing physical health conditions, fragmented care pathways, and the impact of mental health symptoms such as psychotic beliefs on stroke prevention. Second, clinicians identified strategies to improve practice, such as embedding alerts in electronic records, establishing clear organizational policies, and providing tailored training on AF-related stroke management. Clinicians recognized the potential of an eCDSS to enhance clinical effectiveness, improve the identification of high-risk patients, ensure safer and more consistent care, and save time. However, they expressed concerns about potential risks, including rigidity in decision-making, overreliance on the tool, false positives, reduced critical thinking, annoyance, and increased workload. Conclusions: This study highlights the challenges and opportunities in managing AF-related stroke risk in mental health settings. While clinicians acknowledged the potential of an eCDSS to improve care quality and efficiency, addressing concerns about its design and implementation is essential. These insights can inform the development of eCDSS tools that effectively balance benefits with user needs, ultimately improving patient outcomes in mental health services.

Indexed as

Atrial FibrillationDecision Support Systems, ClinicalMental DisordersMental Health ServicesStrokeAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRisk Assessmentarrhythmiaatrial fibrillationattitudecardiaccardiologyCDSSclinical decision support systemsdecision supportdigital health alertsexperienceheartinterviewmedical informaticsmental illnessopinionperceptionperspectivequalitative approachstrokestroke riskthematic analysis

Identifiers

PMID40768761
PMCPMC12327912

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.