Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Introduction Electronic clinical decision support (eCDS) tools are used to assist clinical decision making. Using computer-generated algorithms with evidence-based rule sets, they alert clinicians to events that require attention. eCDS tools generating alerts using nudge principles present clinicians with evidence-based clinical treatment options to guide clinician behaviour without restricting freedom of choice. Although eCDS tools have shown beneficial outcomes, challenges exist with regard to their acceptability most likely related to implementation. Furthermore, the pace of progress in this field has allowed little time to effectively evaluate the experience of the intended user. This scoping review aims to examine the development and implementation strategies, and the impact on the end user of eCDS tools that generate alerts using nudge principles, specifically in the critical care and peri-anaesthetic setting.
Methods and analysis This review will follow the Arksey and O’Malley framework. A search will be conducted of literature published in the last 15 years in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Web of Science and SAGE databases. Citation screening and data extraction will be performed by two independent reviewers. Extracted data will include context, e-nudge tool type and design features, development, implementation strategies and associated impact on end users.
Ethics and dissemination This scoping review will synthesise published literature therefore ethical approval is not required. Review findings will be published in topic relevant peer-reviewed journals and associated conferences.
- adult intensive & critical care
- intensive & critical care
- paediatric intensive & critical care
- anaesthetics
- paediatric anaesthesia
This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
- adult intensive & critical care
- intensive & critical care
- paediatric intensive & critical care
- anaesthetics
- paediatric anaesthesia
Strengths and limitations of this study
This review will provide a comprehensive overview of the development and implementation strategies required to embed the electronic clinical decision support technology in clinical practice.
The search strategy includes reviewing six electronic databases with peer-reviewed literature, relevant article bibliographies and a range of grey literature sources.
Only articles published in English will be reviewed which may introduce bias and limit generalisability.
Background and rationale
Evidence-based practice amalgamates best research evidence with appropriate clinician experience.1 2 Traditionally, efforts to improve clinician awareness and adherence to evidence-based practice has relied on implementation of up-to-date training that has varied in effectiveness.3–6 Promoting evidence-based practice relies on the clinician’s ability to digest, retain and recall large volumes of information in time-critical and often pressurised environments. Integrating behavioural change techniques with nudge methodologies to augment clinician behaviour by presenting evidence-based treatment recommendations has shown promise in recent years.7–11 Many of us are familiar with receiving recommendations for products when online shopping; this concept is known as ‘nudging’. Simply put, nudging refers to the use of tools to provide information in an environment that subtly guides one to make a decision beneficial to them, without forcing an outcome.12 Electronic or digital nudge (e-nudge) tools use a combination of (i) information technology (IT) design functionality; (ii) information received and disseminated and (iii) interactive elements, to guide user behaviour without restricting freedom of choice.12 The goal of e-nudge tools in healthcare is to augment clinician behaviour, improve healthcare delivery and improve patient outcomes.13
Early models of electronic clinical decision support (eCDS) technologies have used computer-generated algorithms, with evidence-based rule sets, to merely screen data to identify events or patients that needed to be brought to the attention of their clinician.14 eCDS systems may generate an alert in a variety of formats, for example, a pop-up message on screen, pager device and/or text message to a designated mobile device or email. More recent evolution of eCDS tools has led to the integration of nudge principles progressing to the point of presenting clinicians with one or more evidence-based options for clinical treatment or diagnostic modalities in tandem with an alert.15 This offers clinicians a sense of final decision-making autonomy, while steering them towards the most appropriate behaviours or actions. Integrating nudge principles into evidence-based eCDS models in this way aims to standardise detection while optimising treatment plans and resource allocation to the right patient, in the right format, at the right time.16 Existing eCDS tools generating alerts using nudge principles have demonstrated improved adherence to evidence-based practice guidelines, rationalised resource distribution and enhanced multidisciplinary communication.16–21
Critically ill patients are generally the most heterogeneous populations in hospitals with high rates of acute and chronic multimorbidity.22 Therefore, critical care clinicians, and indeed anaesthetists, use numerous evidence-based guidelines in time-critical and, often, pressurised environments. These require accurate retention, recall and application of diverse theoretical knowledge leading to cognitive overload.23 24 eCDS technology using nudge principles can capture validated guidelines in electronic form to prompt and advise clinicians, thereby reducing cognitive overload and assisting clinicians in their clinical decisions. In the critical care and the peri-anaesthetic settings, sophisticated technology with established capability for automated recording of multiple data sources makes these environments ideal for exploiting digitisation and introduction of eCDS tools generating alerts using nudge principles.22–24
Although eCDS technology incorporating nudge techniques have shown beneficial outcomes in antibiotic stewardship, prescribing practices and sepsis, such tools have not been without their problems.20 25–27 They are inconsistently applied by clinicians28 and challenges exist with regard to their acceptability.27 The pace of progress in this field has allowed little time to effectively evaluate the experience of the intended user.29 To design eCDS technology generating alerts using nudge principles for successful implementation, developers need to focus on engaging with key stakeholders to understand how innovative technology dynamically interacts with the pre-existing healthcare culture.13 30 Addressing the challenges during the preparative or prototype phase will ultimately aid overall acceptance of such sophisticated tools.31 This scoping review, therefore, aims to identify literature related to the critical care or peri-anaesthetic area that specifically addresses the development and implementation of eCDS technology with alerts using nudge principles and any associated impact on end users.
Methods
This scoping review will be guided by the five distinct steps of the Arksey and O’Malley framework,32 the Joanna Briggs Institute2 and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews checklist.33 We aim to begin the review in April 2022 and complete it by July 2022. Adjustments may be required to the planned protocol as the review develops. Should this occur, we will report any deviations in the final review with a rationale for the changes.
