METHODS: Clinical guideline adherence for diagnostic imaging (DI) and acceptance of electronic decision support in a rural community family practice clinic was assessed over 36 weeks. Physicians wrote 904 DI orders, 58% of which were addressed by the Canadian Association of Radiologists guidelines. RESULTS: Of those orders with guidelines, 76% were ordered correctly; 24% were inappropriate or unnecessary resulting in a prompt from clinical decision support. Physicians followed suggestions from decision support to improve their DI order on 25% of the initially inappropriate orders. The use of decision support was not mandatory, and there were significant variations in use rate. Initially, 40% reported decision support disruptive in their work flow, which dropped to 16% as physicians gained experience with the software. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians supported the concept of clinical decision support but were reluctant to change clinical habits to incorporate decision support into routine work flow.
METHODS: Clinical guideline adherence for diagnostic imaging (DI) and acceptance of electronic decision support in a rural community family practice clinic was assessed over 36 weeks. Physicians wrote 904 DI orders, 58% of which were addressed by the Canadian Association of Radiologists guidelines. RESULTS: Of those orders with guidelines, 76% were ordered correctly; 24% were inappropriate or unnecessary resulting in a prompt from clinical decision support. Physicians followed suggestions from decision support to improve their DI order on 25% of the initially inappropriate orders. The use of decision support was not mandatory, and there were significant variations in use rate. Initially, 40% reported decision support disruptive in their work flow, which dropped to 16% as physicians gained experience with the software. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians supported the concept of clinical decision support but were reluctant to change clinical habits to incorporate decision support into routine work flow.
Authors: S Verma; K Hamilton; H H Hawkins; R Kothari; B Singal; R Buncher; P Nguyen; M O'Neill Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 1997-09 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Vartan M Vartanians; Christopher L Sistrom; Jeffrey B Weilburg; Daniel I Rosenthal; James H Thrall Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Amit X Garg; Neill K J Adhikari; Heather McDonald; M Patricia Rosas-Arellano; P J Devereaux; Joseph Beyene; Justina Sam; R Brian Haynes Journal: JAMA Date: 2005-03-09 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: G R Auleley; P Ravaud; B Giraudeau; L Kerboull; R Nizard; P Massin; C Garreau de Loubresse; C Vallée; P Durieux Journal: JAMA Date: 1997-06-25 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: I G Stiell; R D McKnight; G H Greenberg; I McDowell; R C Nair; G A Wells; C Johns; J R Worthington Journal: JAMA Date: 1994-03-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Martin L Gunn; Jennifer R Marin; Angela M Mills; Suzanne T Chong; Adam T Froemming; Jamlik O Johnson; Manickam Kumaravel; Aaron D Sodickson Journal: Emerg Radiol Date: 2016-05-27
Authors: Danil V Makarov; Erica Sedlander; R Scott Braithwaite; Scott E Sherman; Steven Zeliadt; Cary P Gross; Caitlin Curnyn; Michele Shedlin Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2016-09-02 Impact factor: 7.327