Family Physicians' Perceptions and Use of Electronic Clinical Decision Support During the First Year of Implementation

被引:47
|
作者
Heselmans, Annemie [1 ]
Aertgeerts, Bert [2 ,3 ]
Donceel, Peter
Geens, Siegfried [3 ]
Van de Velde, Stijn [3 ]
Ramaekers, Dirk [1 ,3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Katholieke Univ Leuven, Dept Publ Hlth, B-3000 Louvain, Belgium
[2] Katholieke Univ Leuven, Acad Ctr Gen Practice, B-3000 Louvain, Belgium
[3] Belgian Ctr Evidence Based Med, Belgian Branch Cochrane Collaborat, Louvain, Belgium
[4] ZNA Hosp Network Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
关键词
Evidence-based medicine; Electronic clinical decision support systems; Reminder systems; Perceptions; Barriers; SYSTEMS; CARE; INFORMATION; TECHNOLOGY; ACCEPTANCE; GUIDELINES; SETTINGS;
D O I
10.1007/s10916-012-9841-3
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
An electronic decision support system (the EBMeDS system) was integrated in one of the Electronic Medical Records (EMR) of Belgian family physicians (Feb 2010). User acceptance of the system is considered as a necessary condition for the effective implementation of any IT project. Facilitators, barriers and issues of non-acceptance need to be understood in view of a successful implementation and to minimize unexpected adoption behavior. Objectives of the study were the assessment of users' perceptions towards the recently implemented EBMeDS system, the investigation of user-interactions with the system and possible relationships between perceptions and use. A mixed evaluation approach was performed consisting of a qualitative and a quantitative analysis. The technology acceptance model of UTAUT was used as a structural model for the development of our questionnaire to identify factors that may account for acceptance and use of the EBMeDS system (seven-point Likert scales). A quantitative analysis of computer-recorded user interactions with the system was performed for an evaluation period of 3 months to assess the actual use of the system. Qualitative and quantitative analysis were linked to each other. Thirty-nine family physicians (12 %) completed the survey. The majority of respondents (66 %) had a positive attitude towards the system in general. Mean intention to keep using the system was high (5,91 +/- 1,33). Their perception of the ease of use of the system (mean 5,04 +/- 1,41), usefulness (mean 4,69 +/- 1,35) and facilitating conditions (4,43 +/- 1,13) was in general positive. Only 0,35 % of reminders were requested on demand, the other 99,62 % of reminders displayed automatically. Detailed guidelines (long) were requested for 0,47 % of reminders automatically shown versus 16,17 % of reminders on request. The script behind the reminders was requested for 8,4 % of reminders automatically shown versus 13,6 % of reminders on request. The majority of respondents demonstrated a relatively high degree of acceptance towards the EBMeDS system. Although the majority of respondents was in general positive towards the ease of use of the system, usefulness and facilitating conditions, part of the statements gave rather mixed results and could be identified as important points of interest for future implementation initiatives and system improvements. It has to be stressed that our population consisted of a convenience sample of early adopters, willing to answer a questionnaire. The willingness to adopt the system depends on the willingness to use ICPC coding. As such, the quality of reminding partly depends on the quality of coding. There is a need to reach a larger population of physicians (including physicians who never used the system or stopped using the system) to validate the results of this survey.
引用
收藏
页码:3677 / 3684
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Perceptions of primary care patients on the use of electronic clinical decision support tools to facilitate health care: A systematic review
    He, William
    Chima, Sophie
    Emery, Jon
    Manski-Nankervis, Jo-Anne
    Williams, Ian
    Hunter, Barbara
    Nelson, Craig
    Martinez-Gutierrez, Javiera
    PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2024, 125
  • [22] PERCEPTIONS OF CLINICAL DECISION-MAKING BY DIETITIANS AND PHYSICIANS
    GAARE, J
    MAILLET, JO
    KING, D
    GILBRIDE, JA
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN DIETETIC ASSOCIATION, 1990, 90 (01) : 54 - 58
  • [23] Qualitative Exploration of the Clinical Data Physicians Value in an Electronic Clinical Decision Support Tool for the Diagnosis and Management of ARDS: Translate Evidence into Action Electronic Clinical Decision Support in ARDS (TREAT ECARDS)
    Aboodil, M. S.
    Cheni, J.
    Hopei, A. A.
    Karasz, A.
    Gongs, M. N.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF RESPIRATORY AND CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2020, 201
  • [24] Implementation of clinical decision support rules
    Simonian, Armen I.
    Lam, Jason H.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH-SYSTEM PHARMACY, 2016, 73 (07) : 436 - 439
  • [25] Anticipating and Addressing Challenges During Implementation of Clinical Decision Support Systems
    Shah, Nishant R.
    Khetpal, Vishal
    Erqou, Sebhat
    JAMA NETWORK OPEN, 2022, 5 (02)
  • [26] CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGISTS IN THE COMMUNITY - PERCEPTIONS OF BRITISH FAMILY PHYSICIANS
    REID, P
    SMITH, H
    PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORTS, 1982, 51 (02) : 385 - 386
  • [27] Implementation of an Electronic Clinical Decision Support Tool for Pediatric Appendicitis Within a Hospital Network
    Hendrickson, Marissa A.
    Wey, Andrew R.
    Gaillard, Philippe R.
    Kharbanda, Anupam B.
    PEDIATRIC EMERGENCY CARE, 2018, 34 (01) : 10 - 16
  • [28] Use of Electronic Health Records and Clinical Decision Support Systems for Antimicrobial Stewardship
    Forrest, Graeme N.
    Van Schooneveld, Trevor C.
    Kullar, Ravina
    Schulz, Lucas T.
    Phu Duong
    Postelnick, Michael
    CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES, 2014, 59 : S122 - S133
  • [29] Electronic clinical decision support systems attitudes and barriers to use in the oncology setting
    I. M. Collins
    O. Breathnach
    P. Felle
    Irish Journal of Medical Science, 2012, 181 : 521 - 525
  • [30] Optimizing the Use of Pulmonary Embolism Severity Indices in Electronic Clinical Decision Support
    Vinson, David R.
    Rouleau, Samuel G.
    Casey, Scott D.
    Stubble, William B.
    Westafer, Lauren M.
    ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE, 2024, 84 (03) : 333 - 334