Table 2.

Themes identified by clinicians around incorporating electronic differential diagnostic support (EDS) systems in the emergency department.

Theme	Relevant human factors constructa	Description	Number of clinicians who made statements that supported this theme (N=13), n (%)
1. The quality of the EDS was inferred from the scope and prioritization of the diagnoses.	Perception and usability	Participants linked the value of the EDS to the types of diagnosis being suggested. Diagnoses that did not seem appropriate or were outside of the physician’s range of practice were suggested, which prompted clinicians to doubt the value of the EDS.	9 (69)
2. Trusting EDS differential diagnoses was linked to varied beliefs around the diagnostic process and potential for bias.	Trust and usability	Participants were concerned about the unintended and untested benefits of EDS. Some worried that it might introduce bias, whereas others wanted to see more evidence of its benefit.	10 (77)
3. Who benefits? Not me.	Perception and trust	Participants acknowledged that EDS could add value but found it hard to imagine that they would make an error that the EDS could correct.	13 (100)
4. Information flow between EDS and the electronic medical record	Usability and workload.	Participants believed that EDS should be able to use information in the medical record to provide a differential diagnosis, but that the differential diagnosis output of the EDS should not be automatically incorporated into the medical record. Including the EDS output could prompt an over investigation of diagnostic suggestions even when they are not appropriate to the context.	8 (62)

^aAdapted from Asan and Choudhury [19].