Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

The impact of a diagnostic decision support system on the consultation: perceptions of GPs and patients

Authors: Talya Porat, Brendan Delaney, Olga Kostopoulou

Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Clinical decision support systems (DSS) aimed at supporting diagnosis are not widely used. This is mainly due to usability issues and lack of integration into clinical work and the electronic health record (EHR). In this study we examined the usability and acceptability of a diagnostic DSS prototype integrated with the EHR and in comparison with the EHR alone.

Methods

Thirty-four General Practitioners (GPs) consulted with 6 standardised patients (SPs) using only their EHR system (baseline session); on another day, they consulted with 6 different but matched for difficulty SPs, using the EHR with the integrated DSS prototype (DSS session). GPs were interviewed twice (at the end of each session), and completed the Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire at the end of the DSS session. The SPs completed the Consultation Satisfaction Questionnaire after each consultation.

Results

The majority of GPs (74%) found the DSS useful: it helped them consider more diagnoses and ask more targeted questions. They considered three user interface features to be the most useful: (1) integration with the EHR; (2) suggested diagnoses to consider at the start of the consultation and; (3) the checklist of symptoms and signs in relation to each suggested diagnosis. There were also criticisms: half of the GPs felt that the DSS changed their consultation style, by requiring them to code symptoms and signs while interacting with the patient. SPs sometimes commented that GPs were looking at their computer more than at them; this comment was made more often in the DSS session (15%) than in the baseline session (3%). Nevertheless, SP ratings on the satisfaction questionnaire did not differ between the two sessions.

