User satisfaction with a real-time automated feedback system for general practitioners: A quantitative and qualitative study

International Journal for Quality in Health Care

Volumn 15, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 501-508

  Bindels, Rianne ^a   Hasman, Arie ^a   Derickx, Mieke ^a   Van Wersch, Jan W J ^b   Winkens, Ron A G ^a,c  

^a MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^b Zuyderland Medical Centre   (Netherlands)

^c MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Clinical decision support systems; Guidelines adherence; Primary health care; User satisfaction

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; AUTOMATION; CLINICAL LABORATORY; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CONSULTATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST; EXPERIENCE; EXPERIMENTATION; FEMALE; GENERAL PRACTITIONER; HOSPITAL SERVICE; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; MALE; MEDICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUESTIONNAIRE; SATISFACTION;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; ATTITUDE TO COMPUTERS; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS, CLINICAL; DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES; FAMILY PRACTICE; FEEDBACK; FEMALE; GUIDELINE ADHERENCE; HOSPITALS, UNIVERSITY; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NETHERLANDS; PHYSICIANS, FAMILY; PRACTICE GUIDELINES; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; QUESTIONNAIRES; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 0346958124     PISSN: 13534505     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzg076     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Woolf SH, Grol R, Hutchinson A et al. Clinical guidelines: potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. Br Med J 1999; 318: 527-530.
2. Grol R, Eccles M, Maisonneuve H et al. Developing clinical practice guidelines: the European experience. Dis Manage Health Outcomes 1998; 4: 255-266.
3. Cabana MD, Rand CS, Powe NR et al. Why don't physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. J AM Med Assoc 1999; 282: 1458-1465.
4. Wensing M, van der Weijden T, Grol R. Implementing guidelines and innovations in general practice: which interventions are effective? Br J Gen Pract 1998; 48: 991-997.
5. Tierney WM, McDonald CJ, Hui SL et al. Computer predictions of abnormal test results: effects on outpatient testing. J AM Med Assoc 1988; 259: 1194-1198.
6. Bates DW, Kuperman GJ, Rittenberg E et al. Reminders for redundant tests: results of a randomized controlled trial. Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care 1995; 19: 935.
7. Modai I, Sigler M. A computerized laboratory alerting system in a psychogeriatric unit. MD Comput 1998; 15: 95-99.
8. Persson M, Mjorndal T, Carlberg B et al. Evaluation of a computer-based decision support system for treatment of hypertension with drugs: retrospective, nonintervention testing of cost and guideline adherence. J Intern Med 2000; 247: 87-93.
9. Teich JM, Merchia PR, Schmiz JL et al. Effects of computerized physician order entry on prescribing practices. Arch Intern Med 2000; 160: 2741-2747.
10. Walton RT, Harvey EL, Dovey S et al. Computerised advice on drug dosage to improve prescribing practice [Cochrane Review]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001; 1.
11. Evans RS, Pestotnik SL, Classen DC et al. A computer-assisted management program for antibiotics and other antiinfective agents. N Engl J Med 1998; 338: 232-238.
12. Shea S, DuMouchel W, Bahamonde L. A meta-analysis of 16 randomized controlled trials to evaluate computer-based clinical reminder systems for preventive care in the ambulatory setting. J AM Med Inform Assoc 1996; 3: 399-409.
13. Bindels R, de Clercq P, Winkens RAG et al. A test ordering system with automated reminders for primary care based on practice guidelines. Int J Med Inform 2000; 58-59: 219-233.
14. Bindels R, Winkens RAG, Pop P et al. Validation of a knowledge based reminder system for diagnostic test ordering in general practice. Int J Med Inform 2001; 64: 341-354.
15. Pop P, Winkens RAG. A diagnostic centre for general practitioners: results of individual feedback on diagnostic actions. J R Coll Gen Pract 1989; 39: 507-508.
16. Winkens RAG, Pop P, Bugter-Maessen AMA et al. Randomised controlled trial of routine individual feedback to improve rationality and reduce numbers of test request. Lancet 1995; 345: 498-502.
17. Winkens RAG, Pop P, Grol RPTM et al. Effects of routine individual feedback over nine years on general practitioners' requests for tests. Br Med J 1996; 312: 490.
18. Lamberts H, Wood M. International Classification of Primary Care, 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.
19. Lewis JR., IBM computer usability satisfaction questionaires: psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. Int J Human-Comput Interact 1995; 7: 57-78.
20. Mays N, Pope C. Qualitative research in health care. Assessing quality in qualitative research. Br Med J 2000; 320: 50-52.
21. Bindels R., To test or not to test? Guideline-based automated feedback on test ordering in general practice. Maastricht: Maastricht University, 2003.
22. Hofman-Okkes IM, Lamberts H. The International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC): new applications in research and computer-based patient records in family practice. Fam Pract 1996; 13: 294-302.
23. Gebel RS. De ICPC-1: Stand van zaken, praktische problemen en oplossingen [The ICPC-1: State of the art, practical problems and solutions]. Huisarts Wet 2000; 41: 20-22.
24. van Wijk MAM, van der Lei J, Mosseveld M et al. Assessment of decision support for blood test ordering in primary care. A randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2001; 134: 274-281.
25. Wensing M, Grol R. Single and combined strategies for implementing changes in primary care: a literature review. Int J Qual Health Care 1994; 6: 115-132.
26. van der Meijden MJ, Tange H, Troost J et al. Development and implementation of an EPR: how to encourage the user. Int J Med Inform 2001; 64: 173-185.
27. Grol R, Dalhuijsen J, Thomas S et al. Attributes of clinical guidelines that influence use of guidelines in general practice: observational study. Br Med J 1998; 317: 858-861.
28. Rogers EM., Diffusion of innovations, 4th edition. New York: The Free Press, 1995.
29. Freeman AC, Sweeney K. Why general practitioners do not implement evidence: qualitative study. Br Med J 2001; 323: 1100-1102.
30. Veldhuis M, Wigersma L, Okkes I. Deliberate departures from good general practice: a study of motives among Dutch general practitioners. Br J Gen Pract 1998; 48: 1833-1836.
31. van der Weijden T, van Bokhoven L, Dinant G-J et al. Understanding laboratory superfluous laboratory testing in diagnostic uncertainty: a qualitative study in general practice. Br J Gen Pract 2002; 52: 974-980.
32. Litzelman DK, Tierney WM. Physicians' reasons for failing to comply with computerized preventive care guidelines. J Intern Med 1996; 11: 497-499.
33. van Wijk MAM, van der Lei J, Mosseveld M et al. Compliance of general practitioners with a guideline-based decision support system for ordering blood tests. Clin Chem 2002; 48: 55-60.
34. Deyo RA., A key medical decision maker: the patient. Br Med J 2001; 323: 466-467.