Cited by 301Electronic Health Records SystemsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationHealth Policy Implementation Science

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

Open access
Liberati, Elisa G., Ruggiero, Francesca, Galuppo, Laura, Gorli, Mara, González-Lorenzo, Marien, Maraldi, Marco, Ruggieri, Pietro, Polo Friz, Hernan +4 more·2017·Implementation Science

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s13012-017-0644-2

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Liberati, E. G., Ruggiero, F., Galuppo, L., Gorli, M., González-Lorenzo, M., Maraldi, M., Ruggieri, P., Polo Friz, H., Scaratti, G., Kwag, K. H., Vespignani, R., & Moja, L.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • University of Milan (IT)
  • Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore (IT)
  • University of Padua (IT)
  • Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (IL)
  • Istituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori (IT)
Corresponding author
Liberati, Elisa G.
Venue
Implementation Science
Published
2017-09-15
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
113-113
ISSN
1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2754437305
Cited by
301
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 53 · 2022: 54 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 6
FWCI
21.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Implementation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubliCatt (Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Archivio Istituzionale della Ricerca (Universita Degli Studi Di Milano) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Aisberg (University of Bergamo) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo
  • Apollo (cc-by)
Funders
  • Italian Ministry of Health (GR-2009-1606736)
  • Regione Lombardia (D.R.G. IX/4340 26/10/2012)
  • Wellcome Trust (WT097899)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
computerized decision support systems, technology adoption barriers, clinician attitudes, professional autonomy, medical liability, usability, implementation framework, evidence-based medicine, clinical decision-making, organizational learning, interdisciplinary connections, hospital implementation
MeSH terms
Health Plan Implementation, Hospitals, Humans, Decision Support Systems, Clinical, Qualitative Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review