Barriers and facilitators to the uptake of computerized clinical decision support systems in specialty hospitals: protocol for a qualitative cross-sectional study

Implementation Science

Koren Hyogene Kwag⁵  Alberto Vaona²  Giuseppe Scaratti⁴  Francesca Ruggiero¹  Pietro Ruggieri⁶  Giulio Rigon²  Oriana Nanni³  Marco Maraldi⁶  Mara Gorli⁴  Laura Galuppo⁴  Elisa Giulia Liberati⁴  Lorenzo Moja⁵ 

[1] Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche per la Salute, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Pascal 36, Milan, 20133, Italy;Azienda ULSS 20, P.le Lambranzi 1, Verona, 37034, Italy;IRCCS Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori, Via Piero Maroncelli 40, Meldola, 47014, FC, Italy;Dipartimento di Psicologia, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore di Milano, L.go Gemelli 1, Milan, 20123, Italy;Unità di Epidemiologia Clinica, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Via R. Galeazzi 4, Milan, 20161, Italy;Clinica Ortopedica e Traumatologica II, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Rizzoli, via G.C.Pupilli 1, Bologna, 40136, Italy

关键词: Qualitative;    Perceptions;    Evidence-based medicine;    Computerized clinical decision support systems;   

Others  :  1146607
DOI  :  10.1186/s13012-014-0105-0

 received in 2014-06-03, accepted in 2014-08-06,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Computerized clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) have been shown to improve the efficiency and quality of patient care by connecting healthcare professionals with high quality, evidence-based information at the point-of-care. The mere provision of CDSSs, however, does not guarantee their uptake. Rather, individual and institutional perceptions can foster or inhibit the integration of CDSSs into routine clinical workflow. Current studies exploring health professionals¿ perceptions of CDSSs focus primarily on technical and usability issues, overlooking the social or cultural variables as well as broader administrative or organizational roles that may influence CDSS adoption. Moreover, there is a lack of data on the evolution of perceived barriers or facilitators to CDSS uptake across different stages of implementation.

Methods

We will conduct a qualitative, cross-sectional study in three Italian specialty hospitals involving frontline physicians, nurses, information technology staff, and members of the hospital board of directors. We will use semi-structured interviews following the Grounded Theory framework, progressively recruiting participants until no new information is gained from the interviews.

