↓ Skip to main content

Feasibility and impact of a computerised clinical decision support system on investigation and initial management of new onset chest pain: a mixed methods study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 Mendeley
Title
Feasibility and impact of a computerised clinical decision support system on investigation and initial management of new onset chest pain: a mixed methods study
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12911-015-0189-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachel Johnson, Maggie Evans, Helen Cramer, Kristina Bennert, Richard Morris, Sandra Eldridge, Katy Juttner, Mohammed J Zaman, Harry Hemingway, Spiros Denaxas, Adam Timmis, Gene Feder

Abstract

Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) can modify clinician behaviour, yet the factors influencing their effect remain poorly understood. This study assesses the feasibility and acceptability of a CDSS supporting diagnostic and treatment decisions for patients with suspected stable angina. Intervention The Optimising Management of Angina (OMA) programme includes a CDSS guiding investigation and medication decisions for clinicians managing patients with new onset stable angina, based on English national guidelines, introduced through an educational intervention. Design and participants A mixed methods study i. A study of outcomes among patients presenting with suspected angina in three chest pain clinics in England before and after introduction of the OMA programme. ii. Observations of clinic processes, interviews and a focus group with health professionals at two chest pain clinics after delivery of the OMA programme. Medication and cardiovascular imaging investigations undertaken within six months of presentation, and concordance of these with the recommendations of the CDSS. Thematic analysis of qualitative data to understand how the CDSS was used. Data were analysed for 285 patients attending chest pain clinics: 106 before and 179 after delivery of the OMA programme. 40 consultations were observed, 5 clinicians interviewed, and a focus group held after the intervention. The proportion of patients appropriate for diagnostic investigation who received one was 50 % (95 CI 34-66 %) of those before OMA and 59 % (95 CI 48-70 %) of those after OMA. Despite high use of the CDSS (84 % of consultations), observations and interviews revealed difficulty with data entry into the CDSS, and structural and practical barriers to its use. In the majority of cases the CDSS was not used to guide real-time decision making, only being consulted after the patient had left the room. The OMA CDSS for the management of chest pain is not feasible in its current form. The CDSS was not used to support decisions about the care of individual patients. A range of barriers to the use of the CDSS were identified, some are easily removed, such as insufficient capture of cardiovascular risk, while others are more deeply embedded in current practice, such as unavailability of some investigations or no prescribing privileges for nurses.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
Unknown 69 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 17%
Researcher 10 14%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Student > Bachelor 5 7%
Professor 4 6%
Other 16 22%
Unknown 20 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 13%
Computer Science 4 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Psychology 3 4%
Other 14 19%
Unknown 22 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 December 2017.
All research outputs
#12,934,037
of 22,826,360 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#877
of 1,988 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#118,680
of 267,563 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#16
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,826,360 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,988 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,563 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.