Search

Background: Successful implementation and utilization of Computerized Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) in hospitals is complex and challenging. Implementation science, and in particular the Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread and Sustainability (NASSS) framework, may offer a systematic approach for identifying and addressing these challenges. This review aimed to identify, categorize, and describe barriers and facilitators to CDSS implementation in hospital settings and map them to the NASSS framework. Exploring the applicability of the NASSS framework to CDSS implementation was a secondary aim. Methods: Electronic database searches were conducted (21 July 2020; updated 5 April 2022) in Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, PyscInfo, and CINAHL. Original research studies reporting on measured or perceived barriers and/or facilitators to implementation and adoption of CDSS in hospital settings, or attitudes of healthcare professionals towards CDSS were included. Articles with a primary focus on CDSS development were excluded. No language or date restrictions were applied. We used qualitative content analysis to identify determinants and organize them into higher-order themes, which were then reflexively mapped to the NASSS framework. Results: Forty-four publications were included. These comprised a range of study designs, geographic locations, participants, technology types, CDSS functions, and clinical contexts of implementation. A total of 227 individual barriers and 130 individual facilitators were identified across the included studies. The most commonly reported influences on implementation were fit of CDSS with workflows (19 studies), the usefulness of the CDSS output in practice (17 studies), CDSS technical dependencies and design (16 studies), trust of users in the CDSS input data and evidence base (15 studies), and the contextual fit of the CDSS with the user's role or clinical setting (14 studies). Most determinants could be appropriately categorized into domains of the NASSS framework with barriers and facilitators in the "Technology," "Organization," and "Adopters" domains most frequently reported. No determinants were assigned to the "Embedding and Adaptation Over Time" domain. Conclusions: This review identified the most common determinants which could be targeted for modification to either remove barriers or facilitate the adoption and use of CDSS within hospitals. Greater adoption of implementation theory should be encouraged to support CDSS implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The importance of accurately costing implementation strategies is increasingly recognised within the field of implementation science. However, there is a lack of methodological guidance for costing implementation, particularly within digital health settings. This study reports on a systematic review of costing analyses conducted alongside implementation of hospital-based computerised decision support systems. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Scopus and CINAHL databases were searched between January 2010 and August 2021. Two reviewers independently screened and selected original research studies that were conducted in a hospital setting, examined the implementation of a computerised decision support systems and reported implementation costs. The Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change Framework was used to identify and categorise implementation strategies into clusters. A previously published costing framework was applied to describe the methods used to measure and value implementation costs. The reporting quality of included studies was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklist. Results: Titles and abstracts of 1836 articles were screened, with nine articles eligible for inclusion in the review. Implementation costs were most frequently reported under the 'evaluative and iterative strategies' cluster, followed by 'provide interactive assistance'. Labour was the largest implementation-related cost in the included papers, irrespective of implementation strategy. Other reported costs included consumables, durable assets and physical space, which was mostly associated with stakeholder training. The methods used to cost implementation were often unclear. There was variation across studies in the overall quality of reporting. Conclusions: A relatively small number of papers have described computerised decision support systems implementation costs, and the methods used to measure and value these costs were not well reported. Priorities for future research should include establishing consistent terminology and appropriate methods for estimating and reporting on implementation costs. Trial registration: The review protocol is registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42021272948). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

INTRODUCTION: The HealthPathways programme is an online health information system used mainly in primary health care to promote a consistent and integrated approach to patient care. AIM: The aim of this study is to perform a scoping review of the methodologies used in published impact and outcomes evaluations of HealthPathways programmes. METHODS: The review included qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods evaluations of the impact or outcome of HealthPathways. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science databases were searched. Seven programme aims were identified in the impact and outcome evaluation: (1) increased awareness and use of HealthPathways; (2) general practitioners are supported to adopt best practice, patient-centred care; (3) increased appropriate use of resources and services; (4) improved quality of referrals; (5) enhanced consistent care and management of health conditions; (6) improved patient journeys through the local health system; and (7) reduction in health-care cost and increased value for money. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were included in the final review; 15 were research papers and six were reports. 'Increased awareness and use of HealthPathways' was the most frequent programme aim evaluated (n = 12). Quantitative and qualitative research methodologies, as well as prospective and retrospective data collections, have been adopted to evaluate the impact and outcome of HealthPathways. DISCUSSION: Assessing the impacts and outcomes of HealthPathways may be challenging due to limitations in primary data and the interconnectedness of change across the measured aims. Each aim may therefore require specific methodologies sensitive enough to capture the impact that HealthPathways are making over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]