Discussion

CDSSs are likely to become an integral and diffuse part of clinical practice. Various factors must be considered when planning their introduction in healthcare settings. The findings of this study will guide the development of strategies to facilitate the successful integration of CDSSs into the regular clinical workflow. The evaluation of diverse health professionals across multiple hospital settings in different stages of CDSS uptake will better capture the complexity of roles and contextual factors affecting CDSS uptake.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Moja et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Gray JAM, Haynes RB, Richardson WS: Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn¿t. BMJ 1996, 312:71-72.
• [2]Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP, Lavis JN, Hill SJ, Squires JE: Knowledge translation of research findings. Implement Sci 2012, 7:50. BioMed Central Full Text
• [3][http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42014007177] webcite Bertizzolo L, Bonovas S, Brandt L, Iorio A, Kunnamo I, Kwag K, Lytras T, Mangia M, Moja L, Nyberg P, Pecoraro V, Rigon G, Ruggiero F, Vaona A: Effectiveness of computerized decision support systems linked to patient records: a systematic review and meta-analysis.PROSPERO 2014, ? CRD42014007177 [Available from: ]
• [4]Bright TJ, Wong A, Dhurjati R, Bristow E, Bastian L, Coeytaux RR, Samsa G, Hasselblad V, Williams JW, Musty MD, Wing L, Kendrick AS, Sanders GD, Lobach D: Effect of clinical decision-support systems: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2012, 157:29-43.
• [5]Roshanov PS, Fernandes N, Wilczynski JM, Hemens BJ, You JJ, Handler SM, Nieuwlaat R, Souza NM, Beyene J, Van Spall HG, Garg AX, Haynes RB: Features of effective computerised clinical decision support systems: meta-regression of 162 randomised trials. BMJ 2013, 346:f657.
• [6]Souza NM, Sebaldt RJ, Mackay JA, Prorok JC, Weise-Kelly L, Navarro T, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB: Computerized clinical decision support systems for primary preventive care: a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review of effects on process of care and patient outcomes. Implement Sci 2011, 6:87. BioMed Central Full Text
• [7]Moja L, Banzi R: Navigators for medicine: evolution of online point-of-care evidence-based services. Int J Clin Pract 2011, 65:6-11.
• [8]Cabana MD, Rand CS, Powe NR, Wu AW, Wilson MH, Abboud PA, Rubin HR: Why don¿t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. JAMA 1999, 282:1458-1465.
• [9]Heselmans A, Aertgeerts B, Donceel P, Geens S, Van de Velde S, Ramaekers D: Family physicians¿ perceptions and use of electronic clinical decision support during the first year of implementation. J Med Syst 2012, 36:3677-3684.
• [10]Moxey A, Robertson J, Newby D, Hains I, Williamson M, Pearson SA: Computerized clinical decision support for prescribing: provision does not guarantee uptake. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2010, 17:25-33.
• [11]Kortteisto T, Komulainen J, Makela M, Kunnamo I, Kaila M: Clinical decision support must be useful, functional is not enough: a qualitative study of computer-based clinical decision support in primary care. BMC Health Serv Res 2012, 12:349. BioMed Central Full Text
• [12]Patterson ES, Doebbeling BN, Fung CH, Militello L, Anders S, Asch SM: Identifying barriers to the effective use of clinical reminders: bootstrapping multiple methods. J Biomed Inform 2005, 38:189-199.
• [13]Berg M: Rationalizing Medical Work: Decision Support Techniques and Medical Practices. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA; 1997.
• [14]Lipman T: Power and influence in clinical effectiveness and evidence-based medicine. Fam Pract 2000, 17:557-563.
• [15]Bhandari M, Montori V, Devereaux PJ, Dosanjh S, Sprague S, Guyatt GH: Challenges to the practice of evidence-based medicine during residents¿ surgical training: a qualitative study using grounded theory. Acad Med 2003, 78:1183-1190.
• [16]Christakis DA, Rivara FP: Pediatricians¿ awareness of and attitudes about four clinical practice guidelines. Pediatrics 1998, 101:825-830.
• [17]Fairhurst K, Huby G: From trial data to practical knowledge: qualitative study of how general practitioners have accessed and used evidence about statin drugs in their management of hypercholesterolaemia. BMJ 1998, 317:1130-1134.
• [18]Gabbay J, le May A: Evidence based guidelines or collectively constructed ¿mindlines?¿ Ethnographic study of knowledge management in primary care. BMJ 2004, 329:1013.
• [19]Timmermans S, Berg M: The practice of medical technology. Sociol Health Illness 2003, 25:97-114.
• [20]Berg M, Horstman K, Plass S, Van Heusden M: Guidelines, professionals and the production of objectivity: standardisation and the professionalism of insurance medicine. Sociol Health Illness 2000, 22:765-791.
• [21]Dopson S, Fitzgerald L: The Active Role of Context. In Knowledge to Action? Evidence-Based Health Care in Context. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK; 2005:79-103.
• [22]Lang PO, Schwarze ML, Alexander GC: New technologies meeting old professional boundaries: the emergence of carotid artery stenting. J Am Coll Surg 2005, 200:854-860.
• [23]Peiris D, Usherwood T, Weeramanthri T, Cass A, Patel A: New tools for an old trade: a socio-technical appraisal of how electronic decision support is used by primary care practitioners. Sociol Health Illness 2011, 33:1002-1018.
• [24]Saleem JJ, Patterson ES, Militello L, Render ML, Orshansky G, Asch SM: Exploring barriers and facilitators to the use of computerized clinical reminders. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2005, 12:438-447.
• [25]Short D, Frischer M, Bashford J: Barriers to the adoption of computerised decision support systems in general practice consultations: a qualitative study of GPs¿ perspectives. Int J Med Inform 2004, 73:357-362.
• [26]Glaser BG, Holton J: Remodeling Grounded Theory. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research; Vol 5, No 2 (2004): Qualitative Market, Media and Opinion Research 2004.
• [27]Charmaz K: Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. SAGE Publications Ltd., Thousand Oaks, CA; 2006.
• [28]Morse JM, Stern PN, Corbin J, Bowers B, Clarke AE, Charmaz K: Developing Grounded Theory: The Second Generation. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, CA; 2009.
• [29]Patton MQ: Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. SAGE Publications, Inc, Thousand Oaks, CA; 2002.
• [30]NVivo Qualitative Data Analysis Software. 2012.
• [31]Castillo RS, Kelemen A: Considerations for a successful clinical decision support system. Comput Inform Nurs 2013, 31:319-326.