Health care worker perceptions toward computerized clinical decision support tools for Clostridium difficile infection reduction: A qualitative study at 2 hospitals

Thumbnail Image

Files

1-s2.0-S0196655318304309-main.pdf (988.98 KB)
1-s2.0-S0196655318304309-mmc1.docx (21.99 KB)

Links to Files

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196655318304309

Permanent Link

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2018.04.204
 http://hdl.handle.net/11603/29025

Collections

UMBC Emergency and Distaster Health Systems
A. All Hilltop Institute (UMBC) Works
UMBC School of Public Policy

Author/Creator

Author/Creator ORCID

Date

2018-09-27

Type of Work

journal articles
Text

Department

Program

Citation of Original Publication

Blanco, Natalia, Lyndsay M. O’Hara, Gwen L. Robinson, Jeanine Brown, Emily Heil, Clayton H. Brown, Brian D. Stump, et al. “Health Care Worker Perceptions toward Computerized Clinical Decision Support Tools for Clostridium Difficile Infection Reduction: A Qualitative Study at 2 Hospitals.” American Journal of Infection Control 46, no. 10 (October 1, 2018): 1160–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2018.04.204.

Rights

This work was written as part of one of the author's official duties as an Employee of the United States Government and is therefore a work of the United States Government. In accordance with 17 U.S.C. 105, no copyright protection is available for such works under U.S. Law.
Public Domain Mark 1.0

Subjects

Abstract

Background Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Computerized clinical decision support (CCDS) tools can aid process improvement in infection prevention and antibiotic stewardship, but implementation and health care workers (HCWs) uptake of these tools is often variable. The objective of this study was to describe HCWs' perceptions of barriers and facilitators related to uptake of CCDS tools as part of a CDI reduction bundle. Methods We conducted a qualitative study among HCWs at 2 acute care hospitals in Maryland. Semi-structured interviews and structured surveys were completed by HCWs to evaluate their perception to CCDS tools at 2 different stages: predevelopment and preimplementation. Emergent themes and patterns in the data were identified and condensed. Results Gaps in CDI-related knowledge and in communication between HCWs were identified throughout the evaluation. HCWs agreed on the potential of the tools to improve CDI diagnosis, prevention, and control. An important barrier for uptake was the perceived loss of autonomy and clinical judgment, whereas standardization and error reduction were perceived advantages. Conclusions These observations shaped the development and implementation of the CDI reduction bundle. Qualitative findings can provide valuable contextual information during the development stages of CCDS tools in infection prevention and antibiotic stewardship.