ArticleApplied clinical informatics2026
User-Centered Redesign of a Clinical Decision Support System for Pneumonia in the Emergency Department.
Article in Applied clinical informatics, 2026. 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
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Deviation from evidence-based guidelines is common and associated with worse patient outcomes, especially in hectic emergency departments (EDs). Clinical decision support (CDS) systems can improve outcomes by promoting guideline adherence while allowing patient-specific adaptation. Implementation of a CDS system for pneumonia ("ePneumonia") in the ED has been associated with improved guideline adherence and reduced 30-day mortality. However, adoption of ePneumonia has been hindered by a suboptimal user interface (UI).This study aimed to redesign the ePneumonia UI to improve usability and adoption.We conducted a user-centered design study involving ED clinicians at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Across two rounds of one-on-one usability interviews with ED clinicians held via videoconference we (1) identified user requirements, and (2) iteratively refined a UI prototype. During each usability interview we presented realistic pneumonia cases, observed the clinician interact with a prototype, and elicited feedback with a semi-structured interview guide. We applied rapid thematic analysis and iteratively updated ePneumonia UI prototypes between interviews.Among 21 invited ED clinicians, 19 (90%) participated, including 15 attendings, 3 residents, and 1 advanced practice provider; 6 (32%) participants were women. Initial findings revealed that the original step-by-step UI did not align with the dynamic ED workflow. Clinicians expressed a need for both flexibility (e.g., skipping sections, overriding recommendations) and constraints (e.g., alerts for guideline deviations). We identified UI features to meet these needs that resulted in greater subjective usability including: a three-step navigation scheme, tiered information display, and multimodal indicators (text, icon, color) of agreement between clinician choices and CDS recommendations.A user-centered design approach identified UI features that were associated with greater perceived usability of a CDS for pneumonia in the ED. Future work will evaluate real-world usability and adoption in a clinical trial.
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.