Applying the Non-Adoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability Framework Across Implementation Stages to Identify Key Strategies to Facilitate Clinical Decision Support System Integration Within a Large Metropolitan Health Service: Interview and Focus Group Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Computerized clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) enhance patient care through real-time, evidence-based guidance for health care professionals. Despite this, the effective implementation of these systems for health services presents multifaceted challenges, leading to inappropriate use and abandonment over the course of time. Using the Non-Adoption, Abandonment, Scale-Up, Spread, and Sustainability (NASSS) framework, this qualitative study examined CDSS adoption in a metropolitan health service, identifying determinants across implementation stages to optimize CDSS integration into health care practice. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify the theory-informed (NASSS) determinants, which included multiple CDSS interventions across a 2-year period, both at the health-service level and at the individual hospital setting, that either facilitate or hinder the application of CDSSs within a metropolitan health service. In addition, this study aimed to map these determinants onto specific stages of the implementation process, thereby developing a system-level understanding of CDSS application across implementation stages. METHODS: Participants involved in various stages of the implementation process were recruited (N=30). Participants took part in interviews and focus groups. We used a hybrid inductive-deductive qualitative content analysis and a framework mapping approach to categorize findings into barriers, enablers, or neutral determinants aligned to NASSS framework domains. These determinants were also mapped to implementation stages using the Active Implementation Framework stages approach. RESULTS: Participants comprised clinical adopters (14/30, 47%), organizational champions (5/30, 16%), and those with roles in organizational clinical informatics (5/30, 16%). Most determinants were mapped to the organization level, technology, and adopter subdomains. However, the study findings also demonstrated a relative lack of long-term implementation planning. Consequently, determinants were not uniformly distributed across the stages of implementation, with 61.1% (77/126) identified in the exploration stage, 30.9% (39/126) in the full implementation stage, and 4.7% (6/126) in the installation stages. Stakeholders engaged in more preimplementation and full-scale implementation activities, with fewer cycles of monitoring and iteration activities identified. CONCLUSIONS: These findings addressed a substantial knowledge gap in the literature using systems thinking principles to identify the interdependent dynamics of CDSS implementation. A lack of sustained implementation strategies (ie, training and longer-term, adopter-level championing) weakened the sociotechnical network between developers and adopters, leading to communication barriers. More rigorous implementation planning, encompassing all 4 implementation stages, may, in a way, help in addressing the barriers identified and enhancing enablers.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,028 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».