Skip to content
naulon
Get started

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 19, 2026.

What hinders the uptake of computerized decision support systems in hospitals? A qualitative study and framework for implementation

Elisa G. Liberati, Francesca Ruggiero, Laura Galuppo and 9 more

Implementation Science · 2017

doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0644-2

Abstract

Background. Advanced Computerized Decision Support Systems (CDSSs) assist clinicians in their decision-making process, generating recommendations based on up-to-date scientific evidence. Although this technology has the potential to improve the quality of patient care, its mere provision does not guarantee uptake: even where CDSSs are available, clinicians often fail to adopt their recommendations. This study examines the barriers and facilitators to the uptake of an evidence-based CDSS as perceived by diverse health professionals in hospitals at different stages of CDSS adoption.

Methods. Qualitative study conducted as part of a series of randomized controlled trials of CDSSs. The sample includes two hospitals using a CDSS and two hospitals that aim to adopt a CDSS in the future. We interviewed physicians, nurses, information technology staff, and members of the boards of directors (n = 30). We used a constant comparative approach to develop a framework for guiding implementation.

Results. We identified six clusters of experiences of, and attitudes towards CDSSs, which we label as “positions.” The six positions represent a gradient of acquisition of control over CDSSs (from low to high) and are characterized by different types of barriers to CDSS uptake. The most severe barriers (prevalent in the first positions) include clinicians’ perception that the CDSSs may reduce their professional autonomy or may be used against them in the event of medical-legal controversies. Moving towards the last positions, these barriers are substituted by technical and usability problems related to the technology interface. When all barriers are overcome, CDSSs are perceived as a working tool at the service of its users, integrating clinicians’ reasoning and fostering organizational learning.

Conclusions. Barriers and facilitators to the use of CDSSs are dynamic and may exist prior to their introduction in clinical contexts; providing a static list of obstacles and facilitators, irrespective of the specific implementation phase and context, may not be sufficient or useful to facilitate uptake. Factors such as clinicians’ attitudes towards scientific evidences and guidelines, the quality of inter-disciplinary relationships, and an organizational ethos of transparency and accountability need to be considered when exploring the readiness of a hospital to adopt CDSSs.

Electronic supplementary material. The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-017-0644-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

References 63

  1. 1.

    Moja L, Kwag KH, Lytras T, Bertizzolo L, Brandt L, Pecoraro V, Rigon G, Vaona A, Ruggiero F, Mangia M, et al. Effectiveness of computerized decision support systems linked to electronic health records: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(12):e12-e22.

    Not in our library10.2105/ajph.2014.302164

  2. 2.

    Bright TJ, Wong A, Dhurjati R, Bristow E, Bastian L, Coeytaux RR, Samsa G, Hasselblad V, Williams JW, Musty MD, et al. Effect of clinical decision-support systems: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157(1):29-43.

    Not in our library10.7326/0003-4819-157-1-201207030-00450

  3. 3.

    Flynn D, Nesbitt DJ, Ford GA, McMeekin P, Rodgers H, Price C, Kray C, Thomson RG: Development of a computerised decision aid for thrombolysis in acute stroke care. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2015, 15:6.

    Not in our library10.1186/s12911-014-0127-1

  4. 4.

    Piazza G, Goldhaber SZ. Computerized decision support for the cardiovascular clinician. Circulation. 2009;120(12):1133-1137.

    Not in our library10.1161/circulationaha.109.884031

  5. 5.

    Roshanov PS, Fernandes N, Wilczynski JM, Hemens BJ, You JJ, Handler SM, Nieuwlaat R, Souza NM, Beyene J, Van Spall HGC, et al. Features of effective computerised clinical decision support systems: meta-regression of 162 randomised trials. BMJ (Online). 2013;346:f657. doi:10.1136/bmj.f657.

    Not in our library10.1136/bmj.f657

  6. 6.

    Souza NM, Sebaldt RJ, Mackay JA, Prorok JC, Weise-Kelly L, Navarro T, Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. Computerized clinical decision support systems for primary preventive care: a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review of effects on process of care and patient outcomes. Implement Sci. 2011;6:87. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-6-87.

