BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is a leader in developing computerized clinical reminders (CCRs). Primary care physicians' (PCPs) evaluation of VHA CCRs could influence their future development and use within and outside the VHA. OBJECTIVE: Survey PCPs about usefulness and usability of VHA CCRs. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: In a national survey, VHA PCPs rated on a 7-point scale usefulness and usability of VHA CCRs, and standardized scales (0-100) were constructed. A hierarchical linear mixed (HLM) model predicted physician- and facility-level variables associated with more positive global assessment of CCRs. RESULTS: Four hundred sixty-one PCPs participated (response rate, 69%). Scale Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.62 to 0.82. Perceptions of VHA CCRs were primarily in the midrange, where higher ratings indicate more favorable attitudes (weighted standardized median, IQR): global assessment (50, 28-61), clinical/situational specificity (29, 17-42), integration with workflow/workload (39, 17-50), training (50, 33-67), VHA's management of CCR use (67, 50-83), design/interface (53, 40-67), perceived role in CCR use (67, 50-83), and self-efficacy (67, 57-78). In a HLM model, design/interface (p < .001), self-efficacy (p < .001), integration with workflow/workload (p < .001), and training (p < .001) were associated with more favorable global assessments of CCRs. Facilities in the west as compared to the south (p = .033), and physicians with academic affiliation (p = .045) had less favorable global assessment of CCRs. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic assessment of end-users' perceptions of VHA CCRs suggests that CCRs need to be developed and implemented with a continual focus on improvement based on end-user feedback. Potential target areas include better integration into the primary care clinic workflow/workload.
BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is a leader in developing computerized clinical reminders (CCRs). Primary care physicians' (PCPs) evaluation of VHA CCRs could influence their future development and use within and outside the VHA. OBJECTIVE: Survey PCPs about usefulness and usability of VHA CCRs. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: In a national survey, VHA PCPs rated on a 7-point scale usefulness and usability of VHA CCRs, and standardized scales (0-100) were constructed. A hierarchical linear mixed (HLM) model predicted physician- and facility-level variables associated with more positive global assessment of CCRs. RESULTS: Four hundred sixty-one PCPs participated (response rate, 69%). Scale Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.62 to 0.82. Perceptions of VHA CCRs were primarily in the midrange, where higher ratings indicate more favorable attitudes (weighted standardized median, IQR): global assessment (50, 28-61), clinical/situational specificity (29, 17-42), integration with workflow/workload (39, 17-50), training (50, 33-67), VHA's management of CCR use (67, 50-83), design/interface (53, 40-67), perceived role in CCR use (67, 50-83), and self-efficacy (67, 57-78). In a HLM model, design/interface (p < .001), self-efficacy (p < .001), integration with workflow/workload (p < .001), and training (p < .001) were associated with more favorable global assessments of CCRs. Facilities in the west as compared to the south (p = .033), and physicians with academic affiliation (p = .045) had less favorable global assessment of CCRs. CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic assessment of end-users' perceptions of VHA CCRs suggests that CCRs need to be developed and implemented with a continual focus on improvement based on end-user feedback. Potential target areas include better integration into the primary care clinic workflow/workload.
Authors: J G Demakis; C Beauchamp; W L Cull; R Denwood; S A Eisen; R Lofgren; K Nichol; J Woolliscroft; W G Henderson Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-09-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: P R Dexter; F D Wolinsky; G P Gramelspacher; X H Zhou; G J Eckert; M Waisburd; W M Tierney Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1998-01-15 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Isaac Hoch; Anthony D Heymann; Irena Kurman; Liora J Valinsky; Gabi Chodick; Varda Shalev Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2003-08-04 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Mary Regina Boland; Alexander Rusanov; Yat So; Carlos Lopez-Jimenez; Linda Busacca; Richard C Steinman; Suzanne Bakken; J Thomas Bigger; Chunhua Weng Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2013-12-12 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Thomas D Sequist; David A Cook; Jennifer S Haas; Ronnie Horner; William M Tierney Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Adam Wright; Dean F Sittig; Joan S Ash; David W Bates; Joshua Feblowitz; Greg Fraser; Saverio M Maviglia; Carmit McMullen; W Paul Nichol; Justine E Pang; Jack Starmer; Blackford Middleton Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-01-20 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Emily C Williams; Carol E Achtmeyer; Daniel R Kivlahan; Diane Greenberg; Joseph O Merrill; Thomas M Wickizer; Thomas D Koepsell; Patrick J Heagerty; Katharine A Bradley Journal: J Stud Alcohol Drugs Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 2.582
Authors: Gwen T Lapham; Anna D Rubinsky; Susan M Shortreed; Eric J Hawkins; Julie Richards; Emily C Williams; Douglas Berger; Laura J Chavez; Daniel R Kivlahan; Katharine A Bradley Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2015-05-27 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Emily C Williams; Carol E Achtmeyer; Rachel M Thomas; Joel R Grossbard; Gwen T Lapham; Laura J Chavez; Evette J Ludman; Douglas Berger; Katharine A Bradley Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-03-03 Impact factor: 5.128