Effects of a computerised guideline support tool on child healthcare professionals' response to suspicions of child abuse and neglect: a community-based intervention trial.
Child abuse and neglect
Computerised support
Guideline adherence
Secondary prevention
Journal
BMC medical informatics and decision making
ISSN: 1472-6947
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088682
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 08 2019
15 08 2019
Historique:
received:
30
01
2018
accepted:
29
07
2019
entrez:
17
8
2019
pubmed:
17
8
2019
medline:
19
2
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Healthcare professionals' adherence to guidelines on child protection is not self-evident. This study assessed the effects of a computerised support tool on child healthcare professionals' adherence to the seven recommended guideline activities, and on time spent seeking information presented in this guideline. A community-based intervention trial design was applied, comparing access to a paper-based guideline (control) with access to a paper-based guideline supplemented with a computerised guideline support tool (intervention). A total of 168 child healthcare doctors and nurses working in one large Dutch organisation were allocated to an intervention or control group. Outcomes were professionals' performance of seven recommended guideline activities and the amount of time spent seeking information presented in the guideline. Professionals' adherence was measured using two methods: health record analysis and a self-report questionnaire. The questionnaire was also used to collect data on the amount of time spent seeking guideline information. In total, 152 health records (102 in the intervention group and 50 in the control group) were available for analysis. The tool was registered in 14% of the records in the intervention group. Performance of activities, corrected for intentional non-adherence, was except for one activity, high (range 80-100%); no differences were found between the control and intervention groups. Forty-nine questionnaires (24 in the intervention group and 25 in the control group) were analysed. Sixty-three percent of the questionnaire respondents (15/24) claimed to have used the tool. No differences in guideline adherence were found between the two groups. Respondents in the intervention and control groups spent, on average, 115 and 153 min respectively seeking relevant information presented in the guideline. The results regarding use of the tool were inconclusive as the outcomes differed per method. In contrast to expectations, performance of guideline activities was high in both groups. The support tool may decrease the amount of time spent on seeking guideline information. However, given the high adherence scores and small number of questionnaire respondents, the outcomes failed to reach statistical significance. Future research should focus on studying the effects of the tool after a longer period of availability.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Healthcare professionals' adherence to guidelines on child protection is not self-evident. This study assessed the effects of a computerised support tool on child healthcare professionals' adherence to the seven recommended guideline activities, and on time spent seeking information presented in this guideline.
METHODS
A community-based intervention trial design was applied, comparing access to a paper-based guideline (control) with access to a paper-based guideline supplemented with a computerised guideline support tool (intervention). A total of 168 child healthcare doctors and nurses working in one large Dutch organisation were allocated to an intervention or control group. Outcomes were professionals' performance of seven recommended guideline activities and the amount of time spent seeking information presented in the guideline. Professionals' adherence was measured using two methods: health record analysis and a self-report questionnaire. The questionnaire was also used to collect data on the amount of time spent seeking guideline information.
RESULTS
In total, 152 health records (102 in the intervention group and 50 in the control group) were available for analysis. The tool was registered in 14% of the records in the intervention group. Performance of activities, corrected for intentional non-adherence, was except for one activity, high (range 80-100%); no differences were found between the control and intervention groups. Forty-nine questionnaires (24 in the intervention group and 25 in the control group) were analysed. Sixty-three percent of the questionnaire respondents (15/24) claimed to have used the tool. No differences in guideline adherence were found between the two groups. Respondents in the intervention and control groups spent, on average, 115 and 153 min respectively seeking relevant information presented in the guideline.
CONCLUSIONS
The results regarding use of the tool were inconclusive as the outcomes differed per method. In contrast to expectations, performance of guideline activities was high in both groups. The support tool may decrease the amount of time spent on seeking guideline information. However, given the high adherence scores and small number of questionnaire respondents, the outcomes failed to reach statistical significance. Future research should focus on studying the effects of the tool after a longer period of availability.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31416453
doi: 10.1186/s12911-019-0884-y
pii: 10.1186/s12911-019-0884-y
pmc: PMC6694693
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
161Références
J Forensic Odontostomatol. 2013 Dec 01;31(1):15-21
pubmed: 24776437
Child Maltreat. 2008 Feb;13(1):50-63
pubmed: 18174348
Pediatrics. 2012 Jul;130(1):93-8
pubmed: 22665413
Scand J Prim Health Care. 2015 Mar;33(1):21-6
pubmed: 25676563
BMJ. 2009 Jul 22;339:b2689
pubmed: 19625357
Inform Health Soc Care. 2015 Dec;40(4):345-361
pubmed: 25122056
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Jul 08;(3):CD001096
pubmed: 19588323
Qual Health Res. 2018 Jan;28(2):231-244
pubmed: 29046119
J Nurs Scholarsh. 2001;33(3):253-8
pubmed: 11552552
PLoS Med. 2011 Jan 18;8(1):e1000387
pubmed: 21267058
J Biomed Inform. 2010 Feb;43(1):159-72
pubmed: 19615467
Child Abuse Negl. 2008 Sep;32(9):831-7
pubmed: 18945489
Implement Sci. 2011 Mar 22;6:26
pubmed: 21426574
Arch Dis Child. 2010 Nov;95(11):918-25
pubmed: 20647257
Methods Inf Med. 2002;41(5):435-42
pubmed: 12501817
Soc Sci Med. 2015 Jul;136-137:35-43
pubmed: 25982867
Arch Fam Med. 1992 Nov;1(2):187-97
pubmed: 1341594
Methods Inf Med. 2010;49(6):550-70
pubmed: 21085744
Chest. 2013 Aug;144(2):381-389
pubmed: 23918106
BMC Public Health. 2013 Sep 05;13:807
pubmed: 24007516
J Eval Clin Pract. 2014 Aug;20(4):417-24
pubmed: 24814668
Child Abuse Negl. 2013 Oct;37(10):841-51
pubmed: 23938018
JAMA. 2005 Mar 9;293(10):1223-38
pubmed: 15755945
Health Aff (Millwood). 2010 Apr;29(4):647-54
pubmed: 20368594
Int J Med Inform. 2016 May;89:55-62
pubmed: 26980359
JAMA. 1999 Oct 20;282(15):1458-65
pubmed: 10535437
Control Clin Trials. 2002 Aug;23(4):409-21
pubmed: 12161083
J Biomed Inform. 2012 Dec;45(6):1202-16
pubmed: 22995208
Child Abuse Negl. 2017 Aug;70:264-273
pubmed: 28641135
Br J Gen Pract. 2012 Jul;62(600):e478-86
pubmed: 22781996
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2009 Feb 11;9:11
pubmed: 19210782
Int J Public Health. 2012 Jun;57(3):637-41
pubmed: 21956621
Child Abuse Negl. 2016 Mar;53:118-27
pubmed: 26687328
BMJ. 1999 Sep 11;319(7211):670-4
pubmed: 10480822
BMJ. 1999 Feb 20;318(7182):527-30
pubmed: 10024268
Epidemiol Rev. 2002;24(1):72-9
pubmed: 12119859