Katie S Allen1,2, Elizabeth C Danielson3, Sarah M Downs4, Olena Mazurenko1, Julie Diiulio5, Ramzi G Salloum6, Burke W Mamlin2,4, Christopher A Harle2,6. 1. Health Policy and Management, Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health, IUPUI, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States. 2. Center for Biomedical Informatics, Regenstrief Institute, Inc., Indianapolis, Indiana, United States. 3. Center for Education in Health Sciences, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, United States. 4. Division of Internal Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States. 5. Health Outcomes and Biomedical Informatics, Applied Decision Science, LLC, Dayton, Ohio, United States. 6. University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The Chronic Pain Treatment Tracker (Tx Tracker) is a prototype decision support tool to aid primary care clinicians when caring for patients with chronic noncancer pain. This study evaluated clinicians' perceived utility of Tx Tracker in meeting information needs and identifying treatment options, and preferences for visual design. METHODS: We conducted 12 semi-structured interviews with primary care clinicians from four health systems in Indiana. The interviews were conducted in two waves, with prototype and interview guide revisions after the first six interviews. The interviews included exploration of Tx Tracker using a think-aloud approach and a clinical scenario. Clinicians were presented with a patient scenario and asked to use Tx Tracker to make a treatment recommendation. Last, participants answered several evaluation questions. Detailed field notes were collected, coded, and thematically analyzed by four analysts. RESULTS: We identified several themes: the need for clinicians to be presented with a comprehensive patient history, the usefulness of Tx Tracker in patient discussions about treatment planning, potential usefulness of Tx Tracker for patients with high uncertainty or risk, potential usefulness of Tx Tracker in aggregating scattered information, variability in expectations about workflows, skepticism about underlying electronic health record data quality, interest in using Tx Tracker to annotate or update information, interest in using Tx Tracker to translate information to clinical action, desire for interface with visual cues for risks, warnings, or treatment options, and desire for interactive functionality. CONCLUSION: Tools like Tx Tracker, by aggregating key information about past, current, and potential future treatments, may help clinicians collaborate with their patients in choosing the best pain treatments. Still, the use and usefulness of Tx Tracker likely relies on continued improvement of its functionality, accurate and complete underlying data, and tailored integration with varying workflows, care team roles, and user preferences. Thieme. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVES: The Chronic Pain Treatment Tracker (Tx Tracker) is a prototype decision support tool to aid primary care clinicians when caring for patients with chronic noncancer pain. This study evaluated clinicians' perceived utility of Tx Tracker in meeting information needs and identifying treatment options, and preferences for visual design. METHODS: We conducted 12 semi-structured interviews with primary care clinicians from four health systems in Indiana. The interviews were conducted in two waves, with prototype and interview guide revisions after the first six interviews. The interviews included exploration of Tx Tracker using a think-aloud approach and a clinical scenario. Clinicians were presented with a patient scenario and asked to use Tx Tracker to make a treatment recommendation. Last, participants answered several evaluation questions. Detailed field notes were collected, coded, and thematically analyzed by four analysts. RESULTS: We identified several themes: the need for clinicians to be presented with a comprehensive patient history, the usefulness of Tx Tracker in patient discussions about treatment planning, potential usefulness of Tx Tracker for patients with high uncertainty or risk, potential usefulness of Tx Tracker in aggregating scattered information, variability in expectations about workflows, skepticism about underlying electronic health record data quality, interest in using Tx Tracker to annotate or update information, interest in using Tx Tracker to translate information to clinical action, desire for interface with visual cues for risks, warnings, or treatment options, and desire for interactive functionality. CONCLUSION: Tools like Tx Tracker, by aggregating key information about past, current, and potential future treatments, may help clinicians collaborate with their patients in choosing the best pain treatments. Still, the use and usefulness of Tx Tracker likely relies on continued improvement of its functionality, accurate and complete underlying data, and tailored integration with varying workflows, care team roles, and user preferences. Thieme. All rights reserved.
Authors: Christopher A Harle; Julie DiIulio; Sarah M Downs; Elizabeth C Danielson; Shilo Anders; Robert L Cook; Robert W Hurley; Burke W Mamlin; Laura G Militello Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2019-09-25 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: John W Beasley; Tosha B Wetterneck; Jon Temte; Jamie A Lapin; Paul Smith; A Joy Rivera-Rodriguez; Ben-Tzion Karsh Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2011 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Patrick J O'Connor; Joann M Sperl-Hillen; William A Rush; Paul E Johnson; Gerald H Amundson; Stephen E Asche; Heidi L Ekstrom; Todd P Gilmer Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2011 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Steven K Dobscha; Kathryn Corson; Nancy A Perrin; Ginger C Hanson; Ruth Q Leibowitz; Melanie N Doak; Kathryn C Dickinson; Mark D Sullivan; Martha S Gerrity Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-03-25 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Kok Yuen Ho; Kok Ann Gwee; Yew Kuang Cheng; Kam Hon Yoon; Hwan Tak Hee; Abdul Razakjr Omar Journal: J Pain Res Date: 2018-09-20 Impact factor: 3.133