Healthcare provider perceptions of clinical prediction rules

被引:6
|
作者
Richardson, Safiya [1 ]
Khan, Sundas [1 ]
McCullagh, Lauren [1 ]
Kline, Myriam [2 ]
Mann, Devin [3 ]
McGinn, Thomas [1 ]
机构
[1] Hofstra North Shore LIJ, Sch Med, Dept Med, Manhasset, NY 11030 USA
[2] Feinstein Inst Med Res, Div Biostat, Manhasset, NY USA
[3] Boston Univ, Dept Med, Boston, MA 02215 USA
来源
BMJ OPEN | 2015年 / 5卷 / 09期
关键词
DECISION-SUPPORT; RADIOGRAPHY; VALIDATION; PROBABILITY; DERIVATION; SEVERITY; TRAUMA; MODEL; SCORE;
D O I
10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008461
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objectives: To examine internal medicine and emergency medicine healthcare provider perceptions of usefulness of specific clinical prediction rules. Setting: The study took place in two academic medical centres. A web-based survey was distributed and completed by participants between 1 January and 31 May 2013. Participants: Medical doctors, doctors of osteopathy or nurse practitioners employed in the internal medicine or emergency medicine departments at either institution. Primary and secondary outcome measures: The primary outcome was to identify the clinical prediction rules perceived as most useful by healthcare providers specialising in internal medicine and emergency medicine. Secondary outcomes included comparing usefulness scores of specific clinical prediction rules based on provider specialty, and evaluating associations between usefulness scores and perceived characteristics of these clinical prediction rules. Results: Of the 401 healthcare providers asked to participate, a total of 263 (66%), completed the survey. The CHADS2 score was chosen by most internal medicine providers (72%), and Pulmonary Embolism Rule-Out Criteria (PERC) score by most emergency medicine providers (45%), as one of the top three most useful from a list of 24 clinical prediction rules. Emergency medicine providers rated their top three significantly more positively, compared with internal medicine providers, as having a better fit into their workflow (p=0.004),helping more with decision-making (p= 0.037), better fitting into their thought process when diagnosing patients (p= 0.001) and overall, on a 10-point scale, more useful (p= 0.009). For all providers, the perceived qualities of useful at point of care, helps with decision making, saves time diagnosing, fits into thought process, and should be the standard of clinical care correlated highly (>= 0.65) with overall 10-point usefulness scores. Conclusions: Healthcare providers describe clear preferences for certain clinical prediction rules, based on medical specialty.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Clinical prediction rules: A systematic review of healthcare provider opinions and preferences
    Kennedy, Georgina
    Gallego, Blanca
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INFORMATICS, 2019, 123 : 1 - 10
  • [2] Variations in Workplace Safety Climate Perceptions and Outcomes Across Healthcare Provider Positions
    McGhan, Gwen E.
    Ludlow, Natalie C.
    Rathert, Cheryl
    McCaughey, Deirdre
    JOURNAL OF HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, 2020, 65 (03) : 202 - 215
  • [3] Health practitioners' perceptions of adopting clinical prediction rules in the management of musculoskeletal pain: a qualitative study in Australia
    Kelly, Joan
    Sterling, Michele
    Rebbeck, Trudy
    Bandong, Aila Nica
    Leaver, Andrew
    Mackey, Martin
    Ritchie, Carrie
    BMJ OPEN, 2017, 7 (08):
  • [4] Clinical prediction rules
    Adams, Simon T.
    Leveson, Stephen H.
    BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2012, 344
  • [5] Graphics and statistics for cardiology: clinical prediction rules
    Woodward, Mark
    Tunstall-Pedoe, Hugh
    Peters, Sanne A. E.
    HEART, 2017, 103 (07) : 483 - 490
  • [6] Impact analysis studies of clinical prediction rules relevant to primary care: a systematic review
    Wallace, Emma
    Uijen, Maike J. M.
    Clyne, Barbara
    Zarabzadeh, Atieh
    Keogh, Claire
    Galvin, Rose
    Smith, Susan M.
    Fahey, Tom
    BMJ OPEN, 2016, 6 (03):
  • [7] Developing an International Register of Clinical Prediction Rules for Use in Primary Care: A Descriptive Analysis
    Keogh, Claire
    Wallace, Emma
    O'Brien, Kirsty K.
    Galvin, Rose
    Smith, Susan M.
    Lewis, Cliona
    Cummins, Anthony
    Cousins, Grainne
    Dimitrov, Borislav D.
    Fahey, Tom
    ANNALS OF FAMILY MEDICINE, 2014, 12 (04) : 359 - 366
  • [8] Clinical prediction rules for abusive head trauma: a systematic review
    Pfeiffer, Helena
    Crowe, Louise
    Kemp, Alison Mary
    Cowley, Laura Elizabeth
    Smith, Anne S.
    Babl, Franz E.
    ARCHIVES OF DISEASE IN CHILDHOOD, 2018, 103 (08) : 776 - +
  • [9] A simplified approach to the pooled analysis of calibration of clinical prediction rules for systematic reviews of validation studies
    Dimitrov, Borislav D.
    Motterlini, Nicola
    Fahey, Tom
    CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2015, 7 : 267 - 280
  • [10] Clinical prediction rules for invasive candidiasis in the ICU: ready for prime time?
    Ostrosky-Zeichner, Luis
    CRITICAL CARE, 2011, 15 (05):