Physicians’ Use of Electronic Health Record Data Elements and Decision Support Tools in Heart Failure Management: User-Centered Cross-Sectional Survey Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The management of heart failure (HF) requires complex, data-driven decision-making. Although electronic health record (EHR) systems and clinical decision support (CDS) tools can streamline access to essential clinical information, it remains unclear which EHR elements and tools cardiologists and general medicine physicians prioritize when caring for patients with HF. Objective: This study aims to identify these elements and tools to improve the user interface design of future EHR applications. Methods: This study used a user-centered design research approach to understand physician workflows and decision-making needs in HF care. A cross-sectional online survey was administered to 302 physicians, comprising 150 cardiologists (including 15 HF specialists) and 152 general medicine physicians. Respondents reported their use of EHR variables (eg, medication lists, laboratory results, diagnostic tests, problem lists, clinical notes) for decision-making in HF care, as well as their time spent in the EHR before, during, and after patient visits along with their use of predictive models and patient-reported outcome questionnaire. Descriptive analyses, χ2 tests, and t tests were conducted to compare groups, with statistical significance set at P<.05. Results: A total of 302 health care providers participated in the survey, nearly evenly split between cardiologists (49.7%, 150/302) and general medicine physicians (50.3%, 152/302). Both groups consistently relied on medication lists, vital signs, laboratory results, diagnostic tests, problem lists, and clinical notes for HF decision-making. Cardiologists placed greater emphasis on diagnostic tests for inpatient HF care (mean [SD] overall frequency, 4.66 [0.50] vs 4.44 [0.64]; P=.012) and outpatient HF care (mean [SD] overall frequency, 4.67 [0.55] vs 4.35 [0.71], P<.001). In contrast, general medicine physicians relied more on problem lists for inpatient HF care (mean [SD] overall frequency, 4.63 [0.58] vs 4.43 [0.72], P=.034), with no significant difference in the outpatient setting (P>.05). Both groups underutilized standardized questionnaires and predictive models, with only 20.1% (29/144) of cardiologists and 4.5% (6/133) of general medicine physicians using standardized questionnaires (P<.001). Conclusions: Both physician groups depend on medication lists, laboratory results, diagnostic tests, and problem lists. Cardiologists prioritize diagnostic tests, whereas general medicine physicians more often use problem lists. Low use of questionnaires and predictive models highlights the need for better integration of these tools. Future EHR design interface should tailor functionalities to accommodate these differing priorities and optimize HF care.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".