Facilitators and Barriers to Interacting With Clinical Decision Support in the ICU: A Mixed-Methods Approach

被引:1
|
作者
Wong, Adrian [1 ]
Berenbrok, Lucas A. [2 ]
Snader, Lauren [2 ]
Soh, Yu Hyeon [2 ]
Kumar, Vishakha K. [3 ]
Javed, Muhammad Ali [4 ]
Bates, David W. [5 ,6 ]
Sorce, Lauren R. [7 ,8 ]
Kane-Gill, Sandra L. [2 ]
机构
[1] Beth Israel Deaconess Med Ctr, Dept Pharm, Boston, MA USA
[2] Univ Pittsburgh, Sch Pharm, Pittsburgh, PA 15260 USA
[3] Soc Crit Care Med, Mt Prospect, IL USA
[4] Mercy Hosp, St Louis, MO USA
[5] Brigham & Womens Hosp, Div Gen Internal Med & Primary Care, Boston, MA USA
[6] Harvard Med Sch, Med, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[7] Ann & Robert H Lurie Childrens Hosp Chicago, Chicago, IL USA
[8] Northwestern Univ, Feinberg Sch Med, Div Pediat Crit Care, Chicago, IL USA
关键词
alert fatigue; clinical decision support systems; implementation science; intensive care unit; patient safety; ALERT OVERRIDES; CARE; INTERVENTION; BURNOUT; STRESS; INTENT;
D O I
10.1097/CCE.0000000000000967
中图分类号
R4 [临床医学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100602 ;
摘要
OBJECTIVES:Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) are used in various aspects of healthcare to improve clinical decision-making, including in the ICU. However, there is growing evidence that CDSS are not used to their full potential, often resulting in alert fatigue which has been associated with patient harm. Clinicians in the ICU may be more vulnerable to desensitization of alerts than clinicians in less urgent parts of the hospital. We evaluated facilitators and barriers to appropriate CDSS interaction and provide methods to improve currently available CDSS in the ICU.DESIGN:Sequential explanatory mixed-methods study design, using the BEhavior and Acceptance fRamework.SETTING:International survey study.PATIENT/SUBJECTS:Clinicians (pharmacists, physicians) identified via survey, with recent experience with clinical decision support.INTERVENTIONS:An initial survey was developed to evaluate clinician perspectives on their interactions with CDSS. A subsequent in-depth interview was developed to further evaluate clinician (pharmacist, physician) beliefs and behaviors about CDSS. These interviews were then qualitatively analyzed to determine themes of facilitators and barriers with CDSS interactions.MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:A total of 48 respondents completed the initial survey (estimated response rate 15.5%). The majority believed that responding to CDSS alerts was part of their job (75%) but felt they experienced alert fatigue (56.5%). In the qualitative analysis, a total of five facilitators (patient safety, ease of response, specificity, prioritization, and feedback) and four barriers (excess quantity, work environment, difficulty in response, and irrelevance) were identified from the in-depth interviews.CONCLUSIONS:In this mixed-methods survey, we identified areas that institutions should focus on to improve appropriate clinician interactions with CDSS, specific to the ICU. Tailoring of CDSS to the ICU may lead to improvement in CDSS and subsequent improved patient safety outcomes.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Barriers and Facilitators to the Use of Clinical Decision Support Systems in Primary Care: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review
    Meunier, Pierre -Yves
    Raynaud, Camille
    Guimaraes, Emmanuelle
    Gueyffier, Francois
    Letrilliart, Laurent
    [J]. ANNALS OF FAMILY MEDICINE, 2023, 21 (01) : 57 - 69
  • [2] Perspectives of facilitators and barriers to cancer clinical trial participation: A mixed-methods study
    Williams, Lovoria B.
    Burris, Jessica L.
    Borger, Tia N.
    Acree, Tianna
    Abufarsakh, Bassema M.
    Arnold, Susanne M.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2024, 42 (16)
  • [3] Facilitators and barriers to blood pressure telemonitoring: A mixed-methods study
    Eze, Chinwe E.
    Dorsch, Michael P.
    Coe, Antoinette B.
    Lester, Corey A.
    Buis, Lorraine R.
    Farris, Karen B.
    [J]. DIGITAL HEALTH, 2023, 9
  • [4] A Mixed-Methods Study on the Barriers and Facilitators of Telemedicine for Newborn Resuscitation
    Fang, Jennifer L.
    Asiedu, Gladys B.
    Harris, Ann M.
    Carroll, Katherine
    Colby, Christopher E.
    [J]. TELEMEDICINE AND E-HEALTH, 2018, 24 (10) : 811 - 817
  • [5] Mixed-methods approach to understanding clinician macrocognition in the design of a clinical decision support tool: a study protocol
    Assadi, Azadeh
    Laussen, Peter
    Trbovich, Patricia
    [J]. BMJ OPEN, 2020, 10 (03):
  • [6] Development of a Model of Interprofessional Shared Clinical Decision Making in the ICU: A Mixed-Methods Study
    Ganz, Freda DeKeyser
    Engelberg, Ruth
    Torres, Nicole
    Curtis, Jared Randall
    [J]. CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2016, 44 (04) : 680 - 689
  • [7] Uptake of a Cervical Cancer Clinical Decision Support Tool: A Mixed-Methods Study
    Huguet, Nathalie
    Ezekiel-Herrera, David
    Gunn, Rose
    Pierce, Alison
    O'Malley, Jean
    Jones, Matthew
    Marino, Miguel
    Gold, Rachel
    [J]. APPLIED CLINICAL INFORMATICS, 2023, 14 (03): : 594 - 599
  • [8] Barriers to and facilitators of independent non-medical prescribing in clinical practice: a mixed-methods systematic review
    Noblet, Timothy
    Marriott, John
    Graham-Clarke, Emma
    Rushton, Alison
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PHYSIOTHERAPY, 2017, 63 (04) : 221 - 234
  • [9] Feasibility of implementing Extubation Advisor, a clinical decision support tool to improve extubation decision-making in the ICU: a mixed-methods observational study
    Sarti, Aimee J.
    Zheng, Katina
    Herry, Christophe L.
    Sutherland, Stephanie
    Scales, Nathan B.
    Watpool, Irene
    Porteous, Rebecca
    Hickey, Michael
    Anstee, Caitlin
    Fazekas, Anna
    Ramsay, Tim
    Burns, Karen E. A.
    Seely, Andrew J. E.
    [J]. BMJ OPEN, 2021, 11 (08):
  • [10] A mixed-methods study of barriers and facilitators to the implementation of postpartum hemorrhage guidelines in Uganda
    Braddick, Louise
    Tuckey, Victoria
    Abbas, Zan
    Lissauer, David
    Ismail, Khaled
    Manaseki-Holland, Semira
    Ditai, James
    Stokes, Tim
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGY & OBSTETRICS, 2016, 132 (01) : 89 - 93