Academic Detailing as a Health Information Technology Implementation Method: Supporting the Design and Implementation of an Emergency Department–Based Clinical Decision Support Tool to Prevent Future Falls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical decision support (CDS) tools that incorporate machine learning-derived content have the potential to transform clinical care by augmenting clinicians' expertise. To realize this potential, such tools must be designed to fit the dynamic work systems of the clinicians who use them. We propose the use of academic detailing-personal visits to clinicians by an expert in a specific health IT tool-as a method for both ensuring the correct understanding of that tool and its evidence base and identifying factors influencing the tool's implementation. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess academic detailing as a method for simultaneously ensuring the correct understanding of an emergency department-based CDS tool to prevent future falls and identifying factors impacting clinicians' use of the tool through an analysis of the resultant qualitative data. METHODS: Previously, our team designed a CDS tool to identify patients aged 65 years and older who are at the highest risk of future falls and prompt an interruptive alert to clinicians, suggesting the patient be referred to a mobility and falls clinic for an evidence-based preventative intervention. We conducted 10-minute academic detailing interviews (n=16) with resident emergency medicine physicians and advanced practice providers who had encountered our CDS tool in practice. We conducted an inductive, team-based content analysis to identify factors that influenced clinicians' use of the CDS tool. RESULTS: The following categories of factors that impacted clinicians' use of the CDS were identified: (1) aspects of the CDS tool's design (2) clinicians' understanding (or misunderstanding) of the CDS or referral process, (3) the busy nature of the emergency department environment, (4) clinicians' perceptions of the patient and their associated fall risk, and (5) the opacity of the referral process. Additionally, clinician education was done to address any misconceptions about the CDS tool or referral process, for example, demonstrating how simple it is to place a referral via the CDS and clarifying which clinic the referral goes to. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates the use of academic detailing for supporting the implementation of health information technologies, allowing us to identify factors that impacted clinicians' use of the CDS while concurrently educating clinicians to ensure the correct understanding of the CDS tool and intervention. Thus, academic detailing can inform both real-time adjustments of a tool's implementation, for example, refinement of the language used to introduce the tool, and larger scale redesign of the CDS tool to better fit the dynamic work environment of clinicians.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".