A scoping review, novel taxonomy and catalogue of implementation frameworks for clinical decision support systems.

Autor: Wohlgemut JM; Centre for Trauma Sciences, Blizard Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.; Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK., Pisirir E; School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS, UK., Stoner RS; Centre for Trauma Sciences, Blizard Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.; Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK., Perkins ZB; Centre for Trauma Sciences, Blizard Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.; Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK., Marsh W; School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS, UK., Tai NRM; Centre for Trauma Sciences, Blizard Institute, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.; Royal London Hospital, Barts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.; Royal Centre for Defence Medicine, Birmingham, UK., Kyrimi E; School of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS, UK. e.kyrimi@qmul.ac.uk.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: BMC medical informatics and decision making [BMC Med Inform Decis Mak] 2024 Nov 01; Vol. 24 (1), pp. 323. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Nov 01.
DOI: 10.1186/s12911-024-02739-1
Abstrakt: Background: The primary aim of this scoping review was to synthesise key domains and sub-domains described in existing clinical decision support systems (CDSS) implementation frameworks into a novel taxonomy and demonstrate most-studied and least-studied areas. Secondary objectives were to evaluate the frequency and manner of use of each framework, and catalogue frameworks by implementation stage.
Methods: A scoping review of Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, PsychInfo and Embase was conducted on 12/01/2022, limited to English language, including 2000-2021. Each framework was categorised as addressing one or multiple stages of implementation: design and development, evaluation, acceptance and integration, and adoption and maintenance. Key parts of each framework were grouped into domains and sub-domains.
Results: Of 3550 titles identified, 58 papers were included. The most-studied implementation stage was acceptance and integration, while the least-studied was design and development. The three main framework uses were: for evaluating adoption, for understanding attitudes toward implementation, and for framework validation. The most frequently used framework was the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.
Conclusions: Many frameworks have been published to overcome barriers to CDSS implementation and offer guidance towards successful adoption. However, for co-developers, choosing relevant frameworks may be a challenge. A taxonomy of domains addressed by CDSS implementation frameworks is provided, as well as a description of their use, and a catalogue of frameworks listed by the implementation stages they address. Future work should ensure best practices for CDSS design are adequately described, and existing frameworks are well-validated. An emphasis on collaboration between clinician and non-clinician affected parties may help advance the field.
(© 2024. The Author(s).)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:
Nepřihlášeným uživatelům se plný text nezobrazuje