    Not in our library10.1186/1748-5908-6-87

  7. 7.

    Marasinghe KM. Computerised clinical decision support systems to improve medication safety in long-term care homes: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2015;5:e006539. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006539.

    Not in our library10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006539

  8. 8.

    Jaspers MW, Smeulers M, Vermeulen H, Peute LW. Effects of clinical decision-support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a synthesis of high-quality systematic review findings. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011;18(3):327-334.

    Not in our library10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000094

  9. 9.

    Borab ZM, Lanni MA, Tecce MG, Pannucci CJ, Fischer JP. Use of computerized clinical decision support systems to prevent venous thromboembolism in surgical patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Surg. 2017;1;152(7):638-45. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2017.0131.

    Not in our library10.1001/jamasurg.2017.0131

  10. 10.

    Durieux P, Nizard R, Ravaud P, Mounier N, Lepage E. A clinical decision support system for prevention of venous thromboembolism: effect on physician behavior. JAMA. 2000;283(21):2816-2821.

    Not in our library10.1001/jama.283.21.2816

  11. 11.

    Heselmans A, Aertgeerts B, Donceel P, Geens S, Van De Velde S, Ramaekers D. Family physicians’ perceptions and use of electronic clinical decision support during the first year of implementation. J Med Syst. 2012;36(6):3677-3684.

    Not in our library10.1007/s10916-012-9841-3

  12. 12.

    Moxey A, Robertson J, Newby D, Hains I, Williamson M, Pearson SA. Computerized clinical decision support for prescribing: provision does not guarantee uptake. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2010;17(1):25-33.

    Not in our library10.1197/jamia.m3170

  13. 13.

    Kortteisto T, Komulainen J, Mäkelä M, Kunnamo I, Kaila M. Clinical decision support must be useful, functional is not enough: a qualitative study of computer-based clinical decision support in primary care. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12:349.

    Not in our library10.1186/1472-6963-12-349

  14. 14.

    Patterson ES, Doebbeling BN, Fung CH, Militello L, Anders S, Asch SM. Identifying barriers to the effective use of clinical reminders: bootstrapping multiple methods. J Biomed Inform. 2005;38(3):189-199.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jbi.2004.11.015

  15. 15.

    Lipman T. Power and influence in clinical effectiveness and evidence-based medicine. Fam Pract. 2000;17(6):557-563.

    Not in our library10.1093/fampra/17.6.557

  16. 16.

    Pope C, Halford S, Turnbull J, Prichard J, Calestani M, May C. Using computer decision support systems in NHS emergency and urgent care: ethnographic study using normalisation process theory. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13(1):111.

    Not in our library10.1186/1472-6963-13-111

  17. 17.

    Turnbull J, Pope C, Rowsell A, Prichard J, Halford S, Jones J, May C, Lattimer V. The work, workforce, technology and organisational implications of the ‘111’ single point of access telephone number for urgent (non-emergency) care: a mixed-methods case study. Health Serv Deliv Res. 2014;2:1-140.

    Not in our library10.3310/hsdr02030

  18. 18.

    Medical Research C. A framework for the development and evaluation of RCTs for complex interventions to improve health. 2000.

    Not in our library

  19. 19.

    Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008;337:a1655.

    Not in our library10.1136/bmj.a1655

  20. 20.

    Kukafka R, Johnson SB, Linfante A, Allegrante JP. Grounding a new information technology implementation framework in behavioral science: a systematic analysis of the literature on IT use. J Biomed Inform. 2003;36(3):218-227.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jbi.2003.09.002

  21. 21.

    Karsh BT. Beyond usability: designing effective technology implementation systems to promote patient safety. Qual Saf Health Care. 2004;13(5):388-394.

    Not in our library10.1136/qshc.2004.010322

  22. 22.

    Holden RJ, Karsh B-T. A theoretical model of health information technology usage behaviour with implications for patient safety. Behav Inform Technol. 2009;28(1):21-38.

    Not in our library10.1080/01449290601138245

  23. 23.

