Workload and workflow implications associated with the use of electronic clinical decision support tools used by health professionals in general practice: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Electronic clinical decision support tools (eCDS) are increasingly available to assist General Practitioners (GP) with the diagnosis and management of a range of health conditions. It is unclear whether the use of eCDS tools has an impact on GP workload. This scoping review aimed to identify the available evidence on the use of eCDS tools by health professionals in general practice in relation to their impact on workload and workflow. METHODS: A scoping review was carried out using the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework. The search strategy was developed iteratively, with three main aspects: general practice/primary care contexts, risk assessment/decision support tools, and workload-related factors. Three databases were searched in 2019, and updated in 2021, covering articles published since 2009: Medline (Ovid), HMIC (Ovid) and Web of Science (TR). Double screening was completed by two reviewers, and data extracted from included articles were analysed. RESULTS: The search resulted in 5,594 references, leading to 95 full articles, referring to 87 studies, after screening. Of these, 36 studies were based in the USA, 21 in the UK and 11 in Australia. A further 18 originated from Canada or Europe, with the remaining studies conducted in New Zealand, South Africa and Malaysia. Studies examined the use of eCDS tools and reported some findings related to their impact on workload, including on consultation duration. Most studies were qualitative and exploratory in nature, reporting health professionals' subjective perceptions of consultation duration as opposed to objectively-measured time spent using tools or consultation durations. Other workload-related findings included impacts on cognitive workload, "workflow" and dialogue with patients, and clinicians' experience of "alert fatigue". CONCLUSIONS: The published literature on the impact of eCDS tools in general practice showed that limited efforts have focused on investigating the impact of such tools on workload and workflow. To gain an understanding of this area, further research, including quantitative measurement of consultation durations, would be useful to inform the future design and implementation of eCDS tools.

Examining methodology to identify patterns of consulting in primary care for different groups of patients before a diagnosis of cancer: An exemplar applied to oesophagogastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Current methods for estimating the timeliness of cancer diagnosis are not robust because dates of key defining milestones, for example first presentation, are uncertain. This is exacerbated when patients have other conditions (multimorbidity), particularly those that share symptoms with cancer. Methods independent of this uncertainty are needed for accurate estimates of the timeliness of cancer diagnosis, and to understand how multimorbidity impacts the diagnostic process. METHODS: Participants were diagnosed with oesophagogastric cancer between 2010 and 2019. Controls were matched on year of birth, sex, general practice and multimorbidity burden calculated using the Cambridge Multimorbidity Score. Primary care data (Clinical Practice Research Datalink) was used to explore population-level consultation rates for up to two years before diagnosis across different multimorbidity burdens. Five approaches were compared on the timing of the consultation frequency increase, the inflection point for different multimorbidity burdens, different aggregated time-periods and sample sizes. RESULTS: We included 15,410 participants, of which 13,328 (86.5 %) had a measurable multimorbidity burden. Our new maximum likelihood estimation method found evidence that the inflection point in consultation frequency varied with multimorbidity burden, from 154 days (95 %CI 131.8-176.2) before diagnosis for patients with no multimorbidity, to 126 days (108.5-143.5) for patients with the greatest multimorbidity burden. Inflection points identified using alternative methods were closer to diagnosis for up to three burden groups. Sample size reduction and changing the aggregation period resulted in inflection points closer to diagnosis, with the smallest change for the maximum likelihood method. DISCUSSION: Existing methods to identify changes in consultation rates can introduce substantial bias which depends on sample size and aggregation period. The direct maximum likelihood method was less prone to this bias than other methods and offers a robust, population-level alternative for estimating the timeliness of cancer diagnosis.

