Guiding Glucose Management Discussions Among Adults With Type 2 Diabetes in General Practice: Development and Pretesting of a Clinical Decision Support Tool Prototype Embedded in an Electronic Medical Record.
clinical decision support
general practice
primary care
shared decision making
type 2 diabetes
Journal
JMIR formative research
ISSN: 2561-326X
Titre abrégé: JMIR Form Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101726394
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 Sep 2020
02 Sep 2020
Historique:
received:
10
02
2020
accepted:
26
07
2020
revised:
20
06
2020
entrez:
3
9
2020
pubmed:
3
9
2020
medline:
3
9
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Managing type 2 diabetes (T2D) requires progressive lifestyle changes and, sometimes, pharmacological treatment intensification. General practitioners (GPs) are integral to this process but can find pharmacological treatment intensification challenging because of the complexity of continually emerging treatment options. This study aimed to use a co-design method to develop and pretest a clinical decision support (CDS) tool prototype (GlycASSIST) embedded within an electronic medical record, which uses evidence-based guidelines to provide GPs and people with T2D with recommendations for setting glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) targets and intensifying treatment together in real time in consultations. The literature on T2D-related CDS tools informed the initial GlycASSIST design. A two-part co-design method was then used. Initial feedback was sought via interviews and focus groups with clinicians (4 GPs, 5 endocrinologists, and 3 diabetes educators) and 6 people with T2D. Following refinements, 8 GPs participated in mock consultations in which they had access to GlycASSIST. Six people with T2D viewed a similar mock consultation. Participants provided feedback on the functionality of GlycASSIST and its role in supporting shared decision making (SDM) and treatment intensification. Clinicians and people with T2D believed that GlycASSIST could support SDM (although this was not always observed in the mock consultations) and individualized treatment intensification. They recommended that GlycASSIST includes less information while maintaining relevance and credibility and using graphs and colors to enhance visual appeal. Maintaining clinical autonomy was important to GPs, as they wanted the capacity to override GlycASSIST's recommendations when appropriate. Clinicians requested easier screen navigation and greater prescribing guidance and capabilities. GlycASSIST was perceived to achieve its purpose of facilitating treatment intensification and was acceptable to people with T2D and GPs. The GlycASSIST prototype is being refined based on these findings to prepare for quantitative evaluation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Managing type 2 diabetes (T2D) requires progressive lifestyle changes and, sometimes, pharmacological treatment intensification. General practitioners (GPs) are integral to this process but can find pharmacological treatment intensification challenging because of the complexity of continually emerging treatment options.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to use a co-design method to develop and pretest a clinical decision support (CDS) tool prototype (GlycASSIST) embedded within an electronic medical record, which uses evidence-based guidelines to provide GPs and people with T2D with recommendations for setting glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) targets and intensifying treatment together in real time in consultations.
METHODS
METHODS
The literature on T2D-related CDS tools informed the initial GlycASSIST design. A two-part co-design method was then used. Initial feedback was sought via interviews and focus groups with clinicians (4 GPs, 5 endocrinologists, and 3 diabetes educators) and 6 people with T2D. Following refinements, 8 GPs participated in mock consultations in which they had access to GlycASSIST. Six people with T2D viewed a similar mock consultation. Participants provided feedback on the functionality of GlycASSIST and its role in supporting shared decision making (SDM) and treatment intensification.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Clinicians and people with T2D believed that GlycASSIST could support SDM (although this was not always observed in the mock consultations) and individualized treatment intensification. They recommended that GlycASSIST includes less information while maintaining relevance and credibility and using graphs and colors to enhance visual appeal. Maintaining clinical autonomy was important to GPs, as they wanted the capacity to override GlycASSIST's recommendations when appropriate. Clinicians requested easier screen navigation and greater prescribing guidance and capabilities.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
GlycASSIST was perceived to achieve its purpose of facilitating treatment intensification and was acceptable to people with T2D and GPs. The GlycASSIST prototype is being refined based on these findings to prepare for quantitative evaluation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32876576
pii: v4i9e17785
doi: 10.2196/17785
pmc: PMC7495264
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e17785Informations de copyright
©Breanne E Kunstler, John Furler, Elizabeth Holmes-Truscott, Hamish McLachlan, Douglas Boyle, Sean Lo, Jane Speight, David O'Neal, Ralph Audehm, Gary Kilov, Jo-Anne Manski-Nankervis. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (http://formative.jmir.org), 02.09.2020.
Références
J Med Internet Res. 2016 Nov 25;18(11):e310
pubmed: 27888169
CMAJ. 2009 Jul 7;181(1-2):37-44
pubmed: 19581618
Qual Saf Health Care. 2006 Apr;15(2):131-5
pubmed: 16585115
Ann Fam Med. 2012 May-Jun;10(3):221-7
pubmed: 22585886
Prim Care Diabetes. 2017 Oct;11(5):474-481
pubmed: 28705697
Diabetes Care. 2015 Jan;38(1):140-9
pubmed: 25538310
Diabetes Obes Metab. 2018 Feb;20(2):427-437
pubmed: 28834075
Diabetologia. 2018 Dec;61(12):2461-2498
pubmed: 30288571
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2013 Mar;99(3):385-90
pubmed: 23298663
J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2015 Jun 03;14:49
pubmed: 26075190
N Engl J Med. 2008 Oct 9;359(15):1577-89
pubmed: 18784090
J Biomed Inform. 2005 Feb;38(1):51-60
pubmed: 15694885
Diabetes Care. 2018 Dec;41(12):2669-2701
pubmed: 30291106
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018 May 1;25(5):538-547
pubmed: 29409033
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2016 Apr;114:126-35
pubmed: 26818893
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2013 Feb;15(2):180-92
pubmed: 23360424
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2009 Aug;85(2):119-31
pubmed: 19539391
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2015 Mar;17(3):194-202
pubmed: 25347226
Diabetes Care. 2003 Mar;26(3):750-7
pubmed: 12610033
Ann Fam Med. 2011 Jan-Feb;9(1):12-21
pubmed: 21242556
JAMA. 2002 Oct 16;288(15):1909-14
pubmed: 12377092
Diabet Med. 2013 Jun;30(6):739-45
pubmed: 23199102
Int J Med Inform. 2016 Mar;87:91-100
pubmed: 26806716
Health Serv Res. 2012 Dec;47(6):2137-58
pubmed: 22578085
Int J Med Inform. 2015 Feb;84(2):87-100
pubmed: 25453274
Med J Aust. 2014 Dec 11;201(11):650-3
pubmed: 25495309
Ann Fam Med. 2011 Sep-Oct;9(5):398-405
pubmed: 21911758
JAMA. 2005 Mar 9;293(10):1223-38
pubmed: 15755945
Curr Diab Rep. 2013 Apr;13(2):205-12
pubmed: 23160795
Aust Fam Physician. 2011 Aug;40(8):617-21
pubmed: 21814661
Am J Public Health. 2014 Dec;104(12):e12-22
pubmed: 25322302
Ann Fam Med. 2007 May-Jun;5(3):196-201
pubmed: 17548846
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2013 May 01;7(3):653-9
pubmed: 23759398
Diabet Med. 2016 Jun;33(6):734-41
pubmed: 27194173
JAMA. 2002 Oct 9;288(14):1775-9
pubmed: 12365965
Diabetes Obes Metab. 2019 Jun;21(6):1373-1380
pubmed: 30756446
Adv Ther. 2018 Nov;35(11):1735-1745
pubmed: 30374807
Diabet Med. 2012 Jun;29(6):698-708
pubmed: 22150466