Cargando…
Provider Survey on Automated Clinical Decision Support for Cardiovascular Risk Assessment
OBJECTIVE: To investigate provider opinions regarding a clinical decision support (CDS) system for cardiovascular risk assessment and for the creation of a replacement system. METHODS: From March to April 2018, an invitation letter with a link to a self-administered web-based survey was sent via e-m...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Elsevier
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6410336/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30899905 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2018.12.008 |
_version_ | 1783402230000386048 |
---|---|
author | Chaudhry, Alisha P. Samudrala, Sujith Lopez-Jimenez, Francisco Shellum, Jane L. Nishimura, Rick A. Chaudhry, Rajeev Liu, Hongfang Arruda-Olson, Adelaide M. |
author_facet | Chaudhry, Alisha P. Samudrala, Sujith Lopez-Jimenez, Francisco Shellum, Jane L. Nishimura, Rick A. Chaudhry, Rajeev Liu, Hongfang Arruda-Olson, Adelaide M. |
author_sort | Chaudhry, Alisha P. |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: To investigate provider opinions regarding a clinical decision support (CDS) system for cardiovascular risk assessment and for the creation of a replacement system. METHODS: From March to April 2018, an invitation letter with a link to a self-administered web-based survey was sent via e-mail to 279 providers with primary appointment in the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester. The e-mail was sent to providers on March 8, 2018 and the survey closed on April 16, 2018. RESULTS: One hundred providers responded to the survey yielding an overall response rate of 35.8%. Of these, 52 (52%) indicated they had used the cardiovascular (CV) risk profile CDS system and were classified as users and prompted to continue the survey. Among users, 42 (80.8%) indicated use of the CDS was either important (25; 48.1%) or very important (17; 32.7%) in their clinical practice; 45 (86.5%) responded that the system was very easy (17; 32.7%) or easy (28; 53.8%) to use. In addition, 48 (96.0%) users indicated that the CV risk profile supported their thought process at the point-of-care; 47 (97.9%) users indicated similar functionalities should be implemented into the new electronic health record system and 41 (85.4%) users reported new functionalities should also be incorporated. CONCLUSIONS: For most users, the CDS system was easy to use and supported clinical thought process at the point-of-care. Users also felt their practice was supported and should continue to be supported by CDS systems providing individualized patient information at the point-of-care. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6410336 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Elsevier |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-64103362019-03-21 Provider Survey on Automated Clinical Decision Support for Cardiovascular Risk Assessment Chaudhry, Alisha P. Samudrala, Sujith Lopez-Jimenez, Francisco Shellum, Jane L. Nishimura, Rick A. Chaudhry, Rajeev Liu, Hongfang Arruda-Olson, Adelaide M. Mayo Clin Proc Innov Qual Outcomes Original Article OBJECTIVE: To investigate provider opinions regarding a clinical decision support (CDS) system for cardiovascular risk assessment and for the creation of a replacement system. METHODS: From March to April 2018, an invitation letter with a link to a self-administered web-based survey was sent via e-mail to 279 providers with primary appointment in the Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester. The e-mail was sent to providers on March 8, 2018 and the survey closed on April 16, 2018. RESULTS: One hundred providers responded to the survey yielding an overall response rate of 35.8%. Of these, 52 (52%) indicated they had used the cardiovascular (CV) risk profile CDS system and were classified as users and prompted to continue the survey. Among users, 42 (80.8%) indicated use of the CDS was either important (25; 48.1%) or very important (17; 32.7%) in their clinical practice; 45 (86.5%) responded that the system was very easy (17; 32.7%) or easy (28; 53.8%) to use. In addition, 48 (96.0%) users indicated that the CV risk profile supported their thought process at the point-of-care; 47 (97.9%) users indicated similar functionalities should be implemented into the new electronic health record system and 41 (85.4%) users reported new functionalities should also be incorporated. CONCLUSIONS: For most users, the CDS system was easy to use and supported clinical thought process at the point-of-care. Users also felt their practice was supported and should continue to be supported by CDS systems providing individualized patient information at the point-of-care. Elsevier 2019-02-26 /pmc/articles/PMC6410336/ /pubmed/30899905 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2018.12.008 Text en © 2018 THE AUTHORS. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Original Article Chaudhry, Alisha P. Samudrala, Sujith Lopez-Jimenez, Francisco Shellum, Jane L. Nishimura, Rick A. Chaudhry, Rajeev Liu, Hongfang Arruda-Olson, Adelaide M. Provider Survey on Automated Clinical Decision Support for Cardiovascular Risk Assessment |
title | Provider Survey on Automated Clinical Decision Support for Cardiovascular Risk Assessment |
title_full | Provider Survey on Automated Clinical Decision Support for Cardiovascular Risk Assessment |
title_fullStr | Provider Survey on Automated Clinical Decision Support for Cardiovascular Risk Assessment |
title_full_unstemmed | Provider Survey on Automated Clinical Decision Support for Cardiovascular Risk Assessment |
title_short | Provider Survey on Automated Clinical Decision Support for Cardiovascular Risk Assessment |
title_sort | provider survey on automated clinical decision support for cardiovascular risk assessment |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6410336/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30899905 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocpiqo.2018.12.008 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT chaudhryalishap providersurveyonautomatedclinicaldecisionsupportforcardiovascularriskassessment AT samudralasujith providersurveyonautomatedclinicaldecisionsupportforcardiovascularriskassessment AT lopezjimenezfrancisco providersurveyonautomatedclinicaldecisionsupportforcardiovascularriskassessment AT shellumjanel providersurveyonautomatedclinicaldecisionsupportforcardiovascularriskassessment AT nishimuraricka providersurveyonautomatedclinicaldecisionsupportforcardiovascularriskassessment AT chaudhryrajeev providersurveyonautomatedclinicaldecisionsupportforcardiovascularriskassessment AT liuhongfang providersurveyonautomatedclinicaldecisionsupportforcardiovascularriskassessment AT arrudaolsonadelaidem providersurveyonautomatedclinicaldecisionsupportforcardiovascularriskassessment |