Table 3 Examples of review findings relating to technological factors
Author | Professional type | Examples |
|---|---|---|
CDSS fit into clinical workflow | ||
[12] | Physicians | Physicians note that CDSS fit into the clinical workflow is a condition for using CDSSs, otherwise the CDSS is perceived as workflow disruption. |
[34] | Nursing professionals | If a CDSS provides recommendation that is discrepant with what user thinks or does not appear to consider patient context, it prompts threat to thinking: “Don’t let a tool overtake critical thinking”. |
Intuitive navigation, customization flexibility, applicability | ||
[102] | Physicians | A CDSS has to be intuitive and its information must be short and clear. |
[127] | Physicians | Physicians welcome possibility to customize CDSS recommendation and to adjust personal preferences: “I want to be able to set the threshold myself”. |
CDSS’s technical quality and scientific evidence | ||
[77] | Junior and senior physicians | Senior physicians demand regularly updated evidence-based CDSS whereas junior physicians prefer quick answers, trust the CDSS and do not necessarily read the source. |
[127] | Physicians and nursing professionals | Irrelevant alerts for different user groups and for individual users, with varying needs over time: “It shouldn’t be necessary to override so many alerts; only the sections that apply to us [nurses] should be highlighted”; “… You don’t want to receive that alert over and over again”. |