57
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      What hinders the uptake of computerized decision support systems in hospitals? A qualitative study and framework for implementation

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Advanced Computerized Decision Support Systems (CDSSs) assist clinicians in their decision-making process, generating recommendations based on up-to-date scientific evidence. Although this technology has the potential to improve the quality of patient care, its mere provision does not guarantee uptake: even where CDSSs are available, clinicians often fail to adopt their recommendations. This study examines the barriers and facilitators to the uptake of an evidence-based CDSS as perceived by diverse health professionals in hospitals at different stages of CDSS adoption.

          Methods

          Qualitative study conducted as part of a series of randomized controlled trials of CDSSs. The sample includes two hospitals using a CDSS and two hospitals that aim to adopt a CDSS in the future. We interviewed physicians, nurses, information technology staff, and members of the boards of directors ( n = 30). We used a constant comparative approach to develop a framework for guiding implementation.

          Results

          We identified six clusters of experiences of, and attitudes towards CDSSs, which we label as “positions.” The six positions represent a gradient of acquisition of control over CDSSs (from low to high) and are characterized by different types of barriers to CDSS uptake. The most severe barriers (prevalent in the first positions) include clinicians’ perception that the CDSSs may reduce their professional autonomy or may be used against them in the event of medical-legal controversies. Moving towards the last positions, these barriers are substituted by technical and usability problems related to the technology interface. When all barriers are overcome, CDSSs are perceived as a working tool at the service of its users, integrating clinicians’ reasoning and fostering organizational learning.

          Conclusions

          Barriers and facilitators to the use of CDSSs are dynamic and may exist prior to their introduction in clinical contexts; providing a static list of obstacles and facilitators, irrespective of the specific implementation phase and context, may not be sufficient or useful to facilitate uptake. Factors such as clinicians’ attitudes towards scientific evidences and guidelines, the quality of inter-disciplinary relationships, and an organizational ethos of transparency and accountability need to be considered when exploring the readiness of a hospital to adopt CDSSs.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-017-0644-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references52

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Book: not found

          The Discovery of Grounded Theory

          <p>Most writing on sociological method has been concerned with how accurate facts can be obtained and how theory can thereby be more rigorously tested. In The Discovery of Grounded Theory, Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss address the equally Important enterprise of how the discovery of theory from data--systematically obtained and analyzed in social research--can be furthered. The discovery of theory from data--grounded theory--is a major task confronting sociology, for such a theory fits empirical situations, and is understandable to sociologists and laymen alike. Most important, it provides relevant predictions, explanations, interpretations, and applications.</p><p>In Part I of the book, Generation Theory by Comparative Analysis, the authors present a strategy whereby sociologists can facilitate the discovery of grounded theory, both substantive and formal. This strategy involves the systematic choice and study of several comparison groups. In Part II, The Flexible Use of Data, the generation of theory from qualitative, especially documentary, and quantitative data Is considered. In Part III, Implications of Grounded Theory, Glaser and Strauss examine the credibility of grounded theory.</p><p>The Discovery of Grounded Theory is directed toward improving social scientists' capacity for generating theory that will be relevant to their research. While aimed primarily at sociologists, it will be useful to anyone Interested In studying social phenomena--political, educational, economic, industrial-- especially If their studies are based on qualitative data.</p></p>
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Organizational Justice: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Effect of clinical decision-support systems: a systematic review.

              Despite increasing emphasis on the role of clinical decision-support systems (CDSSs) for improving care and reducing costs, evidence to support widespread use is lacking. To evaluate the effect of CDSSs on clinical outcomes, health care processes, workload and efficiency, patient satisfaction, cost, and provider use and implementation. MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science through January 2011. Investigators independently screened reports to identify randomized trials published in English of electronic CDSSs that were implemented in clinical settings; used by providers to aid decision making at the point of care; and reported clinical, health care process, workload, relationship-centered, economic, or provider use outcomes. Investigators extracted data about study design, participant characteristics, interventions, outcomes, and quality. 148 randomized, controlled trials were included. A total of 128 (86%) assessed health care process measures, 29 (20%) assessed clinical outcomes, and 22 (15%) measured costs. Both commercially and locally developed CDSSs improved health care process measures related to performing preventive services (n= 25; odds ratio [OR], 1.42 [95% CI, 1.27 to 1.58]), ordering clinical studies (n= 20; OR, 1.72 [CI, 1.47 to 2.00]), and prescribing therapies (n= 46; OR, 1.57 [CI, 1.35 to 1.82]). Few studies measured potential unintended consequences or adverse effects. Studies were heterogeneous in interventions, populations, settings, and outcomes. Publication bias and selective reporting cannot be excluded. Both commercially and locally developed CDSSs are effective at improving health care process measures across diverse settings, but evidence for clinical, economic, workload, and efficiency outcomes remains sparse. This review expands knowledge in the field by demonstrating the benefits of CDSSs outside of experienced academic centers. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                egl24@medschl.cam.ac.uk
                francesca.ruggiero@guest.unimi.it
                laura.galuppo@unicatt.it
                mara.gorli@unicatt.it
                mariengonzalezlorenzo@gmail.com
                marco.maraldidr@libero.it
                pietro.ruggieri@unipd.it
                hernanemilio.polofriz@asst-vimercate.it
                giuseppe.scaratti@unicatt.it
                kwag@post.bgu.ac.il
                r.vespignani@irst.emr.it
                lorenzo.moja@unimi.it
                Journal
                Implement Sci
                Implement Sci
                Implementation Science : IS
                BioMed Central (London )
                1748-5908
                15 September 2017
                15 September 2017
                2017
                : 12
                : 113
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000000121885934, GRID grid.5335.0, Cambridge Centre for Health Services Research (CCHSR), Department of Public Health and Primary Care, , University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, ; Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge, CB2 0SR UK
                [2 ]GRID grid.417776.4, Unità di Epidemiologia Clinica, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, ; Via Riccardo Galeazzi 4, 20161 Milan, Italy
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1757 2822, GRID grid.4708.b, Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche per la Salute, , Università degli Studi di Milano, ; Via Carlo Pascal 36, 20133 Milan, Italy
                [4 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0941 3192, GRID grid.8142.f, Dipartimento di Psicologia, , Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, ; Largo Agostino Gemelli 1, 20123 Milan, Italy
                [5 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1757 2822, GRID grid.4708.b, Dipartimento di Scienze Biomediche per la Salute, , Università degli Studi di Milano, ; Via Carlo Pascal 36, 20133 Milan, Italy
                [6 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1757 3470, GRID grid.5608.b, Clinica Ortopedica, , Università degli Studi di Padova, ; Via Giustiniani 3, 35128 Padova, Italy
                [7 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1760 8047, GRID grid.413643.7, Dipartimento Internistico, , Ospedale di Vimercate, ; Via Santi Cosma e Damiano 10, 20871 Vimercate, Italy
                [8 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1937 0511, GRID grid.7489.2, Medical School of International Health, , Ben Gurion University of the Negev, ; P.O. Box 653, 84105 Beersheva, Israel
                [9 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1755 9177, GRID grid.419563.c, IRST Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori IRCCS, ; Via Piero Maroncelli 40, 47014 Meldola, Italy
                Article
                644
                10.1186/s13012-017-0644-2
                5602839
                28915822
                1d94ef43-fdfe-486f-9444-ef9b4523d2d2
                © The Author(s). 2017

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. 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.

                History
                : 10 May 2017
                : 4 September 2017
                Funding
                Funded by: Italian Ministry of Health
                Award ID: GR-2009-1606736
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: Regione Lombardia
                Award ID: D.R.G. IX/4340 26/10/2012
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100004440, Wellcome Trust;
                Award ID: WT097899
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2017

                Medicine
                clinical decision support systems,health information technology,evidence-based medicine,qualitative research,healthcare professions

                Comments

                Comment on this article