医生对使用电子健康记录嵌入式计算器评估住院患者静脉血栓栓塞风险的看法:一项定性研究。

Stephanie R Moss, Kathryn A Martinez, Cassandra Nathan, Elizabeth R Pfoh, Michael B Rothberg
{"title":"医生对使用电子健康记录嵌入式计算器评估住院患者静脉血栓栓塞风险的看法:一项定性研究。","authors":"Stephanie R Moss,&nbsp;Kathryn A Martinez,&nbsp;Cassandra Nathan,&nbsp;Elizabeth R Pfoh,&nbsp;Michael B Rothberg","doi":"10.1055/s-0041-1742227","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background</b>  Venous thromboembolism (VTE) causes preventable in-hospital morbidity. Pharmacologic prophylaxis reduces VTE in at-risk patients but also increases bleeding. To increase appropriate prescribing, a risk calculator to guide prophylaxis decisions was developed. Despite efforts to promote its use, providers accessed it infrequently. <b>Objective</b>  This study aimed to understand provider perspectives on VTE prophylaxis and facilitators and barriers to using the risk calculator. <b>Design</b>  This is a qualitative study exploring provider perspectives on VTE prophylaxis and the VTE risk calculator. <b>Participants</b>  We interviewed attending physicians and advanced practice providers who used the calculator, and site champions who promoted calculator use. Providers were categorized by real-world usage over a 3-month period: low (<20% of the time), moderate (20-50%), or high (>50%). <b>Approach</b>  During semistructured interviews, we asked about experiences with VTE, calculator use, perspectives on its implementation, and experiences with other risk assessment tools. Once thematic saturation was reached, transcripts were analyzed using content analysis to identify themes. <b>Results</b>  Fourteen providers participated. Five were high utilizers, three were moderate utilizers, and six were low utilizers. Three site champions participated. Eight major themes were identified as follows: (1) ease of use, (2) perception of VTE risk, (3) harms of thromboprophylaxis, (4) overestimation of calculator use, (5) confidence in own ability, (6) underestimation of risk by calculator, (7) variability of trust in calculator, and (8) validation to withhold prophylaxis from low-risk patients. <b>Conclusions</b>  While providers found the calculator is easy to use, routine use may be hindered by distrust of its recommendations. Inaccurate perception of VTE and bleeding risk may prevent calculator use.</p>","PeriodicalId":22238,"journal":{"name":"TH Open: Companion Journal to Thrombosis and Haemostasis","volume":"6 1","pages":"e33-e39"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8786561/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Physicians' Views on Utilization of an Electronic Health Record-Embedded Calculator to Assess Risk for Venous Thromboembolism among Medical Inpatients: A Qualitative Study.\",\"authors\":\"Stephanie R Moss,&nbsp;Kathryn A Martinez,&nbsp;Cassandra Nathan,&nbsp;Elizabeth R Pfoh,&nbsp;Michael B Rothberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/s-0041-1742227\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background</b>  Venous thromboembolism (VTE) causes preventable in-hospital morbidity. Pharmacologic prophylaxis reduces VTE in at-risk patients but also increases bleeding. To increase appropriate prescribing, a risk calculator to guide prophylaxis decisions was developed. Despite efforts to promote its use, providers accessed it infrequently. <b>Objective</b>  This study aimed to understand provider perspectives on VTE prophylaxis and facilitators and barriers to using the risk calculator. <b>Design</b>  This is a qualitative study exploring provider perspectives on VTE prophylaxis and the VTE risk calculator. <b>Participants</b>  We interviewed attending physicians and advanced practice providers who used the calculator, and site champions who promoted calculator use. Providers were categorized by real-world usage over a 3-month period: low (<20% of the time), moderate (20-50%), or high (>50%). <b>Approach</b>  During semistructured interviews, we asked about experiences with VTE, calculator use, perspectives on its implementation, and experiences with other risk assessment tools. Once thematic saturation was reached, transcripts were analyzed using content analysis to identify themes. <b>Results</b>  Fourteen providers participated. Five were high utilizers, three were moderate utilizers, and six were low utilizers. Three site champions participated. Eight major themes were identified as follows: (1) ease of use, (2) perception of VTE risk, (3) harms of thromboprophylaxis, (4) overestimation of calculator use, (5) confidence in own ability, (6) underestimation of risk by calculator, (7) variability of trust in calculator, and (8) validation to withhold prophylaxis from low-risk patients. <b>Conclusions</b>  While providers found the calculator is easy to use, routine use may be hindered by distrust of its recommendations. Inaccurate perception of VTE and bleeding risk may prevent calculator use.