A Framework for Usable and Effective Clinical Decision Support: Experience from the iCPR Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The promise of Clinical Decision Support (CDS) has always been to transform patient care and improve patient outcomes through the delivery of timely and appropriate recommendations that are patient specific and, more often than not, are appropriately actionable. However, the users of CDS-providers-are frequently bombarded with inappropriate and inapplicable CDS that often are not informational, not integrated into the workflow, not patient specific, and that may present out of date and irrelevant recommendations. METHODS: The integrated clinical prediction rule (iCPR) project was a randomized clinical trial (RCT) conducted to determine if a novel form of CDS, i.e., clinical prediction rules (CPRs), could be efficiently integrated into workflow and result in changes in outcomes (e.g., antibiotic ordering) when embedded within a commercial electronic health record (EHR). We use the lessons learned from the iCPR project to illustrate a framework for constructing usable, useful, and effective actionable CDS while employing off-the-shelf functionality in a production system. Innovations that make up the framework combine the following: (1) active and actionable decision support, (2) multiple rounds of usability testing with iterative development for user acceptance, (3) numerous context sensitive triggers, (4) dedicated training and support for users of the CDS tool for user adoption, and (5) support from clinical and administrative leadership. We define "context sensitive triggers" as being workflow events (i.e., context) that result in a CDS intervention. DISCUSSION: Success of the framework can be measured by CDS adoption (i.e., intervention is being used), acceptance (compliance with recommendations), and clinical outcomes (where appropriate). This framework may have broader implications for the deployment of Health Information Technology (HIT). RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: iCPR was well adopted(57.4% of users) and accepted (42.7% of users). Usability testing identified and fixed many issues before the iCPR RCT. The level of leadership support and clinical guidance for iCPR was key in establishing a culture of acceptance for both the tool and its recommendations contributing to adoption and acceptance. The dedicated training and support lead to the majority of the residents reporting a high level of comfort with both iCPR tools strep pharyngitis (64.4 percent) and pneumonia (62.7 percent) as well as a high likelihood of using the tools in the future. A surprising framework addition resulted from usability testing: context sensitive triggers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.478 | 0.518 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".