Cargando…

Formative evaluation of the accuracy of a clinical decision support system for cervical cancer screening

OBJECTIVES: We previously developed and reported on a prototype clinical decision support system (CDSS) for cervical cancer screening. However, the system is complex as it is based on multiple guidelines and free-text processing. Therefore, the system is susceptible to failures. This report describe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wagholikar, Kavishwar Balwant, MacLaughlin, Kathy L, Kastner, Thomas M, Casey, Petra M, Henry, Michael, Greenes, Robert A, Liu, Hongfang, Chaudhry, Rajeev
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3721177/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23564631
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/amiajnl-2013-001613
_version_ 1782278043857846272
author Wagholikar, Kavishwar Balwant
MacLaughlin, Kathy L
Kastner, Thomas M
Casey, Petra M
Henry, Michael
Greenes, Robert A
Liu, Hongfang
Chaudhry, Rajeev
author_facet Wagholikar, Kavishwar Balwant
MacLaughlin, Kathy L
Kastner, Thomas M
Casey, Petra M
Henry, Michael
Greenes, Robert A
Liu, Hongfang
Chaudhry, Rajeev
author_sort Wagholikar, Kavishwar Balwant
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: We previously developed and reported on a prototype clinical decision support system (CDSS) for cervical cancer screening. However, the system is complex as it is based on multiple guidelines and free-text processing. Therefore, the system is susceptible to failures. This report describes a formative evaluation of the system, which is a necessary step to ensure deployment readiness of the system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Care providers who are potential end-users of the CDSS were invited to provide their recommendations for a random set of patients that represented diverse decision scenarios. The recommendations of the care providers and those generated by the CDSS were compared. Mismatched recommendations were reviewed by two independent experts. RESULTS: A total of 25 users participated in this study and provided recommendations for 175 cases. The CDSS had an accuracy of 87% and 12 types of CDSS errors were identified, which were mainly due to deficiencies in the system's guideline rules. When the deficiencies were rectified, the CDSS generated optimal recommendations for all failure cases, except one with incomplete documentation. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The crowd-sourcing approach for construction of the reference set, coupled with the expert review of mismatched recommendations, facilitated an effective evaluation and enhancement of the system, by identifying decision scenarios that were missed by the system's developers. The described methodology will be useful for other researchers who seek rapidly to evaluate and enhance the deployment readiness of complex decision support systems.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3721177
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-37211772013-12-11 Formative evaluation of the accuracy of a clinical decision support system for cervical cancer screening Wagholikar, Kavishwar Balwant MacLaughlin, Kathy L Kastner, Thomas M Casey, Petra M Henry, Michael Greenes, Robert A Liu, Hongfang Chaudhry, Rajeev J Am Med Inform Assoc Focus on Human Factors and System Utilization OBJECTIVES: We previously developed and reported on a prototype clinical decision support system (CDSS) for cervical cancer screening. However, the system is complex as it is based on multiple guidelines and free-text processing. Therefore, the system is susceptible to failures. This report describes a formative evaluation of the system, which is a necessary step to ensure deployment readiness of the system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Care providers who are potential end-users of the CDSS were invited to provide their recommendations for a random set of patients that represented diverse decision scenarios. The recommendations of the care providers and those generated by the CDSS were compared. Mismatched recommendations were reviewed by two independent experts. RESULTS: A total of 25 users participated in this study and provided recommendations for 175 cases. The CDSS had an accuracy of 87% and 12 types of CDSS errors were identified, which were mainly due to deficiencies in the system's guideline rules. When the deficiencies were rectified, the CDSS generated optimal recommendations for all failure cases, except one with incomplete documentation. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The crowd-sourcing approach for construction of the reference set, coupled with the expert review of mismatched recommendations, facilitated an effective evaluation and enhancement of the system, by identifying decision scenarios that were missed by the system's developers. The described methodology will be useful for other researchers who seek rapidly to evaluate and enhance the deployment readiness of complex decision support systems. BMJ Publishing Group 2013-07 2013-04-05 /pmc/articles/PMC3721177/ /pubmed/23564631 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/amiajnl-2013-001613 Text en 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 This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/
spellingShingle Focus on Human Factors and System Utilization
Wagholikar, Kavishwar Balwant
MacLaughlin, Kathy L
Kastner, Thomas M
Casey, Petra M
Henry, Michael
Greenes, Robert A
Liu, Hongfang
Chaudhry, Rajeev
Formative evaluation of the accuracy of a clinical decision support system for cervical cancer screening
title Formative evaluation of the accuracy of a clinical decision support system for cervical cancer screening
title_full Formative evaluation of the accuracy of a clinical decision support system for cervical cancer screening
title_fullStr Formative evaluation of the accuracy of a clinical decision support system for cervical cancer screening
title_full_unstemmed Formative evaluation of the accuracy of a clinical decision support system for cervical cancer screening
title_short Formative evaluation of the accuracy of a clinical decision support system for cervical cancer screening
title_sort formative evaluation of the accuracy of a clinical decision support system for cervical cancer screening
topic Focus on Human Factors and System Utilization
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3721177/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23564631
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/amiajnl-2013-001613
work_keys_str_mv AT wagholikarkavishwarbalwant formativeevaluationoftheaccuracyofaclinicaldecisionsupportsystemforcervicalcancerscreening
AT maclaughlinkathyl formativeevaluationoftheaccuracyofaclinicaldecisionsupportsystemforcervicalcancerscreening
AT kastnerthomasm formativeevaluationoftheaccuracyofaclinicaldecisionsupportsystemforcervicalcancerscreening
AT caseypetram formativeevaluationoftheaccuracyofaclinicaldecisionsupportsystemforcervicalcancerscreening
AT henrymichael formativeevaluationoftheaccuracyofaclinicaldecisionsupportsystemforcervicalcancerscreening
AT greenesroberta formativeevaluationoftheaccuracyofaclinicaldecisionsupportsystemforcervicalcancerscreening
AT liuhongfang formativeevaluationoftheaccuracyofaclinicaldecisionsupportsystemforcervicalcancerscreening
AT chaudhryrajeev formativeevaluationoftheaccuracyofaclinicaldecisionsupportsystemforcervicalcancerscreening