Development of a Human Factors–Based Guideline to Support the Design, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement of Clinical Decision Support

Selvana Awad BPharm, MHSM , Thomas Loveday MPsych, PhD , Richard Lau BPsychSc , Melissa T. Baysari BPsych, PhD
{"title":"Development of a Human Factors–Based Guideline to Support the Design, Evaluation, and Continuous Improvement of Clinical Decision Support","authors":"Selvana Awad BPharm, MHSM ,&nbsp;Thomas Loveday MPsych, PhD ,&nbsp;Richard Lau BPsychSc ,&nbsp;Melissa T. Baysari BPsych, PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.mcpdig.2024.11.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To develop a vendor-agnostic, human factors (HF)-based guideline to guide the design, evaluation, and continuous improvement of clinical decision support (CDS).</div></div><div><h3>Participants and Methods</h3><div>The study used a 2-phased iterative approach between June 2022 and June 2024. Phase 1 involved a search for relevant industry standards and literature and consultation with multidisciplinary subject matter experts. Phase 2 involved a workshop with 30 health care and academic stakeholders to evaluate face validity and perceived usefulness of the initial section of the guideline. Participants were asked if the guideline met their expectations, to report on usefulness and ease of use and to suggest areas for improvement.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Phase 1 resulted in a compilation of accessible, best practice, and context-appropriate HF guidance for CDS design and optimization. The guideline supports users in determining whether use of CDS is appropriate, and if yes, CDS options and design guidance. During phase 2, the guideline addressed 15 of participants’ 19 expectations for a CDS guideline. Participants said the guideline was helpful, comprehensive, easy to use, and provided step-by-step guidance, boundaries, and transparency around CDS decisions. Participants recommended strengthening guidance around the need to understand system capabilities and the technical burden or complexity of CDS, and further guidance on how to approach CDS optimization using the guideline.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>The 2-phased iterative development and feedback process resulted in the development of an HF-informed guideline to provide consolidated, accessible, and current best practice guidance on the appropriateness of CDS and CDS options, as well as designing, evaluating, and continuously improving CDS. Future work will evaluate the impact and implementation of the guideline in real-world settings.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":74127,"journal":{"name":"Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Digital health","volume":"3 1","pages":"Article 100182"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Digital health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949761224001123","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To develop a vendor-agnostic, human factors (HF)-based guideline to guide the design, evaluation, and continuous improvement of clinical decision support (CDS).

Participants and Methods

The study used a 2-phased iterative approach between June 2022 and June 2024. Phase 1 involved a search for relevant industry standards and literature and consultation with multidisciplinary subject matter experts. Phase 2 involved a workshop with 30 health care and academic stakeholders to evaluate face validity and perceived usefulness of the initial section of the guideline. Participants were asked if the guideline met their expectations, to report on usefulness and ease of use and to suggest areas for improvement.

Results

Phase 1 resulted in a compilation of accessible, best practice, and context-appropriate HF guidance for CDS design and optimization. The guideline supports users in determining whether use of CDS is appropriate, and if yes, CDS options and design guidance. During phase 2, the guideline addressed 15 of participants’ 19 expectations for a CDS guideline. Participants said the guideline was helpful, comprehensive, easy to use, and provided step-by-step guidance, boundaries, and transparency around CDS decisions. Participants recommended strengthening guidance around the need to understand system capabilities and the technical burden or complexity of CDS, and further guidance on how to approach CDS optimization using the guideline.

Conclusion

The 2-phased iterative development and feedback process resulted in the development of an HF-informed guideline to provide consolidated, accessible, and current best practice guidance on the appropriateness of CDS and CDS options, as well as designing, evaluating, and continuously improving CDS. Future work will evaluate the impact and implementation of the guideline in real-world settings.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Digital health
Mayo Clinic Proceedings. Digital health Medicine and Dentistry (General), Health Informatics, Public Health and Health Policy
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
47 days
期刊最新文献
Predicting Inpatient Admissions From Emergency Department Triage Using Machine Learning: A Systematic Review Policing the Boundary Between Responsible and Irresponsible Placing on the Market of Large Language Model Health Applications Leveraging Comprehensive Echo Data to Power Artificial Intelligence Models for Handheld Cardiac Ultrasound Impact of Ambient Artificial Intelligence Documentation on Cognitive Load Assessing Equitable Development and Implementation of Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Patient Engagement Technologies: A Sociotechnical Systems Approach
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1