Interests and needs of eye care providers in clinical decision support for glaucoma.

To study whether clinicians who treat glaucoma are interested in using clinical decision support (CDS) tools for glaucoma, what glaucoma clinical decisions they feel would benefit from CDS, and what characteristics of CDS design they feel would be important in glaucoma clinical practice. Working with the American Glaucoma Society, the Utah Ophthalmology Society and the Utah Optometric Association, we identified a group of clinicians who care for patients with glaucoma. We asked these clinicians about interest in CDS, what glaucoma clinical decisions would benefit from CDS, and what characteristics of CDS tool design would be important in glaucoma clinical practice. Of the 105 clinicians (31 optometrists, 10 general ophthalmologists and 64 glaucoma specialists), 93 (88.6%) were either 'definitely' or 'probably' interested in using CDS for glaucoma. There were no statistically significant differences in interest between clinical specialties (p=0.12), years in practice (p=0.85) or numbers of patients seen daily (p=0.99). Identifying progression of glaucoma was the clinical decision the largest number of clinicians felt would benefit from CDS (104/105, 99.1%). An easy to use interface was the CDS characteristic the largest number of clinicians felt would be 'very important' (93/105, 88.6%). Of this group of clinicians who treat glaucoma, 88.6% were interested in using CDS for glaucoma and 99.1% felt that identification of glaucomatous progression could benefit from CDS. This level of interest supports future work to develop CDS for glaucoma.

Informations de copyright

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Competing interests: KK reports honoraria, consulting or sponsored research outside the submitted work with McKesson InterQual, Hitachi, Pfizer, Premier, Klesis Healthcare, RTI International, Mayo Clinic, Vanderbilt University, the University of Washington, the University of California at San Francisco, MD Aware, and the US Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (via ESAC, JBS International, A+Government Solutions, Hausam Consulting and Security Risk Solutions) in the area of health information technology. KK is also an unpaid board member of the non-profit Health Level Seven International health IT standard development organisation, and he has helped develop a number of health IT tools which may be commercialised to enable wider impact. None of these relationships have direct relevance to the manuscript but are reported in the interest of full disclosure. RH reports personal fees from Astellas Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. FAM reports grants from National Eye Institute, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Aeri Pharmaceuticals, personal fees from Allergan, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from Biogen, personal fees from Galimedix, personal fees from Annexon, grants from Google, grants from Carl-Zeiss Meditec, personal fees from Heidelberg Engineering, personal fees from Stealth Biotherapeutics, personal fees from IDx, personal fees from Reichert, outside the submitted work.