Concordance with urgent referral guidelines in patients presenting with any of six 'alarm' features of possible cancer: a retrospective cohort study using linked primary care records.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines advise GPs in England which patients warrant an urgent referral for suspected cancer. This study assessed how often GPs follow the guidelines, whether certain patients are less likely to be referred, and how many patients were diagnosed with cancer within 1 year of non-referral. METHODS: We used linked primary care (Clinical Practice Research Datalink), secondary care (Hospital Episode Statistics) and cancer registration data. Patients presenting with haematuria, breast lump, dysphagia, iron-deficiency anaemia, post-menopausal or rectal bleeding for the first time during 2014-2015 were included (for ages where guidelines recommend urgent referral). Logistic regression was used to investigate whether receiving a referral was associated with feature type and patient characteristics. Cancer incidence (based on recorded diagnoses in cancer registry data within 1 year of presentation) was compared between those receiving and those not receiving referrals. RESULTS: 48 715 patients were included, of which 40% (n=19 670) received an urgent referral within 14 days of presentation, varying by feature from 17% (dysphagia) to 68% (breast lump). Young patients (18-24 vs 55-64 years; adjusted OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.42, p<0.001) and those with comorbidities (4 vs 0 comorbidities; adjusted OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.94, p<0.001) were less likely to receive a referral. Associations between patient characteristics and referrals differed across features: among patients presenting with anaemia, breast lump or haematuria, those with multi-morbidity, and additionally for breast lump, more deprived patients were less likely to receive a referral. Of 29 045 patients not receiving a referral, 3.6% (1047) were diagnosed with cancer within 1 year, ranging from 2.8% for rectal bleeding to 9.5% for anaemia. CONCLUSIONS: Guideline recommendations for action are not followed for the majority of patients presenting with common possible cancer features. A significant number of these patients developed cancer within 1 year of their consultation, indicating scope for improvement in the diagnostic process.

Medication adherence and clinical outcomes in dispensing and non-dispensing practices: a cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: Most patients obtain medications from pharmacies by prescription, but rural general practices can dispense medications. The clinical implications of this difference in drug delivery are unknown. This study hypothesised that dispensing status may be associated with better medication adherence. This could impact intermediate clinical outcomes dependent on medication adherence in, for example, hypertension or diabetes. AIM: To investigate whether dispensing status is associated with differences in achievement of Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) indicators that rely on medication adherence. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional analysis of QOF data for 7392 general practices in England. METHOD: QOF data from 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017 linked to dispensing status for general practices with list sizes ≥1000 in England were analysed. QOF indicators were categorised according to whether their achievement depended on a record of prescribing only, medication adherence, or neither. Differences were estimated between dispensing and non-dispensing practices using mixed-effects logistic regression, adjusting for practice population age, sex, deprivation, list size, single-handed status, and rurality. RESULTS: Data existed for 7392 practices; 1014 (13.7%) could dispense. Achievement was better in dispensing practices than in non-dispensing practices for seven of nine QOF indicators dependent on adherence, including blood pressure targets. Only one of ten indicators dependent on prescribing but not adherence displayed better achievement; indicators unrelated to prescribing showed a trend towards higher achievement by dispensing practices. CONCLUSION: Dispensing practices may achieve better clinical outcomes than prescribing practices. Further work is required to explore underlying mechanisms for these observations and to directly study medication adherence rates.

Entertaining accurate treatment expectations while suffering from chronic pain: an exploration of treatment expectations and the relationship with patient- provider communication.

BACKGROUND: Accurate patient expectations are important to optimise treatment success, especially for complex conditions such as chronic pain. Communication may be the key to managing patient expectations. This study aimed to explore whether health care provider communication influences patient expectations and which communication aspects are most important. METHODS: We conducted secondary analyses on data that had been collected between September and November 2012. 2603 patients suffering from chronic pain were invited to complete a survey. RESULTS: Although 69.9% of patients achieved or surpassed their treatment goal, 30.2% of patients were unsatisfied. Even though overall health care provider communication and shared decision making were unrelated to patient expectations, several affective communication aspects were related. These aspects were attentive listening, taking enough time, building patient's trust in the physician's competence and giving patients the feeling that the physician is doing all he or she can (p's < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Even though treatment goals are not always explicitly discussed, patients still form expectations regarding treatment outcomes. Affective communication may be more important for managing patient expectations than sharing information. Building a good therapeutic relationship by showing affective communication may be important to increase the accuracy of patient expectations.

Patient involvement in the development of patient-reported outcome measures: The developers' perspective.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used in health care. To capture the patient's perspective, patient involvement in PROM development is needed. As earlier research showed varying degrees of patient involvement in PROM development, this study aimed to investigate why PROM developers do or do not involve patients, how patients can be successfully involved and what the negative aspects and benefits of patient involvement are. METHODS: PROM developers who, according to an earlier scoping review, involved patients in at least two phases of PROM development or did not involve patients at all, were contacted for a telephone interview. The interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed using a general inductive approach. RESULTS: From the PROM developers who involved patients, 21 developers were interviewed and three answered questions via e-mail. Most developers considered patient involvement necessary to create a valid questionnaire and relied on guidelines, personal experience and practical considerations for choosing a qualitative method. Negative aspects of patient involvement were mainly time investment and budget impact. One developer who did not involve patients was interviewed. Two developers sent back answers via e-mail. These developers did not involve patients because of limited resources or because no benefits were expected. CONCLUSION: Although PROM developers agree that patient involvement is necessary, a lack of resources can be a stumbling block. Most developers rely on guidelines, personal experience or practical considerations for choosing a qualitative method. Although this may be a good place to start, to optimize patient involvement developers should explicitly think about which methods would suit their study.

