New Mexico practitioners' access to and satisfaction with online clinical information resources: an interview study using qualitative data analysis software.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Questions
What information resources are available to health care practitioners not affiliated with the University of New Mexico? How satisfied are they with those resources?Setting
The state is rural and medically underserved.Methods
The authors interviewed practitioners, using a nine-item guide. Interview transcripts were coded using QSR NVivo 9 software.Main results
Fifty-one practitioners were interviewed. Most use online information resources. Many have access to a point-of-care resource within an electronic health records system. They often expressed dissatisfaction with available patient education resources.Conclusion
New Mexico practitioners routinely use electronic information resources but indicate they need better patient information.
SUBMITTER: Bradley PV
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4279931 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundIn 2022, NHS England announced plans to ensure that all adult primary care patients in England would have full online access to new data added to their general practitioner (GP) record. However, this plan has not yet been fully implemented. Since April 2020, the GP contract in England has already committed to offering patients full online record access on a prospective basis and on request. However, there has been limited research into UK GPs' experiences and opinions about this practice innovation.ObjectiveThis study aimed to explore the experiences and opinions of GPs in England about patients' access to their full web-based health record, including clinicians' free-text summaries of the consultation (so-called "open notes").MethodsIn March 2022, using a convenience sample, we administered a web-based mixed methods survey of 400 GPs in the United Kingdom to explore their experiences and opinions about the impact on patients and GPs' practices to offer patients full online access to their health records. Participants were recruited using the clinician marketing service Doctors.net.uk from registered GPs currently working in England. We conducted a qualitative descriptive analysis of written responses ("comments") to 4 open-ended questions embedded in a web-based questionnaire.ResultsOf 400 GPs, 224 (56%) left comments that were classified into 4 major themes: increased strain on GP practices, the potential to harm patients, changes to documentation, and legal concerns. GPs believed that patient access would lead to extra work for them, reduced efficiency, and increased burnout. The participants also believed that access would increase patient anxiety and incur risks to patient safety. Experienced and perceived documentation changes included reduced candor and changes to record functionality. Anticipated legal concerns encompassed fears about increased litigation risks and lack of legal guidance to GPs about how to manage documentation that would be read by patients and potential third parties.ConclusionsThis study provides timely information on the views of GPs in England regarding patient access to their web-based health records. Overwhelmingly, GPs were skeptical about the benefits of access both for patients and to their practices. These views are similar to those expressed by clinicians in other countries, including Nordic countries and the United States before patient access. The survey was limited by the convenience sample, and it is not possible to infer that our sample was representative of the opinions of GPs in England. More extensive, qualitative research is required to understand the perspectives of patients in England after experiencing access to their web-based records. Finally, further research is needed to explore objective measures of the impact of patient access to their records on health outcomes, clinician workload, and changes to documentation.
| S-EPMC9996425 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Wearables, fitness apps, and patient home monitoring devices are used increasingly by patients and other individuals with lifestyle challenges. All Danish general practitioners (GPs) use digital health records and electronic health (eHealth) consultations on a daily basis, but how they perceive the increasing demand for lifestyle advice and whether they see eHealth as part of their lifestyle support should be explored further. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to explore GPs' perspectives on eHealth devices and apps and the use of eHealth in supporting healthy lifestyle behavior for their patients and themselves. METHODS:A total of 10 (5 female and 5 male) GPs were recruited by purposive sampling, aged 38 to 69 years (mean 51 years), of which 4 had an urban uptake of patients and 6 a rural uptake. All of them worked in the region of Southern Denmark where GPs typically work alone or in partnership with 1 to 4 colleagues and all use electronic patient health records for prescription, referral, and asynchronous electronic consultations. We performed qualitative, semistructured, individual in-depth interviews with the GPs in their own office about how they used eHealth and mHealth devices to help patients challenged with lifestyle issues and themselves. We also interviewed how they treated lifestyle-challenged patients in general and how they imagined eHealth could be used in the future. RESULTS:All GPs had smartphones or tablets, and everyone communicated on a daily basis with patients about disease and medicine via their electronic health record and the internet. We identified 3 themes concerning the use of eHealth: (1) how eHealth is used for patients; (2) general practitioners' own experience with improving lifestyle and eHealth support; and (3) relevant coaching techniques for transformation into eHealth. CONCLUSIONS:GPs used eHealth frequently for themselves but only infrequently for their patients. GPs are familiar with behavioral change techniques and are ready to use them in eHealth if they are used to optimize processes and not hinder other treatments. Looking ahead, education of GPs and recognizing patients' ability and preference to use eHealth with regard to a healthy living are needed.
