Patterns of Use of Handheld Clinical Decision Support Tools in the Clinical Setting

Feliciano Yu, Thomas K. Houston, Midge N. Ray, Duriel Q. Garner and Eta S. Berner
Additional contact information
Feliciano Yu: UAB Center for Outcomes and Effectiveness Research and Education (COERE), Birmingham, Alabama, Department of Pediatrics, UAB Health Services and Outcomes Research Training Program, Birmingham, Alabama, fyu@peds.uab.edu
Thomas K. Houston: UAB Center for Outcomes and Effectiveness Research and Education (COERE), Birmingham, Alabama, Department of Medicine, Birmingham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Birmingham, Alabama, Deep South Center on Effectiveness Research, Birmingham, Alabama
Midge N. Ray: UAB Center for Outcomes and Effectiveness Research and Education (COERE), Birmingham, Alabama, Department of Health Services Administration University of Alabama at Birmingham
Duriel Q. Garner: Department of Health Services Administration University of Alabama at Birmingham
Eta S. Berner: UAB Center for Outcomes and Effectiveness Research and Education (COERE), Birmingham, Alabama, Department of Health Services Administration University of Alabama at Birmingham

Medical Decision Making, 2007, vol. 27, issue 6, 744-753

Abstract: Objectives. To assess the patterns of use of handheld clinical decision support tools by internal medicine residents in clinical settings. Methods. Eighty-two internal medicine residents were given personal digital assistants (PDAs) containing a suite of clinical decision support (CDS) programs. A tracking program was used to prospectively track program use during the study period, and a follow-up survey regarding self-reported program use was administered after the study period. Patterns of program use from the tracking data were compared to the data from the self-report survey. Results. Sixty-eight residents were followed using the tracking data. Residents used an average of 1.81 CDS programs (SD: 1.57; range, 0—5) per month. Forty-nine residents completed the self-report survey. Residents reported using an average of 3.15 (SD: 1.61) and 3.92 (SD: 1.40) CDS programs during a typical clinic session and inpatient day, respectively. In both inpatient and outpatient settings and for both methods of assessing program use, 2 programs (Epocrates and MedCalc) were used more often than the other programs. No association was observed between age, gender, race, and PGY level with the use of handheld clinical decision support tools for either tracked or self-report data. The self-report data show higher estimates of CDS program use than the tracking data in the clinical setting. Conclusions. The data show that physicians prefer to use certain handheld CDS tools in clinical settings. Drug references and medical calculators have been consistently used more than clinical prediction rules and diagnostic systems. Self-report survey instruments may overestimate recorded use of CDS programs.

Keywords: decision support systems; clinical; computers; handheld; decision making; computer assisted; internal medicine. (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2007
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X07305321 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:27:y:2007:i:6:p:744-753

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X07305321

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().