Comprehensive process model of clinical information interaction in primary care: results of a "best-fit" framework synthesis

Modelling of physicians' clinical information-seeking behaviour in Iran: a grounded theory study

OBJECTIVES

Exploring clinical information-seeking behaviour (CISB) and its associated factors contributes to its theoretical advancement and offers a valuable framework for addressing physicians' information needs. This study delved into the dimensions, interactions, strategies and determinants of CISB among physicians at the point of care.

DESIGN

A grounded theory study was developed based on Strauss and Corbin's approach. Data were collected by semistructured interviews and then analysed through open, axial and selective coding.

SETTING

The study was conducted at academic centres affiliated with Isfahan University of Medical Sciences.

PARTICIPANTS

This investigation involved recruiting 21 specialists and subspecialists from the academic centres.

RESULTS

The findings revealed that physicians' CISB encompassed multiple dimensions when addressing clinical inquiries. Seven principal themes emerged from the analysis: 'clinical information needs', 'clinical question characteristics', 'clinical information resources', 'information usability', 'factors influencing information seeking', 'action/interaction encountering clinical questions' and 'consequences of CISB'. The core category identified in this study was 'focused attention'.

CONCLUSIONS

The theoretical explanation demonstrated that the CISB process was interactive and dynamic. Various stimuli, including causal, contextual and intervening conditions, guide physicians in adopting information-seeking strategies and focusing on resolving clinical challenges. However, insufficient stimuli may hinder physicians' engagement in CISB. Understanding CISB helps managers, policy-makers, clinical librarians and information system designers optimally implement several interventions, such as suitable training methods, reviewing monitoring and evaluating information systems, improving clinical decision support systems, electronic medical records and electronic health records, as well as monitoring and evaluating these systems. Such measures facilitate focused attention on clinical issues and promote CISB among physicians.

Examining primary care provider experiences with using a clinical decision support tool for pain management

Objective

To evaluate primary care provider (PCP) experiences using a clinical decision support (CDS) tool over 16 months following a user-centered design process and implementation.

Materials and Methods

We conducted a qualitative evaluation of the Chronic Pain OneSheet (OneSheet), a chronic pain CDS tool. OneSheet provides pain- and opioid-related risks, benefits, and treatment information for patients with chronic pain to PCPs. Using the 5 Rights of CDS framework, we conducted and analyzed semi-structured interviews with 19 PCPs across 2 academic health systems.

Results

PCPs stated that OneSheet mostly contained the right information required to treat patients with chronic pain and was correctly located in the electronic health record. PCPs used OneSheet for distinct subgroups of patients with chronic pain, including patients prescribed opioids, with poorly controlled pain, or new to a provider or clinic. PCPs reported variable workflow integration and selective use of certain OneSheet features driven by their preferences and patient population. PCPs recommended broadening OneSheet access to clinical staff and patients for data entry to address clinician time constraints.

Discussion

Differences in patient subpopulations and workflow preferences had an outsized effect on CDS tool use even when the CDS contained the right information identified in a user-centered design process.

Conclusions

To increase adoption and use, CDS design and implementation processes may benefit from increased tailoring that accommodates variation and dynamics among patients, visits, and providers.

Health informatics interventions to minimize out-of-pocket medication costs for patients: what providers want

Objective

To explore diverse provider perspectives on: strategies for addressing patient medication cost barriers; patient medication cost information gaps; current medication cost-related informatics tools; and design features for future tool development.

Materials and Methods

We conducted 38 semistructured interviews with providers (physicians, nurses, pharmacists, social workers, and administrators) in a Midwestern health system in the United States. We used 3 rounds of qualitative coding to identify themes.

Results

Providers lacked access to information about: patients’ ability to pay for medications; true costs of full medication regimens; and cost impacts of patient insurance changes. Some providers said that while existing cost-related tools were helpful, they contained unclear insurance information and several questioned the information’s quality. Cost-related information was not available to everyone who needed it and was not always available when needed. Fragmentation of information across sources made cost-alleviation information difficult to access. Providers desired future tools to compare medication costs more directly; provide quick references on costs to facilitate clinical conversations; streamline medication resource referrals; and provide centrally accessible visual summaries of patient affordability challenges.

Discussion

These findings can inform the next generation of informatics tools for minimizing patients’ out-of-pocket costs. Future tools should support the work of a wider range of providers and situations and use cases than current tools do. Such tools would have the potential to improve prescribing decisions and better link patients to resources.

Conclusion

Results identified opportunities to fill multidisciplinary providers’ information gaps and ways in which new tools could better support medication affordability for patients.

Almost a quarter of Americans taking prescription medications have difficulty affording them. We asked 38 healthcare providers what they do to help patients get affordable medications. They try to reduce the number of medications that patients take, choose more affordable medication options, and connect them to free medications or financial help. But it is hard for providers to do these things because they don’t always know which patients have financial challenges, and they may not know how much medications cost patients. Healthcare providers use digital tools like ordering systems to pick medications for patients, but they do not always have clear price information and they do not help outside of healthcare visits with prescribers. It is also hard for healthcare providers to get information about what patients have difficulty affording medications, and about resources to help them. Healthcare providers want new and improved digital tools to help them choose medications, and to be able to compare exact medication price differences. They also want a visual sign for patients with financial challenges, and centralized information about cost reduction resources. Finally, they desire tools to help them talk to patients about mediation prices, and medication price reports for patients themselves.

Barriers and facilitators to implementation of menu labelling interventions from a food service industry perspective: a mixed methods systematic review

Background

Eating outside the home contributes to poor dietary habits worldwide and is associated with increased body fat and weight gain. Evidence shows menu labelling is effective in promoting healthier food choices; however, implementation issues have arisen. The purpose of this systematic review was to synthesise the evidence on the perceived barriers and facilitators to implementation of menu labelling interventions from the perspective of the food service industry.

Methods

Peer-reviewed and grey literature were searched using databases, specialised search engines and public health organisation websites. Screening reference lists, citation chaining and contacting authors of all included studies were undertaken. Primary research studies relevant to direct supply-side stakeholders were eligible for inclusion. There were no restrictions on menu labelling scheme or format, study methods, publication year or language. At least two independent reviewers performed study selection, data extraction and quality appraisal. The results were synthesised using the ‘best fit’ framework synthesis approach, with reference to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

Results

Seventeen studies met the eligibility criteria, with the majority rated as average quality (n = 10). The most frequently cited barriers were coded to the CFIR constructs ‘Consumer Needs & Resources’ (e.g. lack of customer demand for/interest in menu labelling, risk of overwhelmed/confused customers) and ‘Compatibility’ with organisation work processes (e.g. lack of standardised recipes, limited space on menus). Frequently cited facilitators were coded to the CFIR constructs ‘Relative Advantage’ of menu labelling (e.g. improved business image/reputation) and ‘Consumer Needs & Resources’ (e.g. customer demand for/interest in menu labelling, providing nutrition information to customers). An adapted framework consisting of a priori and new constructs was developed, which illustrates the relationships between domains.

Conclusion

This review generates an adapted CFIR framework for understanding implementation of menu labelling interventions. It highlights that implementation is influenced by multiple interdependent factors, particularly related to the external and internal context of food businesses, and features of the menu labelling intervention. The findings can be used by researchers and practitioners to develop or select strategies to address barriers that impede implementation and to leverage facilitators that assist with implementation effort.

Trial registration

Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42017083306.

Psychosocial information use for clinical decisions in diabetes care

OBJECTIVE

There are increasing efforts to capture psychosocial information in outpatient care in order to enhance health equity. To advance clinical decision support systems (CDSS), this study investigated which psychosocial information clinicians value, who values it, and when and how clinicians use this information for clinical decision-making in outpatient type 2 diabetes care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This mixed methods study involved physician interviews (n = 17) and a survey of physicians, nurse practitioners (NPs), and diabetes educators (n = 198). We used the grounded theory approach to analyze interview data and descriptive statistics and tests of difference by clinician type for survey data.

RESULTS

Participants viewed financial strain, mental health status, and life stressors as most important. NPs and diabetes educators perceived psychosocial information to be more important, and used it significantly more often for 1 decision, than did physicians. While some clinicians always used psychosocial information, others did so when patients were not doing well. Physicians used psychosocial information to judge patient capabilities, understanding, and needs; this informed assessment of the risks and the feasibility of options and patient needs. These assessments influenced 4 key clinical decisions.

DISCUSSION

Triggers for psychosocially informed CDSS should include psychosocial screening results, new or newly diagnosed patients, and changes in patient status. CDSS should support cost-sensitive medication prescribing, and psychosocially based assessment of hypoglycemia risk. Electronic health records should capture rationales for care that do not conform to guidelines for panel management. NPs and diabetes educators are key stakeholders in psychosocially informed CDSS.

CONCLUSION

Findings highlight opportunities for psychosocially informed CDSS-a vital next step for improving health equity.