Clinical decision support (CDS) tools-with easily understood and actionable information, at the point of care-are needed to help registered nurses (RNs) make evidence-based decisions. Not clear are the optimal formats of CDS tools. Thorough, preclinical testing is desirable to avoid costly errors associated with premature implementation in electronic health records.
The aims of this study were to determine feasibility of the protocol designed to compare multiple CDS formats and evaluate effects of numeracy and graph literacy on RN adoption of best practices and care planning time in a simulated environment.
In this pilot study, 60 RNs were randomly assigned to one of four CDS conditions (control, text, text + graph, and text + table) and asked to adjust the plan of care for two patient scenarios over three shifts. Fourteen best practices were identified for the two patients and sent as suggestions with evidence to the three CDS groups. Best practice adoption rates, care planning time, and their relationship to the RN's numeracy and graph literacy scores were assessed.
CDS groups had a higher adoption rate of best practices (p < .001) across all shifts and decreased care planning time in shifts 2 (p = .01) and 3 (p = .02) compared with the control group. Higher numeracy and graph literacy were associated with shorter care planning times under text + table (p = .05) and text + graph (p = .01) conditions. No significant differences were found between the three CDS groups on adoption rate and care planning time.
This pilot study shows the feasibility of our protocol. Findings show preliminary evidence that CDS improves the efficiency and effectiveness of care planning decisions and that the optimal format may depend on individual RN characteristics. We recommend a study with sufficient power to compare different CDS formats and assess the impact of potential covariates on adoption rates and care planning time.
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 23 January 2018.
All research outputs
#21,460,316
of 34,457,357 outputs
Outputs from Nursing Research (New York)
#829
of 1,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,077
of 355,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nursing Research (New York)
#7
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,457,357 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,519 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 355,578 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.
