ArticleBMJ open2026
Exploring primary care providers' perspectives on clinical decision support for venous thromboembolism diagnosis: a qualitative study.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesDiagnosing venous thromboembolism (VTE) in primary care is challenging due to non-specific symptoms and competing clinical demands. Although clinical decision support (CDS) tools are often proposed to improve diagnostic accuracy, their adoption remains inconsistent. This study aims to explore primary care providers' (PCPs') perspectives on diagnosing VTE and identify factors influencing the design, implementation and potential use of a VTE-specific CDS system in primary care.
designQualitative interview study using directed content analysis.
settingPrimary and urgent care settings across two academic health systems in urban and rural regions of the USA.
participantsEight PCPs, including physicians and physician assistants, were purposively sampled from two health systems. Participants practised in primary or urgent care settings and completed semistructured interviews focused on diagnosing VTE and CDS use.
resultsPCPs described diagnosing VTE as challenging because symptoms are often non-specific and encountered in time-constrained clinical environments. Participants viewed a VTE-specific CDS as potentially valuable, particularly if integrated seamlessly into the electronic health record and capable of supporting risk stratification using existing clinical data. However, clinicians also identified substantial concerns regarding alert fatigue, workflow burden, limited specificity and disruption of clinical autonomy. Medico-legal concerns are constructed as a prominent theme, with participants expressing apprehension that ignoring CDS recommendations could increase liability risk, while following alerts could contribute to unnecessary diagnostic testing and downstream consequences. Participants emphasised that CDS tools should be actionable, context-aware, minimally disruptive and supportive of rather than directive to clinical reasoning.
conclusionsPCPs viewed diagnostic CDS for VTE as potentially beneficial but also potentially burdensome depending on how it is implemented within clinical workflows. Acceptance of CDS appears to depend not only on technical performance but also on its effects on workflow efficiency, clinician autonomy and perceived legal risk. Future CDS development for diagnostic decision-making in primary care should prioritise usability, workflow integration and minimisation of unintended consequences such as alert fatigue and over-testing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.