A system uptake analysis and GUIDES checklist evaluation of the Electronic Asthma Management System: A point-of-care computerized clinical decision support system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Computerized clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) promise improvements in care quality; however, uptake is often suboptimal. We sought to characterize system use, its predictors, and user feedback for the Electronic Asthma Management System (eAMS)-an electronic medical record system-integrated, point-of-care CCDSS for asthma-and applied the GUIDES checklist as a framework to identify areas for improvement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The eAMS was tested in a 1-year prospective cohort study across 3 Ontario primary care sites. We recorded system usage by clinicians and patient characteristics through system logs and chart reviews. We created multivariable models to identify predictors of (1) CCDSS opening and (2) creation of a self-management asthma action plan (AAP) (final CCDSS step). Electronic questionnaires captured user feedback. RESULTS: Over 1 year, 490 asthma patients saw 121 clinicians. The CCDSS was opened in 205 of 1033 (19.8%) visits and an AAP created in 121 of 1033 (11.7%) visits. Multivariable predictors of opening the CCDSS and producing an AAP included clinic site, having physician-diagnosed asthma, and presenting with an asthma- or respiratory-related complaint. The system usability scale score was 66.3 ± 16.5 (maximum 100). Reported usage barriers included time and system accessibility. DISCUSSION: The eAMS was used in a minority of asthma patient visits. Varying workflows and cultures across clinics, physician beliefs regarding asthma diagnosis, and relevance of the clinical complaint influenced uptake. CONCLUSIONS: Considering our findings in the context of the GUIDES checklist helped to identify improvements to drive uptake and provides lessons relevant to CCDSS design across diseases.
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 | 0.060 | 0.136 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".