Barriers and enablers to implementing and using clinical decision support systems for chronic diseases: a qualitative systematic review and meta-aggregation

被引:33
作者
Chen, Winnie [1 ]
O'Bryan, Claire Maree [1 ]
Gorham, Gillian [1 ]
Howard, Kirsten [2 ]
Balasubramanya, Bhavya [1 ]
Coffey, Patrick [1 ]
Abeyaratne, Asanga [1 ]
Cass, Alan [1 ]
机构
[1] Charles Darwin Univ, Menzies Sch Hlth Res, POB 41096, Casuarina, NT 0811, Australia
[2] Univ Sydney, Fac Med & Hlth, Sch Publ Hlth, Sydney, NSW, Australia
来源
IMPLEMENTATION SCIENCE COMMUNICATIONS | 2022年 / 3卷 / 01期
关键词
CDS; CDSS; Clinical decision support systems; Chronic disease; Evaluation; Health system; Implementation; Meta-aggregation; Qualitative; Systematic review; GENERAL-PRACTICE; CARE; MANAGEMENT; IDENTIFICATION; INTERVENTION; HYPERTENSION; FEASIBILITY; OUTCOMES; WORK; TOOL;
D O I
10.1186/s43058-022-00326-x
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
BackgroundClinical decision support (CDS) is increasingly used to facilitate chronic disease care. Despite increased availability of electronic health records and the ongoing development of new CDS technologies, uptake of CDS into routine clinical settings is inconsistent. This qualitative systematic review seeks to synthesise healthcare provider experiences of CDS-exploring the barriers and enablers to implementing, using, evaluating, and sustaining chronic disease CDS systems.MethodsA search was conducted in Medline, CINAHL, APA PsychInfo, EconLit, and Web of Science from 2011 to 2021. Primary research studies incorporating qualitative findings were included if they targeted healthcare providers and studied a relevant chronic disease CDS intervention. Relevant CDS interventions were electronic health record-based and addressed one or more of the following chronic diseases: cardiovascular disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, hypertension, and hypercholesterolaemia. Qualitative findings were synthesised using a meta-aggregative approach.ResultsThirty-three primary research articles were included in this qualitative systematic review. Meta-aggregation of qualitative data revealed 177 findings and 29 categories, which were aggregated into 8 synthesised findings. The synthesised findings related to clinical context, user, external context, and technical factors affecting CDS uptake. Key barriers to uptake included CDS systems that were simplistic, had limited clinical applicability in multimorbidity, and integrated poorly into existing workflows. Enablers to successful CDS interventions included perceived usefulness in providing relevant clinical knowledge and structured chronic disease care; user confidence gained through training and post training follow-up; external contexts comprised of strong clinical champions, allocated personnel, and technical support; and CDS technical features that are both highly functional, and attractive.ConclusionThis systematic review explored healthcare provider experiences, focussing on barriers and enablers to CDS use for chronic diseases. The results provide an evidence-base for designing, implementing, and sustaining future CDS systems. Based on the findings from this review, we highlight actionable steps for practice and future research.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42020203716
引用
收藏
页数:20
相关论文
共 111 条
[1]   The NASSS framework for ex post theorisation of technology-supported change in healthcare: worked example of the TORPEDO programme [J].
Abimbola, Seye ;
Patel, Bindu ;
Peiris, David ;
Patel, Anushka ;
Harris, Mark ;
Usherwood, Tim ;
Greenhalgh, Trisha .
BMC MEDICINE, 2019, 17 (01)
[2]  
Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality, 2010, Challenges and barriers to clinical decision support (CDS) design and implementation experienced in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality CDS Demonstrations
[3]  
Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality, 2021, Digital healthcare research: section 4-types of CDS interventions
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2012, Synthesizing qualitative research choosing the right approach
[5]  
Aromataris E., 2020, JBI MANUAL EVIDENCE, DOI [DOI 10.46658/JBIMES-20-01, 10.46658/JBIMES-20-01, DOI 10.46658/JBIMES-20-12]
[6]   Multiple perspectives on clinical decision support: a qualitative study of fifteen clinical and vendor organizations [J].
Ash, Joan S. ;
Sittig, Dean F. ;
McMullen, Carmit K. ;
Wright, Adam ;
Bunce, Arwen ;
Mohan, Vishnu ;
Cohen, Deborah J. ;
Middleton, Blackford .
BMC MEDICAL INFORMATICS AND DECISION MAKING, 2015, 15
[7]  
Australian Digital Health Agency, 2021, National digital health strategy and framework for action
[8]   Exploring differences in the use of the statin choice decision aid and diabetes medication choice decision aid in primary care [J].
Ballard, Aimee Yu ;
Kessler, Maya ;
Scheitel, Marianne ;
Montori, Victor M. ;
Chaudhry, Rajeev .
BMC MEDICAL INFORMATICS AND DECISION MAKING, 2017, 17
[9]   Qualitative synthesis and systematic review in health professions education [J].
Bearman, Margaret ;
Dawson, Phillip .
MEDICAL EDUCATION, 2013, 47 (03) :252-260
[10]   Is meta-synthesis turning rich descriptions into thin reductions? A criticism of meta-aggregation as a form of qualitative synthesis [J].
Bergdahl, Elisabeth .
NURSING INQUIRY, 2019, 26 (01)