Cargando…

Naturalistic study of guideline implementation tool use via evaluation of website access and physician survey

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines support decision-making at the point-of-care but the onus is often on individual users such as physicians to implement them. Research shows that the inclusion of implementation tools in or with guidelines (GItools) is associated with guideline use. However, there is l...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Armstrong, Melissa J., Gronseth, Gary S., Dubinsky, Richard, Potrebic, Sonja, Penfold Murray, Rebecca, Getchius, Thomas S. D., Rheaume, Carol, Gagliardi, Anna R
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5237306/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28086771
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12911-016-0404-2
_version_ 1782495509311651840
author Armstrong, Melissa J.
Gronseth, Gary S.
Dubinsky, Richard
Potrebic, Sonja
Penfold Murray, Rebecca
Getchius, Thomas S. D.
Rheaume, Carol
Gagliardi, Anna R
author_facet Armstrong, Melissa J.
Gronseth, Gary S.
Dubinsky, Richard
Potrebic, Sonja
Penfold Murray, Rebecca
Getchius, Thomas S. D.
Rheaume, Carol
Gagliardi, Anna R
author_sort Armstrong, Melissa J.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines support decision-making at the point-of-care but the onus is often on individual users such as physicians to implement them. Research shows that the inclusion of implementation tools in or with guidelines (GItools) is associated with guideline use. However, there is little research on which GItools best support implementation by individual physicians. The purpose of this study was to investigate naturalistic access and use of GItools produced by the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) to inform future tool development. METHODS: Website accesses over six months were summarized for eight AAN guidelines and associated GItools published between July 2012 and August 2013. Academy members were surveyed about use of tools accompanying the sport concussion guideline. Data were analyzed using summary statistics and the Chi-square test. RESULTS: The clinician summary was accessed more frequently (29.0%, p < 0.001) compared with the slide presentation (26.8%), patient summary (23.2%) or case study (20.9%), although this varied by guideline topic. For the sport concussion guideline, which was accompanied by a greater variety of GItools, the mobile phone quick reference check application was most frequently accessed, followed by the clinician summary, patient summary, and slide presentation. For the sports concussion guideline survey, most respondents (response rate 21.8%, 168/797) were aware of the guideline (88.1%) and had read the guideline (78.6%). For GItool use, respondents indicated reading the reference card (51.2%), clinician summary (45.2%), patient summary (28.0%), mobile phone application (26.2%), and coach/athletic trainer summary (20.2%). Patterns of sports concussion GItool use were similar between respondents who said they had and had not yet implemented the guideline. CONCLUSIONS: Developers faced with resource limitations may wish to prioritize the development of printable or mobile application clinician summaries, which were accessed significantly more than other types of GItools. Further research is needed to understand how to optimize the design of such GItools.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5237306
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-52373062017-01-18 Naturalistic study of guideline implementation tool use via evaluation of website access and physician survey Armstrong, Melissa J. Gronseth, Gary S. Dubinsky, Richard Potrebic, Sonja Penfold Murray, Rebecca Getchius, Thomas S. D. Rheaume, Carol Gagliardi, Anna R BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Research Article BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines support decision-making at the point-of-care but the onus is often on individual users such as physicians to implement them. Research shows that the inclusion of implementation tools in or with guidelines (GItools) is associated with guideline use. However, there is little research on which GItools best support implementation by individual physicians. The purpose of this study was to investigate naturalistic access and use of GItools produced by the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) to inform future tool development. METHODS: Website accesses over six months were summarized for eight AAN guidelines and associated GItools published between July 2012 and August 2013. Academy members were surveyed about use of tools accompanying the sport concussion guideline. Data were analyzed using summary statistics and the Chi-square test. RESULTS: The clinician summary was accessed more frequently (29.0%, p < 0.001) compared with the slide presentation (26.8%), patient summary (23.2%) or case study (20.9%), although this varied by guideline topic. For the sport concussion guideline, which was accompanied by a greater variety of GItools, the mobile phone quick reference check application was most frequently accessed, followed by the clinician summary, patient summary, and slide presentation. For the sports concussion guideline survey, most respondents (response rate 21.8%, 168/797) were aware of the guideline (88.1%) and had read the guideline (78.6%). For GItool use, respondents indicated reading the reference card (51.2%), clinician summary (45.2%), patient summary (28.0%), mobile phone application (26.2%), and coach/athletic trainer summary (20.2%). Patterns of sports concussion GItool use were similar between respondents who said they had and had not yet implemented the guideline. CONCLUSIONS: Developers faced with resource limitations may wish to prioritize the development of printable or mobile application clinician summaries, which were accessed significantly more than other types of GItools. Further research is needed to understand how to optimize the design of such GItools. BioMed Central 2017-01-13 /pmc/articles/PMC5237306/ /pubmed/28086771 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12911-016-0404-2 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Armstrong, Melissa J.
Gronseth, Gary S.
Dubinsky, Richard
Potrebic, Sonja
Penfold Murray, Rebecca
Getchius, Thomas S. D.
Rheaume, Carol
Gagliardi, Anna R
Naturalistic study of guideline implementation tool use via evaluation of website access and physician survey
title Naturalistic study of guideline implementation tool use via evaluation of website access and physician survey
title_full Naturalistic study of guideline implementation tool use via evaluation of website access and physician survey
title_fullStr Naturalistic study of guideline implementation tool use via evaluation of website access and physician survey
title_full_unstemmed Naturalistic study of guideline implementation tool use via evaluation of website access and physician survey
title_short Naturalistic study of guideline implementation tool use via evaluation of website access and physician survey
title_sort naturalistic study of guideline implementation tool use via evaluation of website access and physician survey
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5237306/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28086771
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12911-016-0404-2
work_keys_str_mv AT armstrongmelissaj naturalisticstudyofguidelineimplementationtooluseviaevaluationofwebsiteaccessandphysiciansurvey
AT gronsethgarys naturalisticstudyofguidelineimplementationtooluseviaevaluationofwebsiteaccessandphysiciansurvey
AT dubinskyrichard naturalisticstudyofguidelineimplementationtooluseviaevaluationofwebsiteaccessandphysiciansurvey
AT potrebicsonja naturalisticstudyofguidelineimplementationtooluseviaevaluationofwebsiteaccessandphysiciansurvey
AT penfoldmurrayrebecca naturalisticstudyofguidelineimplementationtooluseviaevaluationofwebsiteaccessandphysiciansurvey
AT getchiusthomassd naturalisticstudyofguidelineimplementationtooluseviaevaluationofwebsiteaccessandphysiciansurvey
AT rheaumecarol naturalisticstudyofguidelineimplementationtooluseviaevaluationofwebsiteaccessandphysiciansurvey
AT gagliardiannar naturalisticstudyofguidelineimplementationtooluseviaevaluationofwebsiteaccessandphysiciansurvey