Clinical decision support must be useful, functional is not enough: A qualitative study of computer-based clinical decision support in primary care

BMC Health Services Research

Volumn 12, Issue 1, 2012, Pages

  Kortteisto, Tiina ^a   Komulainen, Jorma ^b   Mäkelä, Marjukka ^c   Kunnamo, Ilkka ^d   Kaila, Minna ^e  

^a TAMPERE UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Finland)

^b Finska Lo karforeningen Duodecim   (Finland)

^c NATIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH INSTITUTE   (Finland)

^d Duodecim Medical Publications Ltd   (Finland)

^e UNIVERSITY OF HELSINKI   (Finland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; FEMALE; FINLAND; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HUMAN; MALE; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; QUESTIONNAIRE; THEORETICAL MODEL;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; DECISION MAKING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS, CLINICAL; FEMALE; FINLAND; HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 84867036482     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14726963     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-12-349     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Car J, Black A, Anandan C, Cresswell K, Pagliari C, McKinstry B, Procter R, Majeed A, Sheikh A, The impact of eHealth on the quality & safety of health care:a systematic overview & synthesis of the literature Report for the NHS Connecting for Health Evaluation Programme. London: Imperial College London 2008
2. A review on systematic reviews of health information system studies. Lau F, Kuziemsky C, Price M, Gardner J, J Am Med Inform Assoc 2010 17 6 637 645
3. From best evidence to best practice: effective implementation of change in patients' care. Grol R, Grimshaw J, Lancet 2003 362 9391 1225 1230
4. The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J, Keesey J, Hicks J, DeCristofaro A, Kerr EA, N Engl J Med 2003 348 26 2635 2645
5. Systematic review: impact of health information technology on quality, efficiency, and costs of medical care. Chaudhry B, Wang J, Wu S, Maglione M, Mojica W, Roth E, Morton SC, Shekelle PG, Ann Intern Med 2006 144 10 742 752
6. Improving clinical practice using clinical decision support systems: a systematic review of trials to identify features critical to success. Kawamoto K, Houlihan CA, Balas EA, Lobach DF, BMJ 2005 330 7494 765
7. [Computerised decision support: the way towards advisory patient record]. Varonen H, Kaila M, Kunnamo I, Komulainen J, Mantyranta T, Duodecim 2006 122 10 1174 1181
8. Improving safety with information technology. Bates DW, Gawande AA, N Engl J Med 2003 348 25 2526 2534
9. General practitioners perceptions of the pharmaceutical decision-support tools in their prescribing software. Ahearn MD, Kerr SJ, Med J Aust 2003 179 1 34 37
10. Physicians decisions to override computerized drug alerts in primary care. Weingart SN, Toth M, Sands DZ, Aronson MD, Davis RB, Phillips RS, Arch Intern Med 2003 163 21 2625 2631
11. The use and effectiveness of electronic clinical decision support tools in the ambulatory/primary care setting: a systematic review of the literature. Bryan C, Boren SA, Inform Prim Care 2008 16 2 79 91
12. Nurses use of online clinical evidence. Gosling AS, Westbrook JI, Spencer R, J Adv Nurs 2004 47 2 201 211
13. Greenes RA, Clinical decision support: The Road Ahead Boston, MA: Elsevier 2007
14. Developing a computer delivered, theory based intervention for guideline implementation in general practice. McDermott L, Yardley L, Little P, Ashworth M, Gulliford M, BMC Fam Pract 2010 11 90
15. Factors influencing the implementation of clinical guidelines for health care professionals: a systematic meta-review. Francke AL, Smit MC, de Veer AJ, Mistiaen P, BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2008 8 38
16. A survey of factors affecting clinician acceptance of clinical decision support. Sittig DF, Krall MA, Dykstra RH, Russell A, Chin HL, BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2006 6 6
17. Practice based, longitudinal, qualitative interview study of computerised evidence based guidelines in primary care. Rousseau N, McColl E, Newton J, Grimshaw J, Eccles M, BMJ 2003 326 7384 314
18. Understanding technology adoption in clinical care: clinician adoption behavior of a point-of-care reminder system. Zheng K, Padman R, Johnson MP, Diamond HS, Int J Med Inform 2005 74 7-8 535 543
19. Identifying barriers to the effective use of clinical reminders: bootstrapping multiple methods. Patterson ES, Doebbeling BN, Fung CH, Militello L, Anders S, Asch SM, J Biomed Inform 2005 38 3 189 199
20. Human factors barriers to the effective use of ten HIV clinical reminders. Patterson ES, Nguyen AD, Halloran JP, Asch SM, J Am Med Inform Assoc 2004 11 1 50 59
21. Exploring barriers and facilitators to the use of computerized clinical reminders. Saleem JJ, Patterson ES, Militello L, Render ML, Orshansky G, Asch SM, J Am Med Inform Assoc 2005 12 4 438 447
