Cargando…

Multiple perspectives on clinical decision support: a qualitative study of fifteen clinical and vendor organizations

BACKGROUND: Computerized clinical decision support (CDS) can help hospitals to improve healthcare. However, CDS can be problematic. The purpose of this study was to discover how the views of clinical stakeholders, CDS content vendors, and EHR vendors are alike or different with respect to challenges...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ash, Joan S, Sittig, Dean F, McMullen, Carmit K, Wright, Adam, Bunce, Arwen, Mohan, Vishnu, Cohen, Deborah J, Middleton, Blackford
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4447027/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25903564
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12911-015-0156-4
_version_ 1782373538665070592
author Ash, Joan S
Sittig, Dean F
McMullen, Carmit K
Wright, Adam
Bunce, Arwen
Mohan, Vishnu
Cohen, Deborah J
Middleton, Blackford
author_facet Ash, Joan S
Sittig, Dean F
McMullen, Carmit K
Wright, Adam
Bunce, Arwen
Mohan, Vishnu
Cohen, Deborah J
Middleton, Blackford
author_sort Ash, Joan S
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Computerized clinical decision support (CDS) can help hospitals to improve healthcare. However, CDS can be problematic. The purpose of this study was to discover how the views of clinical stakeholders, CDS content vendors, and EHR vendors are alike or different with respect to challenges in the development, management, and use of CDS. METHODS: We conducted ethnographic fieldwork using a Rapid Assessment Process within ten clinical and five health information technology (HIT) vendor organizations. Using an inductive analytical approach, we generated themes from the clinical, content vendor, and electronic health record vendor perspectives and compared them. RESULTS: The groups share views on the importance of appropriate manpower, careful knowledge management, CDS that fits user workflow, the need for communication among the groups, and for mutual strategizing about the future of CDS. However, views of usability, training, metrics, interoperability, product use, and legal issues differed. Recommendations for improvement include increased collaboration to address legal, manpower, and CDS sharing issues. CONCLUSIONS: The three groups share thinking about many aspects of CDS, but views differ in a number of important respects as well. Until these three groups can reach a mutual understanding of the views of the other stakeholders, and work together, CDS will not reach its potential.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4447027
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44470272015-05-29 Multiple perspectives on clinical decision support: a qualitative study of fifteen clinical and vendor organizations Ash, Joan S Sittig, Dean F McMullen, Carmit K Wright, Adam Bunce, Arwen Mohan, Vishnu Cohen, Deborah J Middleton, Blackford BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Research Article BACKGROUND: Computerized clinical decision support (CDS) can help hospitals to improve healthcare. However, CDS can be problematic. The purpose of this study was to discover how the views of clinical stakeholders, CDS content vendors, and EHR vendors are alike or different with respect to challenges in the development, management, and use of CDS. METHODS: We conducted ethnographic fieldwork using a Rapid Assessment Process within ten clinical and five health information technology (HIT) vendor organizations. Using an inductive analytical approach, we generated themes from the clinical, content vendor, and electronic health record vendor perspectives and compared them. RESULTS: The groups share views on the importance of appropriate manpower, careful knowledge management, CDS that fits user workflow, the need for communication among the groups, and for mutual strategizing about the future of CDS. However, views of usability, training, metrics, interoperability, product use, and legal issues differed. Recommendations for improvement include increased collaboration to address legal, manpower, and CDS sharing issues. CONCLUSIONS: The three groups share thinking about many aspects of CDS, but views differ in a number of important respects as well. Until these three groups can reach a mutual understanding of the views of the other stakeholders, and work together, CDS will not reach its potential. BioMed Central 2015-04-24 /pmc/articles/PMC4447027/ /pubmed/25903564 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12911-015-0156-4 Text en © Ash et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Ash, Joan S
Sittig, Dean F
McMullen, Carmit K
Wright, Adam
Bunce, Arwen
Mohan, Vishnu
Cohen, Deborah J
Middleton, Blackford
Multiple perspectives on clinical decision support: a qualitative study of fifteen clinical and vendor organizations
title Multiple perspectives on clinical decision support: a qualitative study of fifteen clinical and vendor organizations
title_full Multiple perspectives on clinical decision support: a qualitative study of fifteen clinical and vendor organizations
title_fullStr Multiple perspectives on clinical decision support: a qualitative study of fifteen clinical and vendor organizations
title_full_unstemmed Multiple perspectives on clinical decision support: a qualitative study of fifteen clinical and vendor organizations
title_short Multiple perspectives on clinical decision support: a qualitative study of fifteen clinical and vendor organizations
title_sort multiple perspectives on clinical decision support: a qualitative study of fifteen clinical and vendor organizations
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4447027/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25903564
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12911-015-0156-4
work_keys_str_mv AT ashjoans multipleperspectivesonclinicaldecisionsupportaqualitativestudyoffifteenclinicalandvendororganizations
AT sittigdeanf multipleperspectivesonclinicaldecisionsupportaqualitativestudyoffifteenclinicalandvendororganizations
AT mcmullencarmitk multipleperspectivesonclinicaldecisionsupportaqualitativestudyoffifteenclinicalandvendororganizations
AT wrightadam multipleperspectivesonclinicaldecisionsupportaqualitativestudyoffifteenclinicalandvendororganizations
AT buncearwen multipleperspectivesonclinicaldecisionsupportaqualitativestudyoffifteenclinicalandvendororganizations
AT mohanvishnu multipleperspectivesonclinicaldecisionsupportaqualitativestudyoffifteenclinicalandvendororganizations
AT cohendeborahj multipleperspectivesonclinicaldecisionsupportaqualitativestudyoffifteenclinicalandvendororganizations
AT middletonblackford multipleperspectivesonclinicaldecisionsupportaqualitativestudyoffifteenclinicalandvendororganizations