Decision-centered design of a clinical decision support system for acute management of pediatric congenital heart disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Children with congenital heart disease (CHD), have fragile hemodynamics and can deteriorate due to common childhood illnesses and the natural progression of their disease. During these acute periods of deterioration, these children often present to their local emergency departments (ED) where expertise in CHD is limited, and appropriate intervention is crucial to their survival. Previous studies identified that determining the appropriate intervention for CHD patients can be difficult for ED physicians, particularly since key components of effective decision making are not being met. Although key components of effective decision making for ED physicians have been identified, they have yet to be transformed into actionable guidance. We used decision centered design (DCD) to translate key components of decision making into decision requirements and associated design concepts, that we subsequently incorporated into a prototype clinical decision support system (CDSS). Methods: Using framework analysis, transcripts from Critical Decision Method interviews of CHD experts and ED physicians were inductively coded to identify key decision requirements for ED physicians that are currently not well supported, and their associated design concepts. A design workshop was held to refine the identified key decision requirements and design concepts as well as to sketch information that would satisfy the identified requirements. These were iteratively incorporated into a prototype CDSS. Results: , were identified. These requirements along with design concepts and information needs identified through the design workshop were incorporated into the CDSS prototype. Conclusion: We identified key decision requirements and associated design concepts, that informed the design of a CDSS to provide actionable guidance for ED physicians when managing CHD patients. Meeting ED physicians' decision components with a CDSS requires the translation of their key decision requirements in its design. If not, we risk creating designs that interfere with clinician performance.
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 | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".