Assessing the sensibility of two clinical decision support systems

Clinicians in Emergency Medicine (EM) are increasingly exposed to guidelines and treatment recommendations. To help access and recall these recommendations, electronic Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) have been developed. This study examined the use and sensibility of two CDSS designed for emergency physicians. CDDS for community acquired pneumonia (CAP) and neutropenic fever (NF) were developed by multi-disciplinary teams and have been accessed via an intranet-based homepage (eCPG (c)) for several years. Sensibility is a term coined by Feinstein that describes common sense aspects of a survey instrument. It was modified by emergency researchers to include four main headings: (1) Appropriateness; (2) Objectivity; (3) Content; and (4) Discriminative Power. Sensibility surveys were developed using an iterative approach for both the CAP and NF CDSS and distributed to all 25 emergency physicians at one Canadian site. The overall response rate was 88%. Respondents were 88% male and 83% were less than 40; all were attending EM physicians with specialty designations. A number reported never having used the CAP (21%) or NF (33%) CDSS; 54% (CAP) and 21% (NF) of respondents had used the respective CDSS less than 10 times. Overall, both CDSS were rated highly by users with a mean response of 4.95 (SD 0.56) for CAP and 5.62 (SD 0.62) for NF on a seven-point Likert scale. The majority or respondents (CAP 59%, NF 80%) felt that the NF CDSS was more likely than the CAP CDSS to decrease the chances of making a medical error in medication dose, antibiotic choice or patient disposition (4.61 vs. 5.81, p=0.008). Despite being in place for several years, CDSS for CAP and NF are not used by all EM clinicians. Users were generally satisfied with the CDSS and felt that the NF was more likely than the CAP CDSS to decrease medical errors. Additional research is required to determine the barriers to CDSS use.