A Provider-Facing Decision Support Tool for Prostate Cancer Screening in Primary Care: A Pilot Study

IF 2.1 2区 医学 Q4 MEDICAL INFORMATICS
Sigrid V. Carlsson, Mark A. Preston, Andrew Vickers, Deepak Malhotra, Behfar Ehdaie, Michael J. Healey, Adam S. Kibel
{"title":"A Provider-Facing Decision Support Tool for Prostate Cancer Screening in Primary Care: A Pilot Study","authors":"Sigrid V. Carlsson, Mark A. Preston, Andrew Vickers, Deepak Malhotra, Behfar Ehdaie, Michael J. Healey, Adam S. Kibel","doi":"10.1055/s-0044-1780511","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>\n<b>Objectives</b> Our objective was to pilot test an electronic health record-embedded decision support tool to facilitate prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening discussions in the primary care setting.</p> <p>\n<b>Methods</b> We pilot-tested a novel decision support tool that was used by 10 primary care physicians (PCPs) for 6 months, followed by a survey. The tool comprised (1) a risk-stratified algorithm, (2) a tool for facilitating shared decision-making (Simple Schema), (3) three best practice advisories (BPAs: <45, 45–75, and >75 years), and (4) a health maintenance module for scheduling automated reminders about PSA rescreening.</p> <p>\n<b>Results</b> All PCPs found the tool feasible, acceptable, and clear to use. Eight out of ten PCPs reported that the tool made PSA screening conversations somewhat or much easier. Before using the tool, 70% of PCPs felt confident in their ability to discuss PSA screening with their patient, and this improved to 100% after the tool was used by PCPs for 6 months. PCPs found the BPAs for eligible (45–75 years) and older men (>75 years) more useful than the BPA for younger men (<45 years). Among the 10 PCPs, 60% found the Simple Schema to be very useful, and 50% found the health maintenance module to be extremely or very useful. Most PCPs reported the components of the tool to be at least somewhat useful, with 10% finding them to be very burdensome.</p> <p>\n<b>Conclusion</b> We demonstrated the feasibility and acceptability of the tool, which is notable given the marked low acceptance of existing tools. All PCPs reported that they would consider continuing to use the tool in their clinic and were likely or very likely to recommend the tool to a colleague.</p> ","PeriodicalId":48956,"journal":{"name":"Applied Clinical Informatics","volume":null,"pages":null},"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-0044-1780511","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

Abstract

Objectives Our objective was to pilot test an electronic health record-embedded decision support tool to facilitate prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening discussions in the primary care setting.

Methods We pilot-tested a novel decision support tool that was used by 10 primary care physicians (PCPs) for 6 months, followed by a survey. The tool comprised (1) a risk-stratified algorithm, (2) a tool for facilitating shared decision-making (Simple Schema), (3) three best practice advisories (BPAs: <45, 45–75, and >75 years), and (4) a health maintenance module for scheduling automated reminders about PSA rescreening.

Results All PCPs found the tool feasible, acceptable, and clear to use. Eight out of ten PCPs reported that the tool made PSA screening conversations somewhat or much easier. Before using the tool, 70% of PCPs felt confident in their ability to discuss PSA screening with their patient, and this improved to 100% after the tool was used by PCPs for 6 months. PCPs found the BPAs for eligible (45–75 years) and older men (>75 years) more useful than the BPA for younger men (<45 years). Among the 10 PCPs, 60% found the Simple Schema to be very useful, and 50% found the health maintenance module to be extremely or very useful. Most PCPs reported the components of the tool to be at least somewhat useful, with 10% finding them to be very burdensome.

Conclusion We demonstrated the feasibility and acceptability of the tool, which is notable given the marked low acceptance of existing tools. All PCPs reported that they would consider continuing to use the tool in their clinic and were likely or very likely to recommend the tool to a colleague.

面向医疗服务提供者的基层医疗机构前列腺癌筛查决策支持工具:试点研究
目的 我们的目标是对一种嵌入电子健康记录的决策支持工具进行试点测试,以促进初级保健环境中的前列腺特异性抗原 (PSA) 筛查讨论。方法 我们对一种新型决策支持工具进行了为期 6 个月的试点测试,10 名初级保健医生(PCP)使用了该工具,随后进行了调查。该工具包括:(1)风险分级算法;(2)促进共同决策的工具(Simple Schema);(3)三个最佳实践建议(BPA:75 岁);(4)用于安排 PSA 再筛查自动提醒的健康维护模块。结果 所有初级保健医生都认为该工具可行、可接受且清晰易用。十位初级保健医生中有八位表示,该工具使 PSA 筛查对话变得更容易一些或容易得多。在使用该工具前,70% 的初级保健医生对自己与患者讨论 PSA 筛查的能力充满信心,而在初级保健医生使用该工具 6 个月后,这一比例提高到 100%。初级保健医生认为符合条件的男性(45-75 岁)和老年男性(75 岁以上)的 BPA 比年轻男性的 BPA 更有用(结论 我们证明了该工具的可行性和可接受性,鉴于现有工具的接受度明显较低,这一点值得注意。所有初级保健医生都表示,他们会考虑在自己的诊所继续使用该工具,并有可能或非常有可能向同事推荐该工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信