22. Barriers to the adoption of computerised decision support systems in general practice consultations: a qualitative study of GPs perspectives. Short D, Frischer M, Bashford J, Int J Med Inform 2004 73 4 357 362
23. Variation in implementation and use of computerized clinical reminders in an integrated healthcare system. Fung CH, Woods JN, Asch SM, Glassman P, Doebbeling BN, Am J Manag Care 2004 10 11 Pt 2 878 885
24. eHealth of Finland: check point 2006. Hamalainen P, Reponen J, Winblad I, Stakes reports Helsinki, Finland: Valopaino Oy 2007
25. Implementing clinical decision support for primary care professionals-the process. Kortteisto T, Komulainen J, Kunnamo I, Mäkelä M, Kaila M, Finnish Journal of eHealth and eWelfare 2012 4 3 153 164
26. An evaluation of the Veterans Health Administrations clinical reminders system: a national survey of generalists. Fung CH, Tsai JS, Lulejian A, Glassman P, Patterson E, Doebbeling BN, Asch SM, J Gen Intern Med 2008 23 4 392 398
27. EBMeDS context-sensitive guidance at the point of care http://www.ebmeds.org/ebmeds/ebmeds-home.asp.
28. Steward DW, Shamdasani PN, Focus groups: Theory and Practice London: Sage Publications 1990 Volume 20
29. Qualitative research: introducing focus groups. Kitzinger J, BMJ 1995 311 7000 299 302
30. Barbour RS, Doing Focus Groups London: Sage 2007
31. Collecting and analysing qualitative data: issues raised by the focus group. Sim J, J Adv Nurs 1998 28 2 345 352
32. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. Davis FD, MIS Q 1989 13 3 319 340
33. Clinical information systems: understanding and preventing their premature demise. Lapointe L, Rivard S, Healthc Q 2005 8 2 92 100
34. The qualitative content analysis process. Elo S, Kyngas H, J Adv Nurs 2008 62 1 107 115
35. Determinants of innovation within health care organizations: literature review and Delphi study. Fleuren M, Wiefferink K, Paulussen T, Int J Qual Health Care 2004 16 2 107 123
36. Silverman D, Doing Qualitative Research: A Practical Handbook London: Sage Publications 2 2005
37. Physicians and nurses focus on different aspects of guidelines when deciding whether to adopt them: an application of conjoint analysis. Goossens A, Bossuyt PM, de Haan RJ, Med Decis Making 2008 28 1 138 145
38. Definition, structure, content, use and impacts of electronic health records: a review of the research literature. Hayrinen K, Saranto K, Nykanen P, Int J Med Inform 2008 77 5 291 304
39. Clinical information behavior of rehabilitation therapists: a review of the research on occupational therapists, physical therapists, and speech-language pathologists. Kloda LA, Bartlett JC, J Med Libr Assoc 2009 97 3 194 202
40. Organisational influences on nurses use of clinical decision support systems. Randell R, Dowding D, Int J Med Inform 2010 79 6 412 421
41. Perceived barriers to guideline adherence: A survey among general practitioners. Lugtenberg M, Burgers JS, Besters CF, Han D, Westert GP, BMC Fam Pract 2011 12 98
42. Determinants of success of inpatient clinical information systems: a literature review. Van Der Meijden MJ, Tange HJ, Troost J, Hasman A, J Am Med Inform Assoc 2003 10 3 235 243
43. Why dont physicians adhere to guideline recommendations in practice? An analysis of barriers among Dutch general practitioners. Lugtenberg M, Zegers-van Schaick JM, Westert GP, Burgers JS, Implement Sci 2009 4 54
44. Usability evaluation of a clinical decision support tool for osteoporosis disease management. Kastner M, Lottridge D, Marquez C, Newton D, Straus SE, Implement Sci 2010 5 96
45. The potential of information technology for nurses in primary care: a review of issues and trends. Alpay L, Needham G, Murray P, Prim Health Care Res Dev 2000 1 5 13
46. Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. Malterud K, Lancet 2001 358 9280 483 488
47. Healthcare professionals intentions to use clinical guidelines: a survey using the theory of planned behaviour. Kortteisto T, Kaila M, Komulainen J, Mantyranta T, Rissanen P, Implement Sci 2010 5 51
48. What may help or hinder the implementation of computerized decision support systems (CDSSs): a focus group study with physicians. Varonen H, Kortteisto T, Kaila M, Fam Pract 2008 25 3 162 167
49. Information quality as data content and coherence in a regional information system for diabetes care. Korhonen M, Miettinen M, IADIS: 2008 2008
50. Information quality in healthcare: coherence of data compared between organizations electronic patient records. Miettinen M, Korhonen M, 21st IEEE International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems: 2008 Jyväskylä, Finland: IEEE Computer Society 2008
51. Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. Garg AX, Adhikari NK, McDonald H, Rosas-Arellano MP, Devereaux PJ, Beyene J, Sam J, Haynes RB, JAMA 2005 293 10 1223 1238
52. An adaptation of the theory of interpersonal behaviour to the study of telemedicine adoption by physicians. Gagnon MP, Godin G, Gagne C, Fortin JP, Lamothe L, Reinharz D, Cloutier A, Int J Med Inform 2003 71 2-3 103 115
53. Information technology acceptance in the Finnish social and healthcare sector. Raitoharju R, Exploring the effects of cultural factors Turku, Finland: School of Economics A-4 2007