Conclusions

To use the DSS effectively, GPs would need to adapt their consultation style, so that they code more information during rather than at the end of the consultation. This presents a potential barrier to adoption. Training GPs to use the system in a patient-centred way, as well as improvement of the DSS interface itself, could facilitate coding. To enhance patient acceptability, patients should be informed about the potential of the DSS to improve diagnostic accuracy.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Varonen H, Kortteisto T, Kaila M, EBMeDS Study Group. What may help or hinder the implementation of computerized decision support systems (CDSSs): a focus group study with physicians. Fam Pract. 2008;25(3):162–7.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Short D, Frischer M, Bashford J. Barriers to the adoption of computerised decision support systems in general practice consultations: a qualitative study of GPs’ perspectives. Int J Med Inform. 2004;73(4):357–62.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Kawamoto K, Del Fiol G. Clinical decision support systems in healthcare. In: Nelson R, Staggers N, editors. Health informatics: an interprofessional approach. Elsevier; 2017. 15. p.170-183.
4.
Ramnarayan P, Kapoor RR, Coren M, Nanduri V, Tomlinson AL, Taylor PM, et al. Measuring the impact of diagnostic decision support on the quality of clinical decision making: development of a reliable and valid composite score. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003;10(6):563–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
van Rosse F, Maat B, Rademaker CM, van Vught AJ, Egberts AC, Bollen CW. The effect of computerized physician order entry on medication prescription errors and clinical outcome in pediatric and intensive care: a systematic review. Pediatrics. 2009;123(4):1184–90.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Kostopoulou O, Porat T, Corrigan D, Mahmoud S, Delaney BC. Diagnostic accuracy of GPs when using an early intervention decision support system: a high-fidelity simulation. Br J Gen Pract. 2017. doi: 10.​3399/​bjgp16X688417.
7.
Bright TJ, Wong A, Dhurjati R, Bristow E, Bastian L, et al. Effect of clinical decision-support systems a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157(1):29–43.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Shibl R, Lawley M, Debuse J. Factors influencing decision support system acceptance. Decis Support Syst. 2013;54:953–61.CrossRef
9.
Musen MA, Middleton B, Greenes RA. Clinical decision-support systems. In: Shortliffe EH, Cimino JJ, editors. Biomedical informatics. London: Springer; 2014. p. 643–74.CrossRef
10.
Chana N, Porat T, Whittlesea C, Delaney B. Improving specialist drug prescribing in primary care using task and error analysis. Br J Gen Pract. 2017;67:e157.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Sidebottom AC, Collins B, Winden TJ, Knutson A, Britt HR. Reactions of nurses to the use of electronic health record alert features in an inpatient setting. Comput Inform Nurs. 2012;30(4):218–26.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Wu HW, Davis PK, Bell DS. Advancing clinical decision support using lessons from outside of healthcare: an interdisciplinary systematic review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2012;12(1):90.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
Tawfik H, Anya O, Nagar AK. Understanding clinical work practices for cross-boundary decision support in e-health. IEEE Trans Inf Technol Biomed. 2012;16(4):530–41.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Nurek M, Kostopoulou O, Delaney BC, Esmail A. Reducing diagnostic errors in primary care. A systematic meta-review of computerized diagnostic decision support systems by the LINNEAUS collaboration on patient safety in primary care. Eur J Gen Pract. 2015;21(sup1):8–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Jaspers MW, Smeulers M, Vermeulen H, Peute LW. Effects of clinical decision-support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a synthesis of high-quality systematic review findings. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2011;18(3):327–34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Dawes RM, Faust D, Meehl PE. Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science. 1989;243(4899):1668–74.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Mollon B, Chong JJ, Holbrook AM, Sung M, Thabane L, Foster G. Features predicting the success of computerized decision support for prescribing: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2009;9(1):11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
Arkes HR, Shaffer VA, Medow MA. Patients derogate physicians who use a computer-assisted diagnostic aid. Med Decis Making. 2007;27:189–202.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Shaffer VA, Probst CA, Merkle EC, Arkes HR, Medow MA. Why do patients derogate physicians who use a computer-based- diagnostic support system? Med Decis Making. 2013;33(1):108–18.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Kostopoulou O, Lionis C, Angelaki A, Ayis S, Durbaba S, Delaney BC. Early diagnostic suggestions improve accuracy of family physicians: a randomized controlled trial in Greece. Fam Pract. 2015;32(3):323–8. doi:10.​1093/​fampra/​cmv012.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Kostopoulou O, Rosen A, Round T, Wright E, Douiri A, Delaney BC. Early diagnostic suggestions improve accuracy of GPs: a randomised controlled trial using computer-simulated patients. Br J Gen Pract. 2015;65(630):e49–54.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Porat T, Kostopoulou O, Woolley A, Delaney BC. Eliciting user decision requirements for designing computerized diagnostic support for family physicians. J Cogn Eng Decis Making. 2016;10(1):57–73.CrossRef
23.
Miller A, Militello L. The role of cognitive engineering in improving clinical decision support. In: Bisantz AM, Burns CM, Fairbanks RJ, editors. Cognitive systems engineering in health care. Taylor & Francis Group; 2014. p. 7–26.
24.
Hettinger AZ, Roth E, Bisantz AM. Cognitive engineering and health informatics: applications and intersections. J Biomed Inform. 2017;67:21.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Lewis JR. IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: Psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 1995;7(1):57–78.CrossRef
26.
Lewis JR. Psychometric evaluation of the PSSUQ using data from five years of usability studies. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2002;14(3&4):463–88.CrossRef
27.
Baker R. Development of a questionnaire to assess patients’ satisfaction with consultations in general practice. Br J Gen Pract. 1990;40(341):487–90.PubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Baker R, Whitfield M. Measuring patient satisfaction: a test of construct validity. Qual Saf Health Care. 1992;1(2):104–9.CrossRef
29.
Poulton BC. Use of the consultation satisfaction questionnaire to examine patients’ satisfaction with general practitioners and community nurses: reliability, replicability and discriminant validity. Br J Gen Pract. 1996;46(402):26–31.PubMedPubMedCentral
30.
31.
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.CrossRef
32.
Lu HP, Gustafson DH. An empirical study of perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use on computerized support system use over time. Int J Inf Manag. 1994;14(5):317–29.CrossRef
33.
Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD. User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quart. 2003;425–478.
34.
35.
Hsu J, Huang J, Fung V, Robertson N, Jimison H, Frankel R. Health information technology and physician-patient interactions: impact of computers on communication during outpatient primary care visits. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005;12(4):474–80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
36.
37.
Das J, Kwan A, Daniels B, Satyanarayana S, Subbaraman R, et al. Use of standardised patients to assess quality of tuberculosis care: a pilot, cross-sectional study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2015;15(11):1305–13.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
Badger LW, DeGruy F, Hartman J, Plant MA, Leeper J, Ficken R, … & Nutt L. Stability of standardized patients’ performance in a study of clinical decision making. Fam Med. 1995;27(2):126–131.
39.
Pieters HM, Touw-Otten FWWM, De Melker RD. Simulated patients in assessing consultation skills of trainees in general practice vocational training: a validity study. Med Educ. 1994;28(3):226–33.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Rethans JJ, Van Boven CP. Simulated patients in general practice: a different look at the consultation. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1987;294(6575):809–12.CrossRef
41.
Evans SC, Roberts MC, Keeley JW, Blossom JB, Amaro CM, Garcia AM, … & Reed GM. Vignette methodologies for studying clinicians’ decision-making: validity, utility, and application in ICD-11 field studies. Int J Clin Health Psychol. 2015;15(2):160–170.
Metadata
Title
The impact of a diagnostic decision support system on the consultation: perceptions of GPs and patients
Authors
Talya Porat
Brendan Delaney
Olga Kostopoulou
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6947
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-017-0477-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2017 Go to the issue

Study protocol

A study protocol of the effectiveness of PEGASUS: a multi-centred study comparing an intervention to promote shared decision making about breast reconstruction with treatment as usual

Research article

Facilitators and barriers to using physical activity smartphone apps among Chinese patients with chronic diseases

Research article

Implementing an online pharmaceutical service using design science research

Software

S2O – A software tool for integrating research data from general purpose statistic software into electronic data capture systems

Research article

Supervised learning for infection risk inference using pathology data

Research article

Early recognition of multiple sclerosis using natural language processing of the electronic health record