Expectation of clinical decision support systems: a survey study among nephrologist end-users.
CDSS
Clinical Decision Support Systems
Nephrology
Survey
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:
26 10 2023
26 10 2023
Historique:
received:
03
11
2022
accepted:
29
09
2023
medline:
30
10
2023
pubmed:
27
10
2023
entrez:
26
10
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Chronic kidney disease (CKD), a major public health problem with differing disease etiologies, leads to complications, comorbidities, polypharmacy, and mortality. Monitoring disease progression and personalized treatment efforts are crucial for long-term patient outcomes. Physicians need to integrate different data levels, e.g., clinical parameters, biomarkers, and drug information, with medical knowledge. Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) can tackle these issues and improve patient management. Knowledge about the awareness and implementation of CDSS in Germany within the field of nephrology is scarce. Nephrologists' attitude towards any CDSS and potential CDSS features of interest, like adverse event prediction algorithms, is important for a successful implementation. This survey investigates nephrologists' experiences with and expectations towards a useful CDSS for daily medical routine in the outpatient setting. The 38-item questionnaire survey was conducted either by telephone or as a do-it-yourself online interview amongst nephrologists across all of Germany. Answers were collected and analysed using the Electronic Data Capture System REDCap, as well as Stata SE 15.1, and Excel. The survey consisted of four modules: experiences with CDSS (M1), expectations towards a helpful CDSS (M2), evaluation of adverse event prediction algorithms (M3), and ethical aspects of CDSS (M4). Descriptive statistical analyses of all questions were conducted. The study population comprised 54 physicians, with a response rate of about 80-100% per question. Most participants were aged between 51-60 years (45.1%), 64% were male, and most participants had been working in nephrology out-patient clinics for a median of 10.5 years. Overall, CDSS use was poor (81.2%), often due to lack of knowledge about existing CDSS. Most participants (79%) believed CDSS to be helpful in the management of CKD patients with a high willingness to try out a CDSS. Of all adverse event prediction algorithms, prediction of CKD progression (97.8%) and in-silico simulations of disease progression when changing, e. g., lifestyle or medication (97.7%) were rated most important. The spectrum of answers on ethical aspects of CDSS was diverse. This survey provides insights into experience with and expectations of out-patient nephrologists on CDSS. Despite the current lack of knowledge on CDSS, the willingness to integrate CDSS into daily patient care, and the need for adverse event prediction algorithms was high.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Chronic kidney disease (CKD), a major public health problem with differing disease etiologies, leads to complications, comorbidities, polypharmacy, and mortality. Monitoring disease progression and personalized treatment efforts are crucial for long-term patient outcomes. Physicians need to integrate different data levels, e.g., clinical parameters, biomarkers, and drug information, with medical knowledge. Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) can tackle these issues and improve patient management. Knowledge about the awareness and implementation of CDSS in Germany within the field of nephrology is scarce.
PURPOSE
Nephrologists' attitude towards any CDSS and potential CDSS features of interest, like adverse event prediction algorithms, is important for a successful implementation. This survey investigates nephrologists' experiences with and expectations towards a useful CDSS for daily medical routine in the outpatient setting.
METHODS
The 38-item questionnaire survey was conducted either by telephone or as a do-it-yourself online interview amongst nephrologists across all of Germany. Answers were collected and analysed using the Electronic Data Capture System REDCap, as well as Stata SE 15.1, and Excel. The survey consisted of four modules: experiences with CDSS (M1), expectations towards a helpful CDSS (M2), evaluation of adverse event prediction algorithms (M3), and ethical aspects of CDSS (M4). Descriptive statistical analyses of all questions were conducted.
RESULTS
The study population comprised 54 physicians, with a response rate of about 80-100% per question. Most participants were aged between 51-60 years (45.1%), 64% were male, and most participants had been working in nephrology out-patient clinics for a median of 10.5 years. Overall, CDSS use was poor (81.2%), often due to lack of knowledge about existing CDSS. Most participants (79%) believed CDSS to be helpful in the management of CKD patients with a high willingness to try out a CDSS. Of all adverse event prediction algorithms, prediction of CKD progression (97.8%) and in-silico simulations of disease progression when changing, e. g., lifestyle or medication (97.7%) were rated most important. The spectrum of answers on ethical aspects of CDSS was diverse.
