Diagnostic accuracy of GPs when using an earlyintervention decision support system: A high-fidelity simulation

British Journal of General Practice

Volumn 67, Issue 656, 2017, Pages e201-e208

  Kostopoulou, Olga ^a   Porat, Talya ^b   Corrigan, Derek ^c   Mahmoud, Samhar ^b   Delaney, Brendan C ^a  

^a IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c ROYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS IN IRELAND   (Ireland)

Author keywords

Decision support systems; Diagnosis; Diagnostic accuracy; Diagnostic errors; Electronic health record; First impressions; General practice.

Indexed keywords

ADOPTION; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONSULTATION; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; DIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD; GENERAL PRACTICE; HUMAN; MOTIVATION; ODDS RATIO; PATIENT SATISFACTION; QUESTIONNAIRE; SIMULATION; SYMPTOM; ADULT; AGED; CLINICAL DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; EVALUATION STUDY; FEMALE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT REFERRAL; PREVENTION AND CONTROL; PROCEDURES; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARDS; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT; UNITED KINGDOM; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; AGED; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS, CLINICAL; DIAGNOSIS, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS; FEMALE; GENERAL PRACTICE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; QUALITY IMPROVEMENT; REFERRAL AND CONSULTATION; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; UNITED KINGDOM; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 85016050205     PISSN: 09601643     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3399/bjgp16X688417     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Improving diagnosis in health care. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2015. DOI: 10.17226/21794.
2. Graber ML, Kissam S, Payne VL, et al. Cognitive interventions to reduce diagnostic error: A narrative review. BMJ Qual Saf 2012; 21(7): 535-557.
3. Kostopoulou O, Sirota M, Round T, et al. The role of physicians' first impressions in the diagnosis of possible cancers without alarm symptoms. Med Decis Making 2017; 37(1): 9-16. DOI: Https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X16644563.
4. Kostopoulou O, Rosen A, Round T, et al. Early diagnostic suggestions improve accuracy of GPs: A randomised controlled trial using computer-simulated patients. Br J Gen Pract 2015; DOI: Https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp15X683161.
5. Kostopoulou O, Lionis C, Angelaki A, et al. Early diagnostic suggestions improve accuracy of family physicians: A randomized controlled trial in Greece. Fam Pract 2015; 32(3): 323-328.
6. Porat T, Kostopoulou O, Woolley A, Delaney BC. Eliciting user decision requirements for designing computerized diagnostic support for family physicians. J Cogn Eng Decis Making 2016; 10(1): 57-73.
7. Bond WF, Schwartz LM, Weaver KR, et al. Differential diagnosis generators: An evaluation of currently available computer programs. J Gen Intern Med 2012; 27(2): 213-219.
8. Baker R. Development of a questionnaire to assess patients' satisfaction with consultations in general practice. Br J Gen Pract 1990; 40(341): 487-490.
9. Lewis JR. IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires - psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. Int J Hum-Comput Int 1995; 7(1): 57-78.
10. Barratt H, Kirwan M. Clustered data - effects on sample size and approaches to analysis. 2009. http://www.healthknowledge.org.uk/public-health-textbook/research-methods/1a-epidemiology/clustered-data (accessed 23 Jan 2017).
11. Sittig DF, Krall MA, Dykstra RH, et al. A survey of factors affecting clinician acceptance of clinical decision support. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2006; 6: 6.
12. Mitchell E, Sullivan F. A descriptive feast but an evaluative famine: Systematic review of published articles on primary care computing during 1980-97. BMJ 2001; 322(7281): 279-282.
13. Short D, Frischer M, Bashford J. Barriers to the adoption of computerised decision support systems in general practice consultations: A qualitative study of GPs' perspectives. Int J Med Inform 2004; 73(4): 357-362.
14. Arkes HR, Shaffer VA, Medow MA. Patients derogate physicians who use a computer-assisted diagnostic aid. Med Decis Making 2007; 27(2): 189-202.
15. Arkes HR. The consequences of the hindsight bias in medical decision making. Curr Dir Psychol 2013; 22(5): 356-360.
16. Svenson O, Salo I, Lindholm T. Post decision consolidation and distortion of facts. Judgm Decis Mak 2009; 4(5): 397-407.
17. Institute of Medicine (US) Roundtable on Evidence-Based Medicine. Olsen L, Aisner D, McGinnis JM, eds. The learning healthcare system: workshop summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2007.
18. Schwartz A, Weiner SJ, Binns-Calvey A. Comparing announced with unannounced standardized patients in performance assessment. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf 2013; 39(2): 83-88.
19. Berner ES. What can be done to increase the use of diagnostic decision support systems?. Diagnosis 2014; 1(1): 119-123.
20. Kawamoto K, Houlihan CA, Balas A, Lobach DF. Improving clinical practice using clinical decision support systems: A systematic review of trials to identify features critical to success. BMJ 2005; 330(7494): 765-768.
21. Nurek M, Kostopoulou O, Delaney BC, Esmail A. Reducing diagnostic errors in primary care. A systematic meta-review of computerized decision support systems by the Linneaus collaboration on patient safety in primary care. Eur J Gen Pract 2015; 21(suppl): 8-13.
22. Evans JSBT, Stanovich KE. Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspect Psychol Sci 2013; 8(3): 223-241.
23. Weed LL. Medical records that guide and teach. N Engl J Med 1968; 278(11): 593-600.
24. Lamberts H, Hofmans-Okkes I. Episode of care: A core concept in family practice. J Fam Pract 1996; 42(2): 161-167.