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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shafer, Leigh Anne, Restall, Gayle, Simms, Alexandria, Lee, Eugene, Park, Jason, Singh, Harminder
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