CONCLUSION
This survey provides insights into experience with and expectations of out-patient nephrologists on CDSS. Despite the current lack of knowledge on CDSS, the willingness to integrate CDSS into daily patient care, and the need for adverse event prediction algorithms was high.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37884906
doi: 10.1186/s12911-023-02317-x
pii: 10.1186/s12911-023-02317-x
pmc: PMC10605935
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
239Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Intensive Care Med. 2017 Jun;43(6):764-773
pubmed: 28130688
Am J Kidney Dis. 2022 Feb;79(2):217-230.e1
pubmed: 34298143
Clin Kidney J. 2019 Dec 20;14(2):556-563
pubmed: 33623679
Kidney Int. 2012 Mar;81(5):442-8
pubmed: 22113526
JAMA. 2016 Jan 12;315(2):164-74
pubmed: 26757465
Am J Med. 2020 May;133(5):561-566
pubmed: 31954114
Int J Med Inform. 2009 Apr;78(4):219-29
pubmed: 18768345
Lancet. 2012 Aug 25;380(9843):756-66
pubmed: 22617274
JAMA. 2007 Nov 7;298(17):2038-47
pubmed: 17986697
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Dec 26;19(1):
pubmed: 35010486
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
Proc AMIA Symp. 2002;:155-9
pubmed: 12463806
JMIR Res Protoc. 2019 Jun 7;8(6):e14022
pubmed: 31199334
PLoS One. 2015 Jun 15;10(6):e0131034
pubmed: 26075728
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2016 Jul;27(7):2135-47
pubmed: 26701975
J Ren Nutr. 2020 Jul;30(4):296-304
pubmed: 31761711
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2014 Sep 5;9(9):1526-35
pubmed: 25135764
Implement Sci. 2020 Nov 25;15(1):101
pubmed: 33239076
Kidney360. 2022 Jan 14;3(4):752-778
pubmed: 35721622
Comput Inform Nurs. 2010 Jan-Feb;28(1):49-56
pubmed: 19940621
Inform Health Soc Care. 2008 Mar;33(1):39-54
pubmed: 18604761
Kidney Int. 2011 Sep;80(6):572-86
pubmed: 21750584
AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2007 Oct 11;:26-30
pubmed: 18693791
BMC Health Serv Res. 2021 May 1;21(1):407
pubmed: 33933068
Curr Cardiol Rep. 2018 Jul 26;20(9):78
pubmed: 30046971
BMJ. 2015 Jan 07;350:g7594
pubmed: 25569120
Am J Kidney Dis. 2008 Oct;52(4):653-60
pubmed: 18585833
J Med Ethics. 2020 Mar;46(3):205-211
pubmed: 31748206
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2021 Jan;32(1):239-253
pubmed: 32868398
JAMA. 2011 Apr 20;305(15):1553-9
pubmed: 21482743
J Nephrol. 2022 Nov;35(8):1953-1971
pubmed: 35543912
Am J Kidney Dis. 2016 May;67(5):779-86
pubmed: 26725311
Inform Health Soc Care. 2016;41(2):128-42
pubmed: 25325354
Curr HIV Res. 2016;14(2):101-9
pubmed: 26511342
Nat Rev Nephrol. 2020 Jul;16(7):368-370
pubmed: 32238923
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013 Jul 29;13:79
pubmed: 23890121
J Am Board Fam Med. 2016 Sep-Oct;29(5):604-12
pubmed: 27613793
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2019 Apr 5;14(4):523-529
pubmed: 30898873
JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Jul 1;179(7):942-952
pubmed: 30980653
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2019 Jul;30(7):1271-1281
pubmed: 31235617
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2018 Apr 20;6(4):e10173
pubmed: 29678805
JAMIA Open. 2020 May 07;3(2):281-289
pubmed: 32734169
Adv Ther. 2021 Jan;38(1):180-200
pubmed: 33231861
Clin Kidney J. 2019 May 24;12(5):663-672
pubmed: 31584562
Lancet. 2013 Jul 13;382(9887):158-69
pubmed: 23727165
N Engl J Med. 2005 Mar 10;352(10):969-77
pubmed: 15758007
Implement Sci. 2022 Jul 15;17(1):44
pubmed: 35841043
Am J Kidney Dis. 2021 Jul;78(1):28-37
pubmed: 33428996
Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens. 2021 Nov 1;30(6):538-546
pubmed: 34602599
J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Apr;61(4):344-9
pubmed: 18313558
J Med Philos. 1990 Dec;15(6):581-91
pubmed: 2290072
Ann Fam Med. 2013 May-Jun;11 Suppl 1:S115-23
pubmed: 23690380
Am J Kidney Dis. 2021 Feb;77(2):235-244
pubmed: 32768632
Fam Pract. 2008 Jun;25(3):162-7
pubmed: 18504253
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Nov 6;115(45):11591-11596
pubmed: 30348771
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2020 Dec 31;16(1):98-106
pubmed: 33355235
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2021 Apr 27;21(1):137
pubmed: 33906665
J Biomed Inform. 2019 Jul;95:103208
pubmed: 31078660
Ann Intensive Care. 2018 Jul 6;8(1):77
pubmed: 29980878
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2019 Sep 2;19(1):176
pubmed: 31477119
N Engl J Med. 2011 Aug 11;365(6):506-17
pubmed: 21714640
Emerg Med Australas. 2009 Feb;21(1):31-7
pubmed: 19254310
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2021 Sep;32(9):2315-2329
pubmed: 34140400
Ann Intern Med. 2013 Apr 16;158(8):596-603
pubmed: 23588748
Implement Sci. 2017 Oct 18;12(1):121
pubmed: 29047393
Implement Sci. 2020 May 27;15(1):39
pubmed: 32460797
Health Soc Care Community. 2004 Sep;12(5):382-8
pubmed: 15373816
AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2005;:41-5
pubmed: 16778998
Implement Sci. 2014 Jun 06;9:71
pubmed: 24906229