Author
Listed:
- Feliciano Yu
(UAB Center for Outcomes and Effectiveness Research and Education (COERE), Birmingham, Alabama, Department of Pediatrics, UAB Health Services and Outcomes Research Training Program, Birmingham, Alabama, fyu@peds.uab.edu)
- Thomas K. Houston
(UAB Center for Outcomes and Effectiveness Research and Education (COERE), Birmingham, Alabama, Department of Medicine, Birmingham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Birmingham, Alabama, Deep South Center on Effectiveness Research, Birmingham, Alabama)
- Midge N. Ray
(UAB Center for Outcomes and Effectiveness Research and Education (COERE), Birmingham, Alabama, Department of Health Services Administration University of Alabama at Birmingham)
- Duriel Q. Garner
(Department of Health Services Administration University of Alabama at Birmingham)
- Eta S. Berner
(UAB Center for Outcomes and Effectiveness Research and Education (COERE), Birmingham, Alabama, Department of Health Services Administration University of Alabama at Birmingham)
Abstract
Objectives. To assess the patterns of use of handheld clinical decision support tools by internal medicine residents in clinical settings. Methods. Eighty-two internal medicine residents were given personal digital assistants (PDAs) containing a suite of clinical decision support (CDS) programs. A tracking program was used to prospectively track program use during the study period, and a follow-up survey regarding self-reported program use was administered after the study period. Patterns of program use from the tracking data were compared to the data from the self-report survey. Results. Sixty-eight residents were followed using the tracking data. Residents used an average of 1.81 CDS programs (SD: 1.57; range, 0—5) per month. Forty-nine residents completed the self-report survey. Residents reported using an average of 3.15 (SD: 1.61) and 3.92 (SD: 1.40) CDS programs during a typical clinic session and inpatient day, respectively. In both inpatient and outpatient settings and for both methods of assessing program use, 2 programs (Epocrates and MedCalc) were used more often than the other programs. No association was observed between age, gender, race, and PGY level with the use of handheld clinical decision support tools for either tracked or self-report data. The self-report data show higher estimates of CDS program use than the tracking data in the clinical setting. Conclusions. The data show that physicians prefer to use certain handheld CDS tools in clinical settings. Drug references and medical calculators have been consistently used more than clinical prediction rules and diagnostic systems. Self-report survey instruments may overestimate recorded use of CDS programs.
Suggested Citation
Feliciano Yu & Thomas K. Houston & Midge N. Ray & Duriel Q. Garner & Eta S. Berner, 2007.
"Patterns of Use of Handheld Clinical Decision Support Tools in the Clinical Setting,"
Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(6), pages 744-753, November.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:medema:v:27:y:2007:i:6:p:744-753
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07305321
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:sae:medema:v:27:y:2007:i:6:p:744-753. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.