Cargando…
Clinician based decision tool to guide recommended interval between colonoscopies: development and evaluation pilot study
BACKGROUND: Optimal intervals between repeat colonoscopies could improve patient outcomes and reduce costs. We evaluated: (a) concordance between clinician and guideline recommended colonoscopy screening intervals in Winnipeg, Manitoba, (b) clinician opinions about the utility of an electronic decis...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9112638/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35581662 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12911-022-01872-z |
_version_ | 1784709451506253824 |
---|---|
author | Shafer, Leigh Anne Restall, Gayle Simms, Alexandria Lee, Eugene Park, Jason Singh, Harminder |
author_facet | Shafer, Leigh Anne Restall, Gayle Simms, Alexandria Lee, Eugene Park, Jason Singh, Harminder |
author_sort | Shafer, Leigh Anne |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Optimal intervals between repeat colonoscopies could improve patient outcomes and reduce costs. We evaluated: (a) concordance between clinician and guideline recommended colonoscopy screening intervals in Winnipeg, Manitoba, (b) clinician opinions about the utility of an electronic decision-making tool to aid in recommending screening intervals, and (c) the initial use of a decision-making smartphone/web-based application. METHODS: Clinician endoscopists and primary care providers participated in four focus groups (N = 22). We asked participating clinicians to evaluate up to 12 hypothetical scenarios and compared their recommended screening interval to those of North American guidelines. Fisher’s exact tests were used to assess differences in agreement with guidelines. We developed a decision-making tool and evaluated it via a pilot study with 6 endoscopists. RESULT: 53% of clinicians made recommendations that agreed with guidelines in ≤ 50% of the hypothetical scenarios. Themes from focus groups included barriers to using a decision-making tool: extra time to use it, less confidence in the results of the tool over their own judgement, and having access to the information required by the tool (e.g., family history). Most were willing to try a tool if it was quick and easy to use. Endoscopists participating in the tool pilot study recommended screening intervals discordant with guidelines 35% of the time. When their recommendation differed from that of the tool, they usually endorsed their own over the guideline. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopists are overconfident and inconsistent with applying guidelines in their polyp surveillance interval recommendations. Use of a decision tool may improve knowledge and application of guidelines. A change in practice may require that the tool be coupled with continuing education about evidence for improved outcomes if guidelines are followed. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12911-022-01872-z. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9112638 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-91126382022-05-17 Clinician based decision tool to guide recommended interval between colonoscopies: development and evaluation pilot study Shafer, Leigh Anne Restall, Gayle Simms, Alexandria Lee, Eugene Park, Jason Singh, Harminder BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Research BACKGROUND: Optimal intervals between repeat colonoscopies could improve patient outcomes and reduce costs. We evaluated: (a) concordance between clinician and guideline recommended colonoscopy screening intervals in Winnipeg, Manitoba, (b) clinician opinions about the utility of an electronic decision-making tool to aid in recommending screening intervals, and (c) the initial use of a decision-making smartphone/web-based application. METHODS: Clinician endoscopists and primary care providers participated in four focus groups (N = 22). We asked participating clinicians to evaluate up to 12 hypothetical scenarios and compared their recommended screening interval to those of North American guidelines. Fisher’s exact tests were used to assess differences in agreement with guidelines. We developed a decision-making tool and evaluated it via a pilot study with 6 endoscopists. RESULT: 53% of clinicians made recommendations that agreed with guidelines in ≤ 50% of the hypothetical scenarios. Themes from focus groups included barriers to using a decision-making tool: extra time to use it, less confidence in the results of the tool over their own judgement, and having access to the information required by the tool (e.g., family history). Most were willing to try a tool if it was quick and easy to use. Endoscopists participating in the tool pilot study recommended screening intervals discordant with guidelines 35% of the time. When their recommendation differed from that of the tool, they usually endorsed their own over the guideline. CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopists are overconfident and inconsistent with applying guidelines in their polyp surveillance interval recommendations. Use of a decision tool may improve knowledge and application of guidelines. A change in practice may require that the tool be coupled with continuing education about evidence for improved outcomes if guidelines are followed. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12911-022-01872-z. BioMed Central 2022-05-17 /pmc/articles/PMC9112638/ /pubmed/35581662 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12911-022-01872-z Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Shafer, Leigh Anne Restall, Gayle Simms, Alexandria Lee, Eugene Park, Jason Singh, Harminder Clinician based decision tool to guide recommended interval between colonoscopies: development and evaluation pilot study |
title | Clinician based decision tool to guide recommended interval between colonoscopies: development and evaluation pilot study |
title_full | Clinician based decision tool to guide recommended interval between colonoscopies: development and evaluation pilot study |
title_fullStr | Clinician based decision tool to guide recommended interval between colonoscopies: development and evaluation pilot study |
title_full_unstemmed | Clinician based decision tool to guide recommended interval between colonoscopies: development and evaluation pilot study |
title_short | Clinician based decision tool to guide recommended interval between colonoscopies: development and evaluation pilot study |
title_sort | clinician based decision tool to guide recommended interval between colonoscopies: development and evaluation pilot study |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9112638/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35581662 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12911-022-01872-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT shaferleighanne clinicianbaseddecisiontooltoguiderecommendedintervalbetweencolonoscopiesdevelopmentandevaluationpilotstudy AT restallgayle clinicianbaseddecisiontooltoguiderecommendedintervalbetweencolonoscopiesdevelopmentandevaluationpilotstudy AT simmsalexandria clinicianbaseddecisiontooltoguiderecommendedintervalbetweencolonoscopiesdevelopmentandevaluationpilotstudy AT leeeugene clinicianbaseddecisiontooltoguiderecommendedintervalbetweencolonoscopiesdevelopmentandevaluationpilotstudy AT parkjason clinicianbaseddecisiontooltoguiderecommendedintervalbetweencolonoscopiesdevelopmentandevaluationpilotstudy AT singhharminder clinicianbaseddecisiontooltoguiderecommendedintervalbetweencolonoscopiesdevelopmentandevaluationpilotstudy |