I M Collins1, O Breathnach, P Felle. 1. Department of Cancer Medicine, Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute, Locked Bag No. 1, A'Beckett St., Melbourne, VIC 8006, Australia. ian.collins@petermac.org
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is little evidence regarding attitudes to clinical decision support systems (CDSS) in oncology. AIMS: We examined the current usage, awareness, and concerns of Irish medical oncologists and oncology pharmacists in this area. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to 27 medical oncologists and 34 oncology pharmacists, identified through professional interest groups. Respondents ranked concerns regarding their use of a CDSS on a scale from 1 to 4, with 4 being most important. RESULTS: Overall, 67% (41/61) responded, 48% (13/27) of oncologists and 82% (28/34) of pharmacists surveyed. Concerns included "difficulty defining complex clinical situations with a set of rules" (mean ± SD) (3.2 ± 0.9), "ensuring evidence base is up to date and relevant" (3.2 ± 0.9) and "lack of clinically relevant suggestions" (2.9 ± 0.9). Ninety-three percent reported using a CDSS but 54% were unaware of this. CONCLUSION: While there are benefits to using a CDSS, concerns must be addressed through user education. This may be a starting point for a user-centred design approach to the development of future local systems through a consultative process.
BACKGROUND: There is little evidence regarding attitudes to clinical decision support systems (CDSS) in oncology. AIMS: We examined the current usage, awareness, and concerns of Irish medical oncologists and oncology pharmacists in this area. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to 27 medical oncologists and 34 oncology pharmacists, identified through professional interest groups. Respondents ranked concerns regarding their use of a CDSS on a scale from 1 to 4, with 4 being most important. RESULTS: Overall, 67% (41/61) responded, 48% (13/27) of oncologists and 82% (28/34) of pharmacists surveyed. Concerns included "difficulty defining complex clinical situations with a set of rules" (mean ± SD) (3.2 ± 0.9), "ensuring evidence base is up to date and relevant" (3.2 ± 0.9) and "lack of clinically relevant suggestions" (2.9 ± 0.9). Ninety-three percent reported using a CDSS but 54% were unaware of this. CONCLUSION: While there are benefits to using a CDSS, concerns must be addressed through user education. This may be a starting point for a user-centred design approach to the development of future local systems through a consultative process.
Authors: Bonnie B Anton; Jason J Schafer; Andrea Micenko; Debra M Wolf; Susan DiNucci; Pam Donovan; Barbara Jordan Journal: J Healthc Inf Manag Date: 2009
Authors: Andrew Georgiou; Amanda Ampt; Nerida Creswick; Johanna I Westbrook; Jeffrey Braithwaite Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2008-11-17 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Dean F Sittig; Michael A Krall; Richard H Dykstra; Allen Russell; Homer L Chin Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2006-02-01 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Carmen A Peralta; Jennifer Livaudais-Toman; Marilyn Stebbins; Lowell Lo; Andrew Robinson; Sarita Pathak; Rebecca Scherzer; Leah S Karliner Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2020-07-22 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Bethany A Van Dort; Jane E Carland; Jonathan Penm; Angus Ritchie; Melissa T Baysari Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2022-09-12 Impact factor: 7.942