Asking what matters: The relevance and use of patient-reported outcome measures that were developed without patient involvement.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used to establish the value of health care. In order to reflect value, PROMs should measure outcomes that matter to patients. However, patients are not always involved in the development of PROMs. This study therefore aimed to investigate whether PROMs, which were developed without patient involvement, are relevant to patients and whether the level of importance allocated towards aspects of these PROMs varies between patient groups. METHODS: All patients from 20 Dutch hospitals undergoing hip or knee surgery in 2014 were invited to a PROMs survey. Participants were asked to rate the importance of each of the items in the HOOS-Physical Function Short form or the KOOS-Physical Function Short form, the EQ-5D and the NRS pain. RESULTS: Most outcomes were considered important. However, 77.7% of hip surgery patients rated being able to run as unimportant. Being able to kneel (32.7%) or squat (39.6%) was not important to a considerable minority of knee surgery patients. Pain, especially during rest, was considered very important by both hip (68.2%) and knee (66.5%) surgery patients. Patients who were older, male, experienced overall bad health and psychological health considered many items from the PROMs less important than other patients. DISCUSSION: Patients differ in what they consider important. Health-care professionals should explore patients' preferences and discuss which treatment options best fit patients' preferences. Additionally, if PROMs are used in performance measurement, further research is needed to look at whether and how variation in patient preferences can be taken into account.

Patient involvement in the development of patient-reported outcome measures: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) measure patients' perspectives on health outcomes and are increasingly used in health care. To capture the patient's perspective, it is essential that patients are involved in PROM development OBJECTIVE: This article reviews in what ways and to what extent patients are involved in PROM development and whether patient involvement has increased over time. SEARCH STRATEGY: Literature was searched in PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Studies were included if they described a new PROM development. DATA EXTRACTION: Basic information and information regarding patient involvement in development phases was recorded. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 189 studies, describing the development of 193 PROMs, were included. Most PROMs were meant for chronic disease patients (n = 59) and measured quality of life (n = 28). In 25.9% of the PROM development studies, no patients were involved. Patients were mostly involved during item development (58.5%), closely followed by testing for comprehensibility (50.8%), while patient involvement in determining which outcome to measure was minimal (10.9%). Some patient involvement took place in the development of most PROMs, but in only 6.7% patients were involved in all aspects of the development. Patient involvement did not increase with time. CONCLUSIONS: Although patient involvement in PROM development is essential to develop valid patient-centred PROMs, patients are not always involved. When patients are involved, their level of involvement varies considerably. These variations suggest that further attention to building and/or disseminating consensus on requirements for patient involvement in PROM development is necessary.

Sharing decisions during diagnostic consultations; an observational study in pediatric oncology.

OBJECTIVE: Children and parents need to make important decisions in the period of being informed about the diagnosis of childhood cancer. Although parents' and children's involvement is legally required, it is unclear whether oncologists involve them. This study explored which decisions families face, how oncologists involve them in shared decision-making (SDM) and which factors are associated with this process. METHODS: Forty-three families with children, starting treatment for childhood cancer, were recruited from three Dutch academic pediatric oncology clinics. Diagnostic consultations were audio-taped and coded with the OPTION. RESULTS: On average, 3.5 decisions were discussed per consultation. Most frequently discussed decisions concerned registration in a patient database (42%) and how to deal with hair loss (33%). Oncologists' assistance in SDM focused on giving information and ensuring the parents' and the child's understanding. The hospital in which children were treated (F(2,2)=5.39, p=.01) and discussing trial participation (F(1,1)=8.11, p=.01) were associated with oncologists' assistance. CONCLUSION: Decision-making during diagnostic consultations appears to focus on non-treatment related decisions. Oncologists' assistance mostly concerned sharing information, instead of SDM. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Additional research is needed to provide insight in how to increase oncologists' assistance, while taking into account children's and parents' preferences concerning SDM.