3.8 Article

A qualitative framework-based evaluation of radiology clinical decision support initiatives: eliciting key factors to physician adoption in implementation

期刊

JAMIA OPEN
卷 2, 期 1, 页码 187-196

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jamiaopen/ooz002

关键词

radiology; clinical decision support; HCIA; evaluation; qualitative

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services [HHSM-500-2010-00021I]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To illustrate key contextual factors that may have effects on clinical decision support (CDS) adoption and, ultimately, success. Materials and Methods: We conducted a qualitative evaluation of 2 similar radiology CDS innovations for near-term endpoints affecting adoption and present the findings using an evaluation framework. We identified key contextual factors between these 2 innovations and determined important adoption differences between them. Results: Degree of electronic health record integration, approach to education and training, key drivers of adoption, and tailoring of the CDS to the clinical context were handled differently between the 2 innovations, contributing to variation in their relative degrees of adoption and use. Attention to these factors had impacts on both near and later-term measures of success (eg, patient outcomes). Discussion: CDS adoption is a well-studied early-term measure of CDS success that directly impacts outcomes. Adoption requires attention throughout the design phases of an intervention especially to key factors directly affecting it, including how implementation across multiple sites and systems complicates adoption, which prior experience with CDS matters, and that practice guidelines invariably require tailoring to the clinical context. Conclusion: With better planning for the capture of early-term measures of successful CDS implementation, especially adoption, critical adjustments may be made to ensure that the CDS is effectively implemented to be successful.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据