Integrating Clinical Decision Support into Workflow

dc.contributor.authorDoebbeling, Bradley N.
dc.contributor.authorSaleem, Jason
dc.contributor.authorHaggstrom, David
dc.contributor.authorMilitello, Laura
dc.contributor.authorFlanagan, Mindy
dc.contributor.authorArbuckle, Nicole
dc.contributor.authorKiess, Chris
dc.contributor.authorHoke, Shawn
dc.contributor.authorDexter, Paul
dc.contributor.authorLinder, Jeff
dc.contributor.authorSarbah, Steedman
dc.contributor.authorBurgo, Lucille
dc.date.accessioned2015-08-19T19:18:38Z
dc.date.available2015-08-19T19:18:38Z
dc.date.issued2011
dc.description.abstractPurpose: The aims were to (1) identify barriers and facilitators related to integration of clinical decision support (CDS) into workflow and (2) develop and test CDS design alternatives. Scope: To better understand CDS integration, we studied its use in practice, focusing on CDS for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and followup. Phase 1 involved outpatient clinics of four different systems—120 clinic staff and providers and 118 patients were observed. In Phase 2, prototyped design enhancements to the Veterans Administration’s CRC screening reminder were compared against its current reminder in a simulation experiment. Twelve providers participated. Methods: Phase 1 was a qualitative project, using key informant interviews, direct observation, opportunistic interviews, and focus groups. All data were analyzed using a coding template, based on the sociotechnical systems theory, which was modified as coding proceeded and themes emerged. Phase 2 consisted of rapid prototyping of CDS design alternatives based on Phase 1 findings and a simulation experiment to test these design changes in a within-subject comparison. Results: Very different CDS types existed across sites, yet there are common barriers: (1) lack of coordination of “outside” results and between primary and specialty care; (2) suboptimal data organization and presentation; (3) needed provider and patient education; (4) needed interface flexibility; (5) needed technological enhancements; (6) unclear role assignments; (7) organizational issues; and (8) disconnect with quality reporting. Design enhancements positively impacted usability and workflow integration but not workload. Conclusions: Effective CDS design and integration requires: (1) organizational and workflow integration; (2) integrating outside results; (3) improving data organization and presentation in a flexible interface; and (4) providing just-in time education, cognitive support, and quality reporting.en_US
dc.identifier.citationDoebbeling, B. N., Saleem, J., Haggstrom, D., Militello, L., Flanagan, M., Arbuckle, N., ... & Burgo, L. (2011). Integrating Clinical Decision Support into Workflow.en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1805/6661
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.rightsCC0 1.0 Universal
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0
dc.subjectinformation technologyen_US
dc.subjectworkflowen_US
dc.subjectclinical decision supporten_US
dc.titleIntegrating Clinical Decision Support into Workflowen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
doebbeling-2011-integrating.pdf
Size:
291.92 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.88 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description: