Healthcare provider perceptions of clinical prediction rules.

Szczegóły
Abstrakt

Tytuł:: Healthcare provider perceptions of clinical prediction rules.
Autorzy:: Richardson S; Department of Medicine, Hofstra North Shore-LIJ School of Medicine, Manhasset, New York, USA.
Khan S; Department of Medicine, Hofstra North Shore-LIJ School of Medicine, Manhasset, New York, USA.
McCullagh L; Department of Medicine, Hofstra North Shore-LIJ School of Medicine, Manhasset, New York, USA.
Kline M; Biostatistics Division, Feinstein Institute for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York, USA.
Mann D; Department of Medicine, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
McGinn T; Department of Medicine, Hofstra North Shore-LIJ School of Medicine, Manhasset, New York, USA.
Źródło:: BMJ open [BMJ Open] 2015 Sep 02; Vol. 5 (9), pp. e008461. Date of Electronic Publication: 2015 Sep 02.
Typ publikacji:: Journal Article
Język:: English
Imprint Name(s):: Original Publication: [London] : BMJ Publishing Group Ltd, 2011-
MeSH Terms:: Emergency Medicine*
Internal Medicine*
Health Personnel/*standards
Decision Support Techniques ; Evidence-Based Practice ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Predictive Value of Tests ; Qualitative Research ; United States/epidemiology
References:: Am J Emerg Med. 1994 Sep;12(5):541-3. (PMID: 8060409)
Arch Intern Med. 2000 Sep 11;160(16):2471-6. (PMID: 10979058)
JAMA. 1997 Feb 12;277(6):488-94. (PMID: 9020274)
Hepatology. 2001 Feb;33(2):464-70. (PMID: 11172350)
JAMA. 2001 Jun 13;285(22):2864-70. (PMID: 11401607)
JAMA. 2001 Oct 17;286(15):1841-8. (PMID: 11597285)
Thorax. 2003 May;58(5):377-82. (PMID: 12728155)
N Engl J Med. 2003 Jun 26;348(26):2635-45. (PMID: 12826639)
Crit Care Med. 1985 Oct;13(10):818-29. (PMID: 3928249)
Ann Emerg Med. 1992 Apr;21(4):384-90. (PMID: 1554175)
JAMA. 1992 Nov 4;268(17):2420-5. (PMID: 1404801)
JAMA. 1997 Dec 17;278(23):2075-9. (PMID: 9403421)
Lancet. 1997 Dec 20-27;350(9094):1795-8. (PMID: 9428249)
Ann Emerg Med. 1998 Oct;32(4):461-9. (PMID: 9774931)
Am J Med. 2005 Oct;118(10):1134-41. (PMID: 16194645)
Ann Emerg Med. 2006 May;47(5):448-54. (PMID: 16631985)
J Thromb Haemost. 2006 Apr;4(4):759-65. (PMID: 16634744)
JAMA. 2007 Apr 11;297(14):1583-93. (PMID: 17426278)
J Thromb Haemost. 2004 Aug;2(8):1247-55. (PMID: 15304025)
Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1974 Jul;139(1):69-81. (PMID: 4834279)
Arch Intern Med. 1975 Nov;135(11):1493-7. (PMID: 1103766)
Med Decis Making. 1981;1(3):239-46. (PMID: 6763125)
JAMA. 1984 Oct 12;252(14):1905-7. (PMID: 6471323)
J Emerg Med. 2009 Oct;37(3):319-27. (PMID: 19427752)
Issue Brief (Commonw Fund). 2011 Jul;16:1-14. (PMID: 21796847)
JAMA. 2012 Apr 11;307(14):1513-6. (PMID: 22419800)
Perspect Health Inf Manag. 2012;9:1b. (PMID: 22737094)
Ann Intern Med. 2012 Jul 3;157(1):29-43. (PMID: 22751758)
JAMA Intern Med. 2013 Sep 23;173(17):1584-91. (PMID: 23896675)
Thromb Haemost. 2000 Mar;83(3):416-20. (PMID: 10744147)
JAMA. 2000 Aug 16;284(7):835-42. (PMID: 10938172)
N Engl J Med. 1997 Jan 23;336(4):243-50. (PMID: 8995086)
Contributed Indexing:: Keywords: HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION & MANAGEMENT; INTERNAL MEDICINE; MEDICAL EDUCATION & TRAINING
Entry Date(s):: Date Created: 20150905 Date Completed: 20160804 Latest Revision: 20220316
Update Code:: 20240104
PubMed Central ID:: PMC4563244
DOI:: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008461
PMID:: 26338684
: Czasopismo naukowe

Full Text Finder

Objectives: To examine internal medicine and emergency medicine healthcare provider perceptions of usefulness of specific clinical prediction rules.
Setting: The study took place in two academic medical centres. A web-based survey was distributed and completed by participants between 1 January and 31 May 2013.
Participants: Medical doctors, doctors of osteopathy or nurse practitioners employed in the internal medicine or emergency medicine departments at either institution.
Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was to identify the clinical prediction rules perceived as most useful by healthcare providers specialising in internal medicine and emergency medicine. Secondary outcomes included comparing usefulness scores of specific clinical prediction rules based on provider specialty, and evaluating associations between usefulness scores and perceived characteristics of these clinical prediction rules.
Results: Of the 401 healthcare providers asked to participate, a total of 263 (66%), completed the survey. The CHADS2 score was chosen by most internal medicine providers (72%), and Pulmonary Embolism Rule-Out Criteria (PERC) score by most emergency medicine providers (45%), as one of the top three most useful from a list of 24 clinical prediction rules. Emergency medicine providers rated their top three significantly more positively, compared with internal medicine providers, as having a better fit into their workflow (p=0.004), helping more with decision-making (p=0.037), better fitting into their thought process when diagnosing patients (p=0.001) and overall, on a 10-point scale, more useful (p=0.009). For all providers, the perceived qualities of useful at point of care, helps with decision making, saves time diagnosing, fits into thought process, and should be the standard of clinical care correlated highly (≥0.65) with overall 10-point usefulness scores.
Conclusions: Healthcare providers describe clear preferences for certain clinical prediction rules, based on medical specialty.
(Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.)

Informacja