"I worry we'll blow right by it:" Barriers to Uptake of the STRATIFY-CDS for Acute Heart Failure.

IF 2.2 2区 医学 Q4 MEDICAL INFORMATICS
Applied Clinical Informatics Pub Date : 2025-08-01 Epub Date: 2025-09-05 DOI:10.1055/a-2594-3770
Matthew A Christensen, Carrie Reale, Shilo Anders, Tim Coffman, Hala Alaw, Janos L Mathe, Dan Albert, Anna Sachs, Allison B McCoy, Dandan Liu, Alan B Storrow, Sunil Kripalani, Laurie L Novak
{"title":"\"I worry we'll blow right by it:\" Barriers to Uptake of the STRATIFY-CDS for Acute Heart Failure.","authors":"Matthew A Christensen, Carrie Reale, Shilo Anders, Tim Coffman, Hala Alaw, Janos L Mathe, Dan Albert, Anna Sachs, Allison B McCoy, Dandan Liu, Alan B Storrow, Sunil Kripalani, Laurie L Novak","doi":"10.1055/a-2594-3770","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Clinical decision support (CDS) tools in electronic health records (EHRs) often face low uptake due to limited usability, workflow integration, and other implementation issues. We recently designed and implemented the STRATIFY-CDS tool, which calculates a validated risk-prediction model and recommends disposition for emergency department (ED) patients with acute heart failure. Despite applying human-centered design and implementation science strategies, initial utilization in the first 3 months of the STRATIFY-CDS tool was just 3%.To identify usability issues and contextual barriers to uptake of STRATIFY-CDS tool among ED clinicians.We performed an exploratory qualitative and simulation study with ED clinicians at Vanderbilt University Medical Center who had used the STRATIFY-CDS tool at least once. Semi-structured interviews with interactive simulation (summative usability) were conducted via videoconference. Two authors performed thematic analysis informed by the Technology Acceptance Model.Of 13 invited ED clinicians, 10 participated (7 attending and 3 resident physicians) with 1 to 11 prior tool uses. Although the main user interface had high perceived usability, participants struggled to find the launch button. The <i>perceived utility</i> was low-to-moderate and varied based on whether the recommendation matched the participant's clinical gestalt. When there was mismatch, perceived utility was lower, and participants needed more information about the risk model and supporting evidence, which were not readily available. Despite educational implementation strategies and ED leadership approval, there was not a strong social norm to use the tool.Although the main user interface had high usability, poor visibility of the launch button coupled with low familiarity with the underlying evidence and lack of a social norm impaired uptake of the STRATIFY-CDS tool. Future work on CDS design should test novel non-interruptive launch mechanisms and evaluate training with simulation as an implementation strategy to bolster initial confidence and excitement around the CDS.</p>","PeriodicalId":48956,"journal":{"name":"Applied Clinical Informatics","volume":"16 4","pages":"1014-1023"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12413277/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Clinical Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2594-3770","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/9/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Clinical decision support (CDS) tools in electronic health records (EHRs) often face low uptake due to limited usability, workflow integration, and other implementation issues. We recently designed and implemented the STRATIFY-CDS tool, which calculates a validated risk-prediction model and recommends disposition for emergency department (ED) patients with acute heart failure. Despite applying human-centered design and implementation science strategies, initial utilization in the first 3 months of the STRATIFY-CDS tool was just 3%.To identify usability issues and contextual barriers to uptake of STRATIFY-CDS tool among ED clinicians.We performed an exploratory qualitative and simulation study with ED clinicians at Vanderbilt University Medical Center who had used the STRATIFY-CDS tool at least once. Semi-structured interviews with interactive simulation (summative usability) were conducted via videoconference. Two authors performed thematic analysis informed by the Technology Acceptance Model.Of 13 invited ED clinicians, 10 participated (7 attending and 3 resident physicians) with 1 to 11 prior tool uses. Although the main user interface had high perceived usability, participants struggled to find the launch button. The perceived utility was low-to-moderate and varied based on whether the recommendation matched the participant's clinical gestalt. When there was mismatch, perceived utility was lower, and participants needed more information about the risk model and supporting evidence, which were not readily available. Despite educational implementation strategies and ED leadership approval, there was not a strong social norm to use the tool.Although the main user interface had high usability, poor visibility of the launch button coupled with low familiarity with the underlying evidence and lack of a social norm impaired uptake of the STRATIFY-CDS tool. Future work on CDS design should test novel non-interruptive launch mechanisms and evaluate training with simulation as an implementation strategy to bolster initial confidence and excitement around the CDS.

“我担心我们会被它吹走:”急性心力衰竭患者使用STRATIFY-CDS的障碍。
由于可用性有限、工作流程集成和其他实施问题,电子健康记录(EHRs)中的临床决策支持(CDS)工具通常面临较低的使用率。我们最近设计并实施了STRATIFY-CDS工具,该工具计算了一个经过验证的风险预测模型,并为急诊科(ED)急性心力衰竭患者推荐处置方法。尽管采用了以人为本的设计和实施科学策略,STRATIFY-CDS工具在前3个月的初始利用率仅为3%。确定在急诊科临床医生中使用STRATIFY-CDS工具的可用性问题和背景障碍。我们对范德比尔特大学医学中心至少使用过一次STRATIFY-CDS工具的急诊科临床医生进行了探索性定性和模拟研究。通过视频会议进行交互式模拟(总结性可用性)的半结构化访谈。两位作者根据技术接受模型进行了专题分析。在13名受邀的急诊科临床医生中,有10名参与(7名主治医生和3名住院医生)之前使用过1至11种工具。虽然主用户界面的可用性很高,但参与者很难找到启动按钮。感知效用为低到中等,并根据推荐是否符合参与者的临床完形而变化。当存在不匹配时,感知效用较低,参与者需要更多关于风险模型和支持证据的信息,而这些信息并不容易获得。尽管有教育实施策略和教育领导的批准,但没有一个强有力的社会规范来使用这个工具。虽然主用户界面具有很高的可用性,但启动按钮的可视性差,加上对潜在证据的不熟悉以及缺乏社会规范,损害了对STRATIFY-CDS工具的吸收。未来的CDS设计工作应该测试新的非间断启动机制,并通过模拟评估训练作为实施策略,以增强对CDS的初始信心和兴奋。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Applied Clinical Informatics
Applied Clinical Informatics MEDICAL INFORMATICS-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
24.10%
发文量
132
期刊介绍: ACI is the third Schattauer journal dealing with biomedical and health informatics. It perfectly complements our other journals Öffnet internen Link im aktuellen FensterMethods of Information in Medicine and the Öffnet internen Link im aktuellen FensterYearbook of Medical Informatics. The Yearbook of Medical Informatics being the “Milestone” or state-of-the-art journal and Methods of Information in Medicine being the “Science and Research” journal of IMIA, ACI intends to be the “Practical” journal of IMIA.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信