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22238,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"TH Open: Companion Journal to Thrombosis and Haemostasis\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"e33-e39\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8786561/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"TH Open: Companion Journal to Thrombosis and Haemostasis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1742227\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"TH Open: Companion Journal to Thrombosis and Haemostasis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1742227","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景静脉血栓栓塞(VTE)引起可预防的院内发病率。药物预防可以减少高危患者的静脉血栓栓塞,但也会增加出血。为了增加适当的处方,开发了一个风险计算器来指导预防决策。尽管努力促进其使用,但提供者很少访问它。目的本研究旨在了解医生对静脉血栓栓塞预防的看法以及使用风险计算器的促进因素和障碍。这是一项质性研究,探讨了医生对静脉血栓栓塞预防和静脉血栓栓塞风险计算器的看法。我们采访了使用计算器的主治医生和高级实践提供者,以及推广计算器使用的网站冠军。供应商按3个月的实际使用情况进行分类:低(50%)。在半结构化访谈中,我们询问了VTE的使用经验,计算器的使用,对其实施的看法,以及其他风险评估工具的使用经验。一旦主题达到饱和,就使用内容分析来分析文本以确定主题。结果14家医疗机构参与。5个是高利用率,3个是中等利用率,6个是低利用率。三家网站冠军参加了比赛。确定了以下八个主要主题:(1)易用性,(2)VTE风险的感知,(3)血栓预防的危害,(4)高估计算器的使用,(5)对自己能力的信心,(6)低估计算器的风险,(7)对计算器信任的变异性,以及(8)对低风险患者不进行预防的验证。结论:虽然提供者发现计算器易于使用,但对其建议的不信任可能会阻碍常规使用。对静脉血栓栓塞和出血风险的不准确认识可能会阻止计算器的使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Physicians' Views on Utilization of an Electronic Health Record-Embedded Calculator to Assess Risk for Venous Thromboembolism among Medical Inpatients: A Qualitative Study.

Background  Venous thromboembolism (VTE) causes preventable in-hospital morbidity. Pharmacologic prophylaxis reduces VTE in at-risk patients but also increases bleeding. To increase appropriate prescribing, a risk calculator to guide prophylaxis decisions was developed. Despite efforts to promote its use, providers accessed it infrequently. Objective  This study aimed to understand provider perspectives on VTE prophylaxis and facilitators and barriers to using the risk calculator. Design  This is a qualitative study exploring provider perspectives on VTE prophylaxis and the VTE risk calculator. Participants  We interviewed attending physicians and advanced practice providers who used the calculator, and site champions who promoted calculator use. Providers were categorized by real-world usage over a 3-month period: low (<20% of the time), moderate (20-50%), or high (>50%). Approach  During semistructured interviews, we asked about experiences with VTE, calculator use, perspectives on its implementation, and experiences with other risk assessment tools. Once thematic saturation was reached, transcripts were analyzed using content analysis to identify themes. Results  Fourteen providers participated. Five were high utilizers, three were moderate utilizers, and six were low utilizers. Three site champions participated. Eight major themes were identified as follows: (1) ease of use, (2) perception of VTE risk, (3) harms of thromboprophylaxis, (4) overestimation of calculator use, (5) confidence in own ability, (6) underestimation of risk by calculator, (7) variability of trust in calculator, and (8) validation to withhold prophylaxis from low-risk patients. Conclusions  While providers found the calculator is easy to use, routine use may be hindered by distrust of its recommendations. Inaccurate perception of VTE and bleeding risk may prevent calculator use.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Management of Urgent Bleeding in Patients with Hemophilia A: Focus on the Use of Emicizumab Disease Burden, Clinical Outcomes, and Quality of Life in People with Hemophilia A without Inhibitors in Europe: Analyses from CHESS II/CHESS PAEDs TH Open Continues to Highlight the State-of-the-Art on Thrombosis and Hemostasis with a Renewed Editorial Board The Effect of Rituximab on Antiphospholipid Titers in Patients with Antiphospholipid Syndrome. Potential for a Virtual Care Model in the Perioperative Management of Anticoagulant Therapy: A 5-Year Retrospective Clinic Review.
×
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