Workload and workflow implications associated with the use of electronic clinical decision support tools used by health professionals in general practice: a scoping review
dc.contributor.author | Fletcher, E | |
dc.contributor.author | Burns, A | |
dc.contributor.author | Wiering, B | |
dc.contributor.author | Lavu, D | |
dc.contributor.author | Shephard, E | |
dc.contributor.author | Hamilton, W | |
dc.contributor.author | Campbell, JL | |
dc.contributor.author | Abel, G | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2023-01-25T11:51:42Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2023-01-20 | |
dc.date.updated | 2023-01-25T11:22:26Z | |
dc.description.abstract | BACKGROUND: Electronic clinical decision support tools (eCDS) are increasingly available to assist General Practitioners (GP) with the diagnosis and management of a range of health conditions. It is unclear whether the use of eCDS tools has an impact on GP workload. This scoping review aimed to identify the available evidence on the use of eCDS tools by health professionals in general practice in relation to their impact on workload and workflow. METHODS: A scoping review was carried out using the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework. The search strategy was developed iteratively, with three main aspects: general practice/primary care contexts, risk assessment/decision support tools, and workload-related factors. Three databases were searched in 2019, and updated in 2021, covering articles published since 2009: Medline (Ovid), HMIC (Ovid) and Web of Science (TR). Double screening was completed by two reviewers, and data extracted from included articles were analysed. RESULTS: The search resulted in 5,594 references, leading to 95 full articles, referring to 87 studies, after screening. Of these, 36 studies were based in the USA, 21 in the UK and 11 in Australia. A further 18 originated from Canada or Europe, with the remaining studies conducted in New Zealand, South Africa and Malaysia. Studies examined the use of eCDS tools and reported some findings related to their impact on workload, including on consultation duration. Most studies were qualitative and exploratory in nature, reporting health professionals' subjective perceptions of consultation duration as opposed to objectively-measured time spent using tools or consultation durations. Other workload-related findings included impacts on cognitive workload, "workflow" and dialogue with patients, and clinicians' experience of "alert fatigue". CONCLUSIONS: The published literature on the impact of eCDS tools in general practice showed that limited efforts have focused on investigating the impact of such tools on workload and workflow. To gain an understanding of this area, further research, including quantitative measurement of consultation durations, would be useful to inform the future design and implementation of eCDS tools. | en_GB |
dc.description.sponsorship | The Dennis and Mireille Gillings Foundation | en_GB |
dc.description.sponsorship | Cancer Research UK | en_GB |
dc.description.sponsorship | University of Exeter | en_GB |
dc.description.sponsorship | University of Exeter Medical School | en_GB |
dc.format.extent | 23- | |
dc.identifier.citation | Vol. 24 (1), article 23 | en_GB |
dc.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-023-01973-2 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10871/132325 | |
dc.identifier | ORCID: 0000-0003-1319-3051 (Fletcher, Emily) | |
dc.identifier | ScopusID: 55499793400 (Fletcher, Emily) | |
dc.language.iso | en | en_GB |
dc.publisher | BMC | en_GB |
dc.relation.url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36670354 | en_GB |
dc.rights | © The Author(s) 2023. Open Access: This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. | en_GB |
dc.subject | Consultations | en_GB |
dc.subject | Diagnosis | en_GB |
dc.subject | Electronic clinical decision support | en_GB |
dc.subject | General practice | en_GB |
dc.subject | Risk | en_GB |
dc.subject | Workload | en_GB |
dc.title | Workload and workflow implications associated with the use of electronic clinical decision support tools used by health professionals in general practice: a scoping review | en_GB |
dc.type | Article | en_GB |
dc.date.available | 2023-01-25T11:51:42Z | |
exeter.article-number | 23 | |
exeter.place-of-publication | England | |
dc.description | This is the final version. Available from BMC via the DOI in this record. | en_GB |
dc.description | All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article. | en_GB |
dc.identifier.eissn | 2731-4553 | |
dc.identifier.journal | BMC Primary Care | en_GB |
dc.relation.ispartof | BMC Prim Care, 24(1) | |
dc.rights.uri | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ | en_GB |
dcterms.dateAccepted | 2023-01-05 | |
rioxxterms.version | VoR | en_GB |
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate | 2023-01-05 | |
rioxxterms.type | Journal Article/Review | en_GB |
refterms.dateFCD | 2023-01-25T11:41:11Z | |
refterms.versionFCD | VoR | |
refterms.dateFOA | 2023-01-25T11:51:47Z | |
refterms.panel | A | en_GB |
refterms.dateFirstOnline | 2023-01-20 |
Files in this item
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as © The Author(s) 2023. Open Access: This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.