ArticleApplied clinical informatics2025
Assessing Medication CDS Usability: Pilot Results from 10 Outpatient Clinics.
Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to develop a human factors assessment for medication-related clinical decision support (CDS) based on a previously validated tool that assessed the integration of human factors principles in CDS, the instrument for evaluating human factors principles in medication-related decision support alerts (I-MeDeSA), and pilot it with 10 outpatient clinics across the United States.The human factors assessment was developed based on past validations of I-MeDeSA. Examples included changing the wording of questions and reformatting answer choices to check-box options, allowing for multiple answer choices. We also added a section about how clinicians resolved alerts. Clinics received a percentage score based on how well their CDS adhered to human factors principles. To take the assessment, testing teams at each clinic triggered a high-severity drug-drug interaction (DDI) alert, and then took the human factors assessment. This assessment was piloted in 10 outpatient clinics, each of which used a different commercial electronic health record (EHR) system.The final assessment included five sections and twelve questions related to aspects like the timing, visual aspect, severity, content, and actions within the DDI alert. The mean overall percentage score was 62%. The sections regarding the timing and visual aspects of the alert were ones where clinics' EHRs performed the best. However, in the "actions" section, 40% of the clinics could bypass high severity alerts without any safeguards in place.We found substantial variability in the integration of human factors principles in the design and delivery of DDI alerts among the outpatient clinics, and some lacked important medication safeguards. This assessment can be used by outpatient clinics for safety improvement initiatives.
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.