ArticleCJEM2026
Barriers and facilitators to developing and implementing artificial intelligence-based clinical decision support in the emergency department: a qualitative study.
Article in CJEM, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study examined why artificial intelligence (AI)-based clinical decision support tools have had limited clinical translation in the emergency department (ED) and identified barriers and facilitators to their development and implementation.
methodsWe conducted a qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews with researchers who have expertise developing and implementing AI clinical decision support tools for use in the ED. We used purposive and snowball sampling to identify participants. We used platform-based AI transcription and anonymized transcripts manually. Using grounded theory framework, two coders iteratively analyzed transcripts in three stages (initial, focused, and theoretical) to identify barriers, facilitators, and themes. We adhered to SRQR and COREQ guidelines.
resultsWe achieved data saturation after ten interviews conducted between October 15, 2024 and March 22, 2025. Participants ranged across a variety of medical and academic professions. We identified eight themes pertaining to developing and implementing AI clinical decision support in the ED, in descending frequency: team capacity; data infrastructure; defining the clinical problem and solution; research, ethics, and regulatory approval; legal and liability; model building and performance; time; and cost. We identified "engaging multiple healthcare end-users" and "sharing resources with other departments" as the highest yield facilitators.
conclusionSuccessful implementation of AI clinical decision support tools in the ED requires a clear clinician- and patient-defined problem, robust data infrastructure, and a diverse research team able to navigate challenges with regulatory, legal, and financial challenges over a long timeline. Anticipating barriers and leveraging facilitators early in the development process may increase the likelihood of successful implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42329568What 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.