The Effect of Clinical Decision Support Tools on Physicians' Practices.

Q3 Medicine
Amrin Fakih
{"title":"The Effect of Clinical Decision Support Tools on Physicians' Practices.","authors":"Amrin Fakih","doi":"10.59556/japi.73.0706","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this research is to assess the impact of clinical decision support (CDS) tools on the practices of Indian physicians.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Descriptive statistics and frequency distributions are used to assess the data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Through a primary survey, it was found that about 69% of the physicians frequently use clinical decision tools in their practice. The author found that the clinical decision tools affect 1-5 decisions every week (for about 54% of the sample). Nonetheless, a great many (31%) stated that they do not use the tools frequently; therefore, none of their decisions are affected by the technology on a usual basis. There is a slight improvement in diagnosis post the use of the app. Although 46% of doctors stated that they have made zero errors in decision making post the use of the application, 54% admitted making errors in 1-5 decisions per week. This shows that the tool has not been able to address all the needs of the doctors. A great many agreed that the tool helped in reducing diagnostic tests. Although a majority of doctors stated that they order fewer than five diagnostic tests post the use of the application, a great many doctors agreed that they order >10 tests after using the application. This could be due to less faith in the technology or could be an attribute of a small sample. The author intended to assess whether clinical decision tools are cost-effective. The author found that not all decision tools are cost-effective. The variation could be due to differences in comprehensiveness of information, product features, and area of practice.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study exhibits that there is less faith in the technology and the application is favored by younger doctors. By and large, doctors agreed that the tool provides quicker diagnosis and is user-friendly.</p>","PeriodicalId":22693,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of the Association of Physicians of India","volume":"73 2","pages":"26-30"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of the Association of Physicians of India","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.59556/japi.73.0706","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this research is to assess the impact of clinical decision support (CDS) tools on the practices of Indian physicians.

Methods: Descriptive statistics and frequency distributions are used to assess the data.

Results: Through a primary survey, it was found that about 69% of the physicians frequently use clinical decision tools in their practice. The author found that the clinical decision tools affect 1-5 decisions every week (for about 54% of the sample). Nonetheless, a great many (31%) stated that they do not use the tools frequently; therefore, none of their decisions are affected by the technology on a usual basis. There is a slight improvement in diagnosis post the use of the app. Although 46% of doctors stated that they have made zero errors in decision making post the use of the application, 54% admitted making errors in 1-5 decisions per week. This shows that the tool has not been able to address all the needs of the doctors. A great many agreed that the tool helped in reducing diagnostic tests. Although a majority of doctors stated that they order fewer than five diagnostic tests post the use of the application, a great many doctors agreed that they order >10 tests after using the application. This could be due to less faith in the technology or could be an attribute of a small sample. The author intended to assess whether clinical decision tools are cost-effective. The author found that not all decision tools are cost-effective. The variation could be due to differences in comprehensiveness of information, product features, and area of practice.

Conclusion: This study exhibits that there is less faith in the technology and the application is favored by younger doctors. By and large, doctors agreed that the tool provides quicker diagnosis and is user-friendly.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
509
×
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