OBJECTIVE: To use workflow execution models to highlight new considerations for patient-centered clinical decision support policies (PC CDS), processes, procedures, technology, and expertise required to support new workflows. METHODS: To generate and refine models, we used (1) targeted literature reviews; (2) key informant interviews with 6 external PC CDS experts; (3) model refinement based on authors' experience; and (4) validation of the models by a 26-member steering committee. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: We identified 7 major issues that provide significant challenges and opportunities for healthcare systems, researchers, administrators, and health IT and app developers. Overcoming these challenges presents opportunities for new or modified policies, processes, procedures, technology, and expertise to: (1) Ensure patient-generated health data (PGHD), including patient-reported outcomes (PROs), are documented, reviewed, and managed by appropriately trained clinicians, between visits and after regular working hours. (2) Educate patients to use connected medical devices and handle technical issues. (3) Facilitate collection and incorporation of PGHD, PROs, patient preferences, and social determinants of health into existing electronic health records. (4) Troubleshoot erroneous data received from devices. (5) Develop dashboards to display longitudinal patient-reported data. (6) Provide reimbursement to support new models of care. (7) Support patient engagement with remote devices. CONCLUSION: Several new policies, processes, technologies, and expertise are required to ensure safe and effective implementation and use of PC CDS. As we gain more experience implementing and working with PC CDS, we should be able to begin realizing the long-term positive impact on patient health that the patient-centered movement in healthcare promises.

The design, development, implementation, use, and evaluation of high-quality, patient-centered clinical decision support (PC CDS) is necessary if we are to achieve the quintuple aim in healthcare. We developed a PC CDS lifecycle framework to promote a common understanding and language for communication among researchers, patients, clinicians, and policymakers. The framework puts the patient, and/or their caregiver at the center and illustrates how they are involved in all the following stages: Computable Clinical Knowledge, Patient-specific Inference, Information Delivery, Clinical Decision, Patient Behaviors, Health Outcomes, Aggregate Data, and patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) Evidence. Using this idealized framework reminds key stakeholders that developing, deploying, and evaluating PC-CDS is a complex, sociotechnical challenge that requires consideration of all 8 stages. In addition, we need to ensure that patients, their caregivers, and the clinicians caring for them are explicitly involved at each stage to help us achieve the quintuple aim.

Supporting healthcare decision-making that is patient-centered and evidence-based requires investments in the development of tools and techniques for dissemination of patient-centered outcomes research findings via methods such as clinical decision support (CDS). This article explores the technical landscape for patient-centered CDS (PC CDS) and the gaps in making PC CDS more shareable, standards-based, and publicly available, with the goal of improving patient care and clinical outcomes. This landscape assessment used: (1) a technical expert panel; (2) a literature review; and (3) interviews with 18 CDS stakeholders. We identified 7 salient technical considerations that span 5 phases of PC CDS development. While progress has been made in the technical landscape, the field must advance standards for translating clinical guidelines into PC CDS, the standardization of CDS insertion points into the clinical workflow, and processes to capture, standardize, and integrate patient-generated health data.

OBJECTIVE: We conducted a horizon scan to (1) identify challenges in patient-centered clinical decision support (PC CDS) and (2) identify future directions for PC CDS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We engaged a technical expert panel, conducted a scoping literature review, and interviewed key informants. We qualitatively analyzed literature and interview transcripts, mapping findings to the 4 phases for translating evidence into PC CDS interventions (Prioritizing, Authoring, Implementing, and Measuring) and to external factors. RESULTS: We identified 12 challenges for PC CDS development. Lack of patient input was identified as a critical challenge. The key informants noted that patient input is critical to prioritizing topics for PC CDS and to ensuring that CDS aligns with patients' routine behaviors. Lack of patient-centered terminology standards was viewed as a challenge in authoring PC CDS. We found a dearth of CDS studies that measured clinical outcomes, creating significant gaps in our understanding of PC CDS' impact. Across all phases of CDS development, there is a lack of patient and provider trust and limited attention to patients' and providers' concerns. DISCUSSION: These challenges suggest opportunities for advancing PC CDS. There are opportunities to develop industry-wide practices and standards to increase transparency, standardize terminologies, and incorporate patient input. There is also opportunity to engage patients throughout the PC CDS research process to ensure that outcome measures are relevant to their needs. CONCLUSION: Addressing these challenges and embracing these opportunities will help realize the promise of PC CDS-placing patients at the center of the healthcare system.