Is evidence of effectiveness a driver for clinical decision support selection? A qualitative descriptive study of senior hospital staff

Author:

Baysari Melissa T1ORCID,Van Dort Bethany A1ORCID,Stanceski Kristian1,Hargreaves Andrew2,Zheng Wu Yi13,Moran Maria1,Day Richard45,Li Ling6ORCID,Westbrook Johanna6ORCID,Hilmer Sarah78

Affiliation:

1. Biomedical Informatics and Digital Health, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney , NSW 2006, Australia

2. Integrated Care, eHealth NSW , Level 15, Zenith Tower B, 821 Pacific Highway, Chatswood, NSW 2067, Australia

3. Directorate of Strategy and Operations, Black Dog Institute , Hospital Road, Randwick, NSW 2031, Australia

4. Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, St Vincent’s Hospital , Darlinghurst, NSW 2010, Australia

5. The Clinical School, St Vincent’s Clinical School, UNSW Medicine , UNSW Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia

6. Centre for Health Systems and Safety Research, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University , Level 6, 75 Talavera Road NSW 2109, Australia

7. Kolling Institute of Medical Research, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney and Royal North Shore Hospital , NSW 2065, Australia

8. Departments of Clinical Pharmacology and Aged Care, Royal North Shore Hospital , NSW 2065, Australia

Abstract

AbstractLimited research has focused on understanding if and how evidence of health information technology (HIT) effectiveness drives the selection and implementation of technologies in practice. This study aimed to explore the views of senior hospital staff on the role evidence plays in the selection and implementation of HIT, with a particular focus on clinical decision support (CDS) alerts in electronic medication management systems. A qualitative descriptive design was used. Twenty senior hospital staff from six Australian hospitals in New South Wales and Queensland took part in a semistructured interview. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed, and a general inductive content analysis approach was used to identify themes. Participants acknowledged the importance of an evidence base, but reported that selection of CDS alerts, and HIT more broadly, was rarely underpinned by evidence that technologies improve patient care. Instead, investments in technologies were guided by the expectation that benefits will be achieved, bolstered by vendor assurances, and a perception that implementation of HIT is unavoidable. Postponing implementation of a technology until an evidence base is available was not always feasible. Although some technologies were seen as not requiring an evidence base, stakeholders viewed evidence as extremely valuable for informing decisions about selection of CDS alerts. In the absence of evidence, evaluation or monitoring of technologies postimplementation is critical, particularly to identify new errors or risks associated with HIT implementation and use. Increased transparency from vendors, with technology evaluation outcomes made directly available to healthcare organizations, may result in less reliance on logic, intuition, and vendor assertions and more evidence-based selection of HIT.

Funder

National Health and Medical Research Council

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,Health Policy,General Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3