EHR-Integrated Clinical Pathways Promote Education, Confidence, and Save Time for Primary Care Providers.

IF 1 4区 医学 Q4 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES American Journal of Medical Quality Pub Date : 2022-11-01 DOI:10.1097/JMQ.0000000000000087
Laura B Macke, Amber Sieja, Krithika Suresh, Lisa M Schilling
{"title":"EHR-Integrated Clinical Pathways Promote Education, Confidence, and Save Time for Primary Care Providers.","authors":"Laura B Macke,&nbsp;Amber Sieja,&nbsp;Krithika Suresh,&nbsp;Lisa M Schilling","doi":"10.1097/JMQ.0000000000000087","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Computerized clinical decision support tools are increasingly necessary and widespread in primary care due to rapidly evolving evidence and shifting clinical guidelines. Clinical pathways are a subtype of clinical decision support tool which aim to link evidence to practice and which require evaluation of benefits and barriers to use to inform user-centered design. The objective was to describe the use and perceived benefits and barriers to evidence-based, disease-specific electronic health record pathways for clinical decision support. Primary care providers at a large integrated health system were surveyed about their use of clinical pathways using an online questionnaire distributed via email in November 2021. Descriptive statistics were estimated and differences in the characteristics and responses by pathway use were assessed using chi-square or Fisher exact tests. The survey response rate was 26% (153/593). There were differences in the response rates between providers by practice type (42% academic versus 54% community; P < 0.001). No difference was found in the demographics of those that used the pathways versus those that did not according to role, age, or length of time in practice. Providers in the academic practice were more likely than those in community practices to have used the pathways. Among providers who used the pathways, 98% agree they have evidence-based information, 98% agree they allow them to take better care of patients, 88% agree they guide clinical-decisions, and 85% agree they save time. The main barrier for those who had used pathways was that they forget about them. Among those who had not used pathways, 35% were unaware that pathways existed. This analysis demonstrates that primary care providers who adopt clinical pathways perceive benefits in several domains. The largest barriers to adoption were that users forgot about pathways or were unaware of them. Future work should focus on dissemination and education, improving tool accessibility, and content optimization to balance complexity with efficiency.</p>","PeriodicalId":7539,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Medical Quality","volume":"37 6","pages":"528-534"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Medical Quality","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/JMQ.0000000000000087","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Computerized clinical decision support tools are increasingly necessary and widespread in primary care due to rapidly evolving evidence and shifting clinical guidelines. Clinical pathways are a subtype of clinical decision support tool which aim to link evidence to practice and which require evaluation of benefits and barriers to use to inform user-centered design. The objective was to describe the use and perceived benefits and barriers to evidence-based, disease-specific electronic health record pathways for clinical decision support. Primary care providers at a large integrated health system were surveyed about their use of clinical pathways using an online questionnaire distributed via email in November 2021. Descriptive statistics were estimated and differences in the characteristics and responses by pathway use were assessed using chi-square or Fisher exact tests. The survey response rate was 26% (153/593). There were differences in the response rates between providers by practice type (42% academic versus 54% community; P < 0.001). No difference was found in the demographics of those that used the pathways versus those that did not according to role, age, or length of time in practice. Providers in the academic practice were more likely than those in community practices to have used the pathways. Among providers who used the pathways, 98% agree they have evidence-based information, 98% agree they allow them to take better care of patients, 88% agree they guide clinical-decisions, and 85% agree they save time. The main barrier for those who had used pathways was that they forget about them. Among those who had not used pathways, 35% were unaware that pathways existed. This analysis demonstrates that primary care providers who adopt clinical pathways perceive benefits in several domains. The largest barriers to adoption were that users forgot about pathways or were unaware of them. Future work should focus on dissemination and education, improving tool accessibility, and content optimization to balance complexity with efficiency.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
ehr整合临床路径促进教育,信心,并节省初级保健提供者的时间。
由于快速发展的证据和不断变化的临床指南,计算机临床决策支持工具在初级保健中越来越必要和广泛。临床路径是临床决策支持工具的一个亚型,旨在将证据与实践联系起来,并需要评估益处和障碍,以便为以用户为中心的设计提供信息。目的是描述基于证据的、特定疾病的电子健康记录途径用于临床决策支持的使用、可感知的益处和障碍。通过2021年11月通过电子邮件分发的在线问卷,对大型综合卫生系统的初级保健提供者使用临床途径的情况进行了调查。估计描述性统计量,并使用卡方检验或Fisher精确检验评估特征和反应的差异。调查回复率为26%(153/593)。不同实践类型的提供者之间的响应率存在差异(学术42% vs社区54%;P < 0.001)。根据角色、年龄或实践时间的长短,使用这些途径的人与没有使用这些途径的人在人口统计学上没有发现差异。学术实践中的提供者比社区实践中的提供者更有可能使用这些途径。在使用这些途径的医疗服务提供者中,98%的人认为他们有基于证据的信息,98%的人认为他们可以更好地照顾病人,88%的人认为他们可以指导临床决策,85%的人认为他们节省了时间。对于那些使用过通道的人来说,主要的障碍是他们忘记了它们。在那些没有使用过通道的人中,35%的人不知道通道的存在。该分析表明,采用临床途径的初级保健提供者在几个领域都能感受到好处。采用的最大障碍是用户忘记了路径或者没有意识到它们。未来的工作应侧重于传播和教育,提高工具的可访问性和内容优化,以平衡复杂性和效率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
7.10%
发文量
124
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Medical Quality (AJMQ) is focused on keeping readers informed of the resources, processes, and perspectives contributing to quality health care services. This peer-reviewed journal presents a forum for the exchange of ideas, strategies, and methods in improving the delivery and management of health care.
期刊最新文献
Standardized Management of Sickle Cell Disease Patients and the Effects on Care Utilization and Costs Primary Care Provider and Staff Wellness and Burnout Levels and Suggestions to Improve Wellness: Analysis of Survey Findings Preparation of Patients for Central Venous Catheter Care in the Home: Perspectives From Health Care Personnel Handoff Education Interventions: A Scoping Review Focused on Sustaining Improvements A Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome (PACS) Clinic in Rural New England
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1