↓ Skip to main content

Multiple perspectives on clinical decision support: a qualitative study of fifteen clinical and vendor organizations

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 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
Multiple perspectives on clinical decision support: a qualitative study of fifteen clinical and vendor organizations
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12911-015-0156-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joan S Ash, Dean F Sittig, Carmit K McMullen, Adam Wright, Arwen Bunce, Vishnu Mohan, Deborah J Cohen, Blackford Middleton

Abstract

Computerized clinical decision support (CDS) can help hospitals to improve healthcare. However, CDS can be problematic. The purpose of this study was to discover how the views of clinical stakeholders, CDS content vendors, and EHR vendors are alike or different with respect to challenges in the development, management, and use of CDS. We conducted ethnographic fieldwork using a Rapid Assessment Process within ten clinical and five health information technology (HIT) vendor organizations. Using an inductive analytical approach, we generated themes from the clinical, content vendor, and electronic health record vendor perspectives and compared them. The groups share views on the importance of appropriate manpower, careful knowledge management, CDS that fits user workflow, the need for communication among the groups, and for mutual strategizing about the future of CDS. However, views of usability, training, metrics, interoperability, product use, and legal issues differed. Recommendations for improvement include increased collaboration to address legal, manpower, and CDS sharing issues. The three groups share thinking about many aspects of CDS, but views differ in a number of important respects as well. Until these three groups can reach a mutual understanding of the views of the other stakeholders, and work together, CDS will not reach its potential.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Unknown 65 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 18%
Researcher 11 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 15%
Other 5 7%
Professor 4 6%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 12 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 33%
Social Sciences 8 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 9%
Computer Science 4 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 6%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 10 15%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 2018.
All research outputs
#2,424,524
of 23,523,017 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#161
of 2,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,159
of 266,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#6
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,523,017 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,026 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 266,484 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.