Author
Listed:
- Derk L Arts
- Stephanie K Medlock
- Henk C P M van Weert
- Jeremy C Wyatt
- Ameen Abu-Hanna
Abstract
Background: Many studies have investigated the use of clinical decision support systems as a means to improve care, but have thus far failed to show significant effects on patient-related outcomes. We developed a clinical decision support system that attempted to address issues that were identified in these studies. The system was implemented in Dutch general practice and was designed to be both unobtrusive and to respond in real time. Despite our efforts, usage of the system was low. In the current study we perform a mixed methods evaluation to identify remediable barriers which led to disappointing usage rates for our system. Methods: A mixed methods evaluation employing an online questionnaire and focus group. The focus group was organized to clarify free text comments and receive more detailed feedback from general practitioners. Topics consisted of items based on results from the survey and additional open questions. Results: The response rate for the questionnaire was 94%. Results from the questionnaire and focus group can be summarized as follows: The system was perceived as interruptive, despite its design. Participants felt that there were too many recommendations and that the relevance of the recommendations varied. Demographic based recommendations (e.g. age) were often irrelevant, while specific risk-based recommendations (e.g. diagnosis) were more relevant. The other main barrier to use was lack of time during the patient visit. Conclusion: These results are likely to be useful to other researchers who are attempting to address the problems of interruption and alert fatigue in decision support.
Suggested Citation
Derk L Arts & Stephanie K Medlock & Henk C P M van Weert & Jeremy C Wyatt & Ameen Abu-Hanna, 2018.
"Acceptance and barriers pertaining to a general practice decision support system for multiple clinical conditions: A mixed methods evaluation,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-16, April.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0193187
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193187
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0193187. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.