Initially, CDDSS was viewed as a tool that was to replace rather than supplement the diagnostic capabilities of the clinician-users. However, this has changed among the experienced users. Some naive users have also expected too much from the system with some even expecting the system to behave in a similar manner to them (experts) (Shortliffe, 2006). These misunderstandings have led to the system being opposed for a long time. Given that most users still use the definition of diagnosis which is a 'single-event', there is a mismatch that has occurred between the expectations of the user and the capabilities of the system. Most clinicians are interested in the outcome of the diagnostic process rather than the process itself which has led many clinicians to expect CDDSS to take all the necessary findings from the patient and give a single 'answer', such users failed to understand that this system is meant to assist with the problems that are experienced in the diagnostic process thus it is necessary for the whole...

A closer look at all these perceptions reveals that clinicians had a strong belief that diagnosis is a single event yielding a specific answer which is a contradiction of the concept of CDDSS, this led to the delay of the development of the system. It became very hard to develop a system when the users of the very system are not fully supporting it due to lack of understanding. CDDSS would have developed faster if the definition would have recognized the need for the process which is the main concept that the system is built on.
References

Coiera, E. (2003). The guide to health informatics (2nd Ed.). Arnold: London.

Shortliffe, E. (1986). Medical expert systems knowledge tools for physicians. West J. Med, 145:

830-839.

Shortliffe, E. (2006). Medical thinking: What should we do? Retrieved on May 19, 2010 from http://www.openclinical.org/docs/ext/conferences/medicalthinking2006/shortliffe.pdf