医疗服务提供者对电子健康记录前列腺癌筛查工具的看法

IF 2.1 2区 医学 Q4 MEDICAL INFORMATICS Applied Clinical Informatics Pub Date : 2024-04-10 DOI:10.1055/s-0044-1782619
Sigrid V. Carlsson, Mark Preston, Andrew Vickers, Deepak Malhotra, Behfar Ehdaie, Michael Healey, Adam S. Kibel
{"title":"医疗服务提供者对电子健康记录前列腺癌筛查工具的看法","authors":"Sigrid V. Carlsson, Mark Preston, Andrew Vickers, Deepak Malhotra, Behfar Ehdaie, Michael Healey, Adam S. Kibel","doi":"10.1055/s-0044-1782619","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>\n<b>Objectives</b> We conducted a focus group to assess the attitudes of primary care physicians (PCPs) toward prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-screening algorithms, perceptions of using decision support tools, and features that would make such tools feasible to implement.</p> <p>\n<b>Methods</b> A multidisciplinary team (primary care, urology, behavioral sciences, bioinformatics) developed the decision support tool that was presented to a focus group of 10 PCPs who also filled out a survey. Notes and audio-recorded transcripts were analyzed using Thematic Content Analysis.</p> <p>\n<b>Results</b> The survey showed that PCPs followed different guidelines. In total, 7/10 PCPs agreed that engaging in shared decision-making about PSA screening was burdensome. The majority (9/10) had never used a decision aid for PSA screening. Although 70% of PCPs felt confident about their ability to discuss PSA screening, 90% still felt a need for a provider-facing platform to assist in these discussions. Three major themes emerged: (1) confirmatory reactions regarding the importance, innovation, and unmet need for a decision support tool embedded in the electronic health record; (2) issues around implementation and application of the tool in clinic workflow and PCPs' own clinical bias; and (3) attitudes/reflections regarding discrepant recommendations from various guideline groups that cause confusion.</p> <p>\n<b>Conclusion</b> There was overwhelmingly positive support for the need for a provider-facing decision support tool to assist with PSA-screening decisions in the primary care setting. PCPs appreciated that the tool would allow flexibility for clinical judgment and documentation of shared decision-making. Incorporation of suggestions from this focus group into a second version of the tool will be used in subsequent pilot testing.</p> ","PeriodicalId":48956,"journal":{"name":"Applied Clinical Informatics","volume":"187 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Provider Perceptions of an Electronic Health Record Prostate Cancer Screening Tool\",\"authors\":\"Sigrid V. Carlsson, Mark Preston, Andrew Vickers, Deepak Malhotra, Behfar Ehdaie, Michael Healey, Adam S. Kibel\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/s-0044-1782619\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>\\n<b>Objectives</b> We conducted a focus group to assess the attitudes of primary care physicians (PCPs) toward prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-screening algorithms, perceptions of using decision support tools, and features that would make such tools feasible to implement.</p> <p>\\n<b>Methods</b> A multidisciplinary team (primary care, urology, behavioral sciences, bioinformatics) developed the decision support tool that was presented to a focus group of 10 PCPs who also filled out a survey. Notes and audio-recorded transcripts were analyzed using Thematic Content Analysis.</p> <p>\\n<b>Results</b> The survey showed that PCPs followed different guidelines. In total, 7/10 PCPs agreed that engaging in shared decision-making about PSA screening was burdensome. The majority (9/10) had never used a decision aid for PSA screening. Although 70% of PCPs felt confident about their ability to discuss PSA screening, 90% still felt a need for a provider-facing platform to assist in these discussions. Three major themes emerged: (1) confirmatory reactions regarding the importance, innovation, and unmet need for a decision support tool embedded in the electronic health record; (2) issues around implementation and application of the tool in clinic workflow and PCPs' own clinical bias; and (3) attitudes/reflections regarding discrepant recommendations from various guideline groups that cause confusion.</p> <p>\\n<b>Conclusion</b> There was overwhelmingly positive support for the need for a provider-facing decision support tool to assist with PSA-screening decisions in the primary care setting. PCPs appreciated that the tool would allow flexibility for clinical judgment and documentation of shared decision-making. Incorporation of suggestions from this focus group into a second version of the tool will be used in subsequent pilot testing.</p> \",\"PeriodicalId\":48956,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Clinical Informatics\",\"volume\":\"187 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Clinical Informatics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1782619\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL INFORMATICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Clinical Informatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1782619","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的 我们开展了一个焦点小组,以评估初级保健医生 (PCP) 对前列腺特异性抗原 (PSA) 筛查算法的态度、对使用决策支持工具的看法以及使此类工具可行的特点。方法 一个多学科团队(初级保健、泌尿科、行为科学、生物信息学)开发了决策支持工具,并向由 10 名初级保健医生组成的焦点小组展示了该工具,这些医生也填写了一份调查问卷。采用主题内容分析法对笔记和录音誊本进行了分析。结果 调查显示,初级保健医生遵循不同的指导原则。共有 7/10 名初级保健医生认为,参与 PSA 筛查的共同决策是一种负担。大多数人(9/10)从未使用过 PSA 筛查决策辅助工具。尽管 70% 的初级保健医生对自己讨论 PSA 筛查的能力充满信心,但仍有 90% 的人认为需要一个面向医疗服务提供者的平台来协助这些讨论。研究中出现了三大主题:(1) 对嵌入电子健康记录的决策支持工具的重要性、创新性和未满足的需求的肯定性反应;(2) 诊所工作流程中工具的实施和应用问题以及初级保健医生自身的临床偏见;(3) 对不同指南小组提出的导致混乱的不同建议的态度/反思。结论 绝大多数人都支持在初级医疗机构中需要一种面向医疗服务提供者的决策支持工具来协助做出 PSA 筛查决策。初级保健医生对该工具能够灵活地进行临床判断并记录共同决策表示赞赏。将该焦点小组的建议纳入第二版工具将用于后续的试点测试。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Provider Perceptions of an Electronic Health Record Prostate Cancer Screening Tool