Step 1: defining the research question
A key component to successful practice change, regardless of the change model followed, is preparation. This scoping review aims to explore the literature focusing on the critical care and peri-anaesthetic setting to identify (i) What type and for what purpose have e-nudge tools been developed? (ii) How have e-nudge tools been developed and by whom? (iii) What implementation strategies or frameworks, if any, have been used? (iv) What evaluation methods, if any, have been used to measure the success of these implementation strategies on end users?
A review of this kind has the potential to shed light on the area of e-nudge tool technology use in the critical and peri-anaesthetic care setting, and provide valuable information on the strengths and weaknesses of implementation strategies.32
Step 2: identifying relevant articles/studies
Through a consultation process within the research team a search strategy has been developed supported by key inclusion criteria. Key inclusion criteria (table 1) were categorised using the simplified population, concept, context34 mnemonic offered by the Joanna Briggs Institute in the updated guidance for scoping reviews.35
Population, concept and context criteria
Inclusion
We will include studies conducted in the neonatal, paediatric or adult critical care and peri-anaesthetic settings. Should the search yield few studies, we will extend the search to acute care in hospitals. Studies will be considered that address development, implementation and end user evaluation with preterm (neonatal) to adult participants of any age, sex, ethnicity or geographic location.
Exclusion
We will exclude studies of eCDS nudge technology implemented in the outpatient or community setting. We will exclude eCDS tools whose sole purpose was to screen and alert without the addition of recommending favourable treatment outcomes to the end user.
Search strategy
We will follow the three-step process recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute.35 Step 1 recommends a preliminary search using one online database. For this, we will use MEDLINE. The proposed search strategy is shown in online supplemental material 1. Step 2 uses an index of keywords and index terms derived from the results of the initial search. Possible terms are shown in table 2. The list of keywords and index terms will be used to perform a second round of searches using the following databases: EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Web of Science and SAGE. These databases have been chosen as they cover the vast majority of publications in this area. Following on from database searches an examination of grey literature will be carried out.36 In step 3, we will review the reference lists of all studies identified in steps 1 and 2 to identify any relevant missed studies. The final list of studies will be stored in a reference management package with duplicates removed. Searches will be restricted to the English language.
Supplemental material
Search strategy*
Step 3: study selection
Study selection will be conducted in two phases. First, study citations will be stored in a reference management system (Endnote). LMc will screen titles and abstracts for eligibility using the inclusion/exclusion criteria. The citations will be classified as ‘included’, ‘excluded’ and ‘uncertain’. A second reviewer will check the citations in these citation categories. Any uncertainties will be discussed, and agreement reached between both reviewers. Should conflict arise, a third reviewer may be consulted to reach agreement. Given that the purpose of a scoping review is to present the available evidence in a chosen topic area rather than seeking the best available evidence, quality of evidence presented will not be assessed as part of this review process.
Step 4: charting the data
The process of charting the data refers to the extraction of data from the included studies. By extracting data consistently using a data extraction form (online supplemental material 2), we aim to extract relevant information corresponding to the aims of the scoping review questions. Two reviewers will pilot the data extraction form on a minimum of two studies to ensure reliability. All reviewers will be involved in the data extraction process. Pairs of reviewers will independently extract data from all included studies. Any conflicts or discrepancies in data extraction will be agreed by consultation with a third reviewer. The data extracted will include specific details about the context, focus of the eCDS technology, type of alert, style of nudge principles employed, style of paper (developmental, implementation or evaluation of eCDS tool), how the tool was developed (eg, clinician led or IT developer led) and tested, the implementation strategies and support resources used to introduce the tool in practice and the evaluation strategies used to assess success for end users.
Supplemental material
Step 5: collating, summarising and reporting the results
We will analyse quantitative data using appropriate descriptive statistics and present the results in tabular form. We will analyse qualitative data using content analysis37 and will summarise and present data in narrative form. All summaries will describe how the results relate to the review aim and questions. As is the norm for scoping reviews, the resulting narrative will not evaluate the strength of the evidence in a quantitative form.33 38 Instead, it will focus on available literature discussing the development and implementation strategies of eCDS tools with alerts using nudge principles to highlight any frameworks reported in the literature and their associated effectiveness in practice.
Patient and public involvement
Patients and/or public were not involved in the design of this scoping review protocol. However, intensive care unit (ICU) survivors and relatives of ICU patients have had significant input in the wider design of the multipart ATTITUDE study. The ATTITUDE study is a pre-intervention and post-intervention quality improvement project using non-participant observations and key informant interviews to design and implement a nudge tool technology to expedite invasive mechanical ventilation weaning in intensive care (ORECNI Research Ethics Committee Ref. 21/NI/0044).
Ethics and dissemination
This scoping review will collect and synthesise data in published literature therefore ethical approval is not required. We anticipate this review will highlight areas where there are gaps in the information that may be explored in future studies. The results will also provide essential information to critical care professionals, information technology experts and behavioural change scientists interested in designing and/or implementing eCDS technology with alerts using nudge principles for clinical practice, particularly in the field of critical care and per-anaesthetic care. Review findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant healthcare and computational science conferences.
Ethics statements
Patient consent for publication
References
Supplementary materials
Supplementary Data
This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.
Footnotes
Twitter @LisaMcilmurray
Contributors LM, MS and BB conceptualised the project and drafted all aspects of the project methodology and manuscript. LL, MD, CG, RH and FK developed aspects of the background and search strategy, in addition to reviewing and commented on all aspects of the manuscript.
Funding This scoping review will be conducted as part of a larger study funded by The Health Foundation (grant ID 842017).
Competing interests None declared.
Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.