    Shaw J, Shaw S, Wherton J, Hughes G, Greenhalgh T. Studying scale-up and spread as social practice: theoretical introduction and empirical case study. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19(7):e244.

    Not in our library10.2196/jmir.7482

  24. 24.

    Gosbee J. Human factors engineering and patient safety. Qual Saf Health Care. 2002;11(4):352-354.

    Not in our library10.1136/qhc.11.4.352

  25. 25.

    Moja L, Liberati EG, Galuppo L, Gorli M, Maraldi M, Nanni O, Rigon G, Ruggieri P, Ruggiero F, Scaratti G, et al. Barriers and facilitators to the uptake of computerized clinical decision support systems in specialty hospitals: protocol for a qualitative cross-sectional study. Implement Sci. 2014;9:105. doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0105-0.

    Not in our library10.1186/s13012-014-0105-0

  26. 26.

    Davis FD. Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 1989;13(3):319-40. doi:10.2307/249008.

    Not in our library

  27. 27.

    Venkatesh V, Davis FD. Theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag Sci. 2000;46(2):186-204.

    Not in our library10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926

  28. 28.

    Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 2003;27(3):425-78.

    Not in our library

  29. 29.

    Timmermans S, Berg M. The practice of medical technology. Sociol Health Illn. 2003;25(SPEC. ISS):97-114.

    Not in our library10.1111/1467-9566.00342

  30. 30.
    Why is it difficult to implement e-health initiatives? A qualitative study · 2011
    No notice
  31. 31.

    Nicolini D. The work to make telemedicine work: a social and articulative view. Soc Sci Med. 2006;62(11):2754-2767.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.11.001

  32. 32.

    Esmaeilzadeh P, Sambasivan M, Kumar N, Nezakati H. Adoption of clinical decision support systems in a developing country: antecedents and outcomes of physician's threat to perceived professional autonomy. Int J Med Inform. 2015;84(8):548-560.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2015.03.007

  33. 33.

    Cresswell KM, Bates DW, Sheikh A. Ten key considerations for the successful implementation and adoption of large-scale health information technology. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013;20(e1):e9-e13.

    Not in our library10.1136/amiajnl-2013-001684

  34. 34.

    Varonen H, Kortteisto T, Kaila M. What may help or hinder the implementation of computerized decision support systems (CDSSs): a focus group study with physicians. Fam Pract. 2008;25(3):162-167.

    Not in our library10.1093/fampra/cmn020

  35. 35.

    Berg M. Rationalizing medical work: decision-support techniques and medical practices. 1997.

    Not in our library

  36. 36.

    Pope C. Resisting evidence: the study of evidence-based medicine as a contemporary social movement. Health. 2003;7(3):267-282.

    Not in our library10.1177/1363459303007003002

  37. 37.

    Bhandari M, Montori V, Devereaux PJ, Dosanjh S, Sprague S, Guyatt GH. Challenges to the practice of evidence-based medicine during residents’ surgical training: a qualitative study using grounded theory. Acad Med. 2003;78(11):1183-1190.

    Not in our library10.1097/00001888-200311000-00022

  38. 38.

    Ellen ME, Leon G, Bouchard G, Ouimet M, Grimshaw JM, Lavis JN. Barriers, facilitators and views about next steps to implementing supports for evidence-informed decision-making in health systems: a qualitative study. Implement Sci. 2014;9:179.

    Not in our library10.1186/s13012-014-0179-8

  39. 39.

    Grol R. Successes and failures in the implementation of evidence-based guidelines for clinical practice. Med Care. 2001;39(8 Suppl 2):Ii46-Ii54.

    Not in our library10.1097/00005650-200108002-00003

  40. 40.

    Trivedi MH, Daly EJ, Kern JK, Grannemann BD, Sunderajan P, Claassen CA. Barriers to implementation of a computerized decision support system for depression: an observational report on lessons learned in “real world” clinical settings. BMC Med Inform Decis Making. 2009;9(1):6.

    Not in our library10.1186/1472-6947-9-6

All 63 references

Cited by papers we hold 4

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.