Objectives We conducted a focus group to assess the attitudes of primary care physicians (PCPs) toward prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-screening algorithms, perceptions of using decision support tools, and features that would make such tools feasible to implement.

Methods A multidisciplinary team (primary care, urology, behavioral sciences, bioinformatics) developed the decision support tool that was presented to a focus group of 10 PCPs who also filled out a survey. Notes and audio-recorded transcripts were analyzed using Thematic Content Analysis.

Results The survey showed that PCPs followed different guidelines. In total, 7/10 PCPs agreed that engaging in shared decision-making about PSA screening was burdensome. The majority (9/10) had never used a decision aid for PSA screening. Although 70% of PCPs felt confident about their ability to discuss PSA screening, 90% still felt a need for a provider-facing platform to assist in these discussions. Three major themes emerged: (1) confirmatory reactions regarding the importance, innovation, and unmet need for a decision support tool embedded in the electronic health record; (2) issues around implementation and application of the tool in clinic workflow and PCPs' own clinical bias; and (3) attitudes/reflections regarding discrepant recommendations from various guideline groups that cause confusion.

Conclusion There was overwhelmingly positive support for the need for a provider-facing decision support tool to assist with PSA-screening decisions in the primary care setting. PCPs appreciated that the tool would allow flexibility for clinical judgment and documentation of shared decision-making. Incorporation of suggestions from this focus group into a second version of the tool will be used in subsequent pilot testing.

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
Applied Clinical Informatics
Applied Clinical Informatics MEDICAL INFORMATICS-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
24.10%
发文量
132
期刊介绍: ACI is the third Schattauer journal dealing with biomedical and health informatics. It perfectly complements our other journals Öffnet internen Link im aktuellen FensterMethods of Information in Medicine and the Öffnet internen Link im aktuellen FensterYearbook of Medical Informatics. The Yearbook of Medical Informatics being the “Milestone” or state-of-the-art journal and Methods of Information in Medicine being the “Science and Research” journal of IMIA, ACI intends to be the “Practical” journal of IMIA.
期刊最新文献
Effects of Aligning Residency Note Templates with CMS Evaluation and Management Documentation Requirements. Multisite implementation of a sexual health survey and clinical decision support to promote adolescent sexually transmitted infection screening. Optimizing Resident Charge Capture with Disappearing Help Text in Note Templates. Special Section on Patient-Reported Outcomes and Informatics: Collection of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Rural and Underserved Populations. The Effect of Ambient Artificial Intelligence Notes on Provider Burnout.
×
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