Evaluating the use of clinical decision aids in an Australian emergency department: A cross‐sectional survey

Author:

Michaleff Zoe A12ORCID,Hattingh Laetitia34,Greenwood Hannah2,Mickan Sharon5,Jones Mark23,van der Merwe Madeleen23,Thomas Rae26,Carlini Joan78,Henry David23,Stehlik Paulina23,Glasziou Paul259ORCID,Keijzers Gerben5910ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Northern New South Wales Local Health District Lismore New South Wales Australia

2. Institute for Evidence‐Based Healthcare Bond University Gold Coast Queensland Australia

3. Gold Coast Hospital and Health Service Gold Coast Queensland Australia

4. School of Pharmacy The University of Queensland Brisbane Queensland Australia

5. Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine Bond University Gold Coast Queensland Australia

6. Tropical Australian Academic Health Centre Townsville Queensland Australia

7. Consumer Advisory Group Gold Coast Health Gold Coast Queensland Australia

8. Department of Marketing, Griffith University Gold Coast Queensland Australia

9. School of Medicine Griffith University Gold Coast Queensland Australia

10. Department of Emergency Medicine Gold Coast University Hospital Gold Coast Queensland Australia

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveTo identify healthcare professionals' knowledge, self‐reported use, and documentation of clinical decision aids (CDAs) in a large ED in Australia, to identify behavioural determinants influencing the use of CDAs, and healthcare professionals preferences for integrating CDAs into the electronic medical record (EMR) system.MethodsHealthcare professionals (doctors, nurses and physiotherapists) working in the ED at the Gold Coast Hospital, Queensland were invited to complete an online survey. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics, and where appropriate, mapped to the theoretical domains framework to identify potential barriers to the use of CDAs. Qualitative data were analysed using content analysis.ResultsSeventy‐four healthcare professionals (34 medical officers, 31 nurses and nine physiotherapists) completed the survey. Healthcare professionals' knowledge and self‐reported use of 21 validated CDAs was low but differed considerably across CDAs. Only 4 out of 21 CDAs were reported to be used ‘sometimes’ or ‘always’ by the majority of respondents (Ottawa Ankle Rule for ankle injury, Wells' criteria for pulmonary embolism, Wells' criteria for deep vein thrombosis and PERC rule for pulmonary embolism). Most respondents wanted to increase their use of valid and reliable CDAs and supported the integration of CDAs into the EMR to facilitate their use and support documentation. Potential barriers impacting the use of CDAs represented three theoretical domains of knowledge, social/professional role and identity, and social influences.ConclusionsCDAs are used variably by healthcare professionals and are inconsistently applied in the clinical encounter. Preferences of healthcare professionals need to be considered to allow the successful integration of CDAs into the EMR.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Emergency Medicine

Reference25 articles.

1. Translating Clinical Research into Clinical Practice: Impact of Using Prediction Rules To Make Decisions

2. Methodologic Standards for the Development of Clinical Decision Rules in Emergency Medicine

3. MDCalc. 2020. Available from URL:https://www.mdcalc.com/#my-specialty

4. The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists.Choosing Wisely Australia: Recommendations and Clinical Decision Rules; 2015.

5. Embedded Clinical Decision Support in Electronic Health Record Decreases Use of High-cost Imaging in the Emergency Department: EmbED study

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3