↓ Skip to main content

Clinician preferences for computerised clinical decision support for medications in primary care: a focus group study

Overview of attention for article published in BMJ Health & Care Informatics, April 2019
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Clinician preferences for computerised clinical decision support for medications in primary care: a focus group study
Published in
BMJ Health & Care Informatics, April 2019
DOI 10.1136/bmjhci-2019-000015
Pubmed ID
Authors

Katy E Trinkley, Weston W Blakeslee, Daniel D Matlock, David P Kao, Amanda G Van Matre, Robert Harrison, Cynthia L Larson, Nic Kostman, Jennifer A Nelson, Chen-Tan Lin, Daniel C Malone

Abstract

To improve user-centred design efforts and efficiency; there is a need to disseminate information on modern day clinician preferences for technologies such as computerised clinical decision support (CDS). To describe clinician perceptions regarding beneficial features of CDS for chronic medications in primary care. This study included focus groups and clinicians individually describing their ideal CDS. Three focus groups were conducted including prescribing clinicians from a variety of disciplines. Outcome measures included identification of favourable features and unintended consequences of CDS for chronic medication management in primary care. We transcribed recordings, performed thematic qualitative analysis and generated counts when possible. There were 21 participants who identified four categories of beneficial CDS features during the group discussion: non-interruptive alerts, clinically relevant and customisable support, presentation of pertinent clinical information and optimises workflow. Non-interruptive alerts were broadly defined as passive alerts that a user chooses to review, whereas interruptive were active or disruptive alerts that interrupted workflow and one is forced to review before completing a task. The CDS features identified in the individual descriptions were consistent with the focus group discussion, with the exception of non-interruptive alerts. In the individual descriptions, 12 clinicians preferred interruptive CDS compared with seven clinicians describing non-interruptive CDS. Clinicians identified CDS for chronic medications beneficial when they are clinically relevant and customisable, present pertinent clinical information (eg, labs, vitals) and improve their workflow. Although clinicians preferred passive, non-interruptive alerts, most acknowledged that these may not be widely seen and may be less effective. These features align with literature describing best practices in CDS design and emphasise those features clinicians prioritise, which should be considered when designing CDS for medication management in primary care. These findings highlight the disparity between the current state of CDS design and clinician-stated design features associated with beneficial CDS.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 65 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 14%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 9 14%
Unknown 19 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 15%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 11%
Computer Science 4 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 23 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 01 November 2021.
All research outputs
#21,111,868
of 25,932,719 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Health & Care Informatics
#445
of 505 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#281,876
of 366,282 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Health & Care Informatics
#13
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,932,719 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 505 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% 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 366,282 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.