Identifying barriers and facilitators to successful implementation of computerized clinical decision support systems in hospitals: a NASSS framework-informed scoping review

Abstract

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.

Implementation of digital health technologies for older adults: a scoping review

“…We recommend their use because they can inform the design of a new technology, identify technological solutions that have a limited chance of achieving large-scale, sustained adoption, help to plan the implementation of technology, and help explain and learn from implementation failures ( Greenhalgh et al, 2017 ). These frameworks are underutilized at present, due in part to their recent development, but probably also due to a need for them to be adequately contextualized for individual technologies ( Abell et al, 2023 ).…”

Sustaining e-health innovations in a complex hospital environment: learning through evidence

“…The NASSS framework has been applied within hospital settings to better understand the barriers and facilitators toward technology implementation ( 16 ). For example, in a scoping review by Abell and colleagues mapped the barriers and facilitators towards implementing clinical decision support systems (CDSS) in hospital settings using the NASSS framework ( 16 ).…”

“…The NASSS framework has been applied within hospital settings to better understand the barriers and facilitators toward technology implementation ( 16 ). For example, in a scoping review by Abell and colleagues mapped the barriers and facilitators towards implementing clinical decision support systems (CDSS) in hospital settings using the NASSS framework ( 16 ). They found 44 studies which revealed that the implementation of CDSS often had little perceived relative advantage for clinicians in the hospital setting, and many of the reported barriers were mostly aligned with the condition/context (e.g., clinical context, inability to adapt the CDSS systems, etc.…”

“…), and the adopter (e.g., professional autonomy of clinicians, perceived complexity, usefulness, and usability of the technology, etc.) domains of the NASSS framework ( 16 ). In this paper, we present the case of a CVC program IT innovation, which includes three e-health applications, and its evolution at a Canadian hospital, discuss its sustainability and critical success factors grounded in the NASSS framework, and provide lessons learned that may serve as benchmarks for other IT innovations and settings.…”

Developing a clinical decision support system software prototype that assists in the management of patients with self-harm in the emergency department: protocol of the PERMANENS project

“…Despite their clear usefulness in other clinical domains [ 48 – 51 ], evidence of effective implementation of these techniques into clinically useful prediction tools for self-harm and related adverse outcomes is lacking. This may be due to the absence of a user-oriented personalised approach, i.e., the failure to actively involve both patients and clinicians in the development of this kind of software tools [ 52 ]. Qualitative studies reveal healthcare providers’ interest in machine learning–based risk prediction systems, highlighting concerns like liability, alert fatigue, and increased healthcare system demand [ 53 ].…”