| S-EPMC5930171 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe research determined the usage and satisfaction levels with one of two point-of-care (PoC) resources among health care providers in a rural state.MethodsIn this randomized controlled trial, twenty-eight health care providers in rural areas were stratified by occupation and region, then randomized into either the DynaMed or the AccessMedicine study arm. Study participants were physicians, physician assistants, and nurses. A pre- and post-study survey measured participants' attitudes toward different information resources and their information-seeking activities. Medical student investigators provided training and technical support for participants. Data analyses consisted of analysis of variance (ANOVA), paired t tests, and Cohen's d statistic to compare pre- and post-study effects sizes.ResultsParticipants in both the DynaMed and the AccessMedicine arms of the study reported increased satisfaction with their respective PoC resource, as expected. Participants in both arms also reported that they saved time in finding needed information. At baseline, both arms reported too little information available, which increased to "about right amounts of information" at the completion of the study. DynaMed users reported a Cohen's d increase of +1.50 compared to AccessMedicine users' reported use of 0.82. DynaMed users reported d2 satisfaction increases of 9.48 versus AccessMedicine satisfaction increases of 0.59 using a Cohen's d.ConclusionParticipants in the DynaMed arm of the study used this clinically oriented PoC more heavily than the users of the textbook-based AccessMedicine. In terms of user satisfaction, DynaMed users reported higher levels of satisfaction than the users of AccessMedicine.
| S-EPMC4722640 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo explore general practitioners' (GPs') perceived indicators of vulnerability among pregnant women in primary care.DesignA qualitative study with semi-structured in-depth focus group interviews.SettingGeneral practices located in a mixture of urban, semi-urban and rural practices throughout the Region of Southern Denmark SUBJECTS: Twenty GPs.Main outcome measuresThrough qualitative analysis with systematic text condensation of the interview data, the following themes emerged: (1) obvious indicators of vulnerability-i.e. somatic or psychological illnesses, or complex social problems and 2) intangible indicators of vulnerability - i.e. identification depended on the GPs' gut-feeling. From the GPs' perspective, the concept of vulnerability in pregnancy were perceived as the net result of risk factors and available individual and social resources, with a psychosocial etiology as the dominant framework.ConclusionsThe GPs demonstrated a broad variety of perceived indicators of vulnerability in pregnancy; most importantly, the GPs were aware of a group of pregnant women with intangible vulnerability mainly representing low resilience. Despite not fitting into the GPs' perceived concept of vulnerability, the GPs had a strong gut feeling that these women might be vulnerable. Misjudging the resources of pregnant women due to their physical appearance could delay the GPs' identification of vulnerability. Future studies should explore the challenges GPs experiences when assessing vulnerability among pregnant women.
| S-EPMC8236135 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDue to the nature of their work, general practitioners (GPs) need to be up to date with evidence in various medical domains. While much synthesised research evidence is easily accessible nowadays, in practice, the time to search for and review this evidence proposes a challenge. In German primary care, the knowledge infrastructure is rather fragmented, leaving GPs with relatively few primary care specific resources of information and many resources from other medical fields. This study aimed to explore GPs information-seeking behaviour regarding evidence-based recommendations in cardiovascular care in Germany.MethodsTo explore views of GPs a qualitative research design was chosen. Data was collected through semi-structured interviews. In total, 27 telephone interviews with GPs were conducted between June and November 2021.Verbatim transcript interviews were then analysed using thematic analysis, deriving at themes inductively.ResultsTwo broad strategies of information-seeking behaviour in GP could be distinguished: (a) generic information-seeking behaviour and (b) casuistic information-seeking. The first referring to strategies GPs apply to keep up with medical developments such as new medication and the second referring to purposeful information exchange regarding individual patients, such as referral letters. The second strategy was also used to keep up with medical developments in general.ConclusionIn a fragmented information landscape, GPs used information exchange on individual patients to remain informed about medical developments in general. Initiatives to implement recommended practices need to take this into account, either by using these sources of influence or by making GPs aware of possible bias and risks. The findings also emphasize the importance of systematic evidence-based sources of information for GPs.Trail registrationWe registered the study prospectively on 07/11/2019 at the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS, www.drks.de ) under ID no. DRKS00019219.
| S-EPMC10214602 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo describe the experiences and opinions of general practitioners (GPs) in England regarding patients having access to their full online GP health records.DesignConvenience sample, online survey.Participants400 registered GPs in England.Main outcome measuresInvestigators measured GPs' experiences and opinions about online record access (ORA), including patient care and their practice.ResultsA total of 400 GPs from all regions of England responded. A minority (130, 33%) believed ORA was a good idea. Most GPs believed a majority of patients would worry more (364, 91%) or find their GP records more confusing than helpful (338, 85%). Most GPs believed a majority of patients would find significant errors in their records (240, 60%), would better remember their care plan (280, 70%) and feel more in control of their care (243, 60%). The majority believed they will/already spend more time addressing patients' questions outside of consultations (357, 89%), that consultations will/already take significantly longer (322, 81%) and that they will be/already are less candid in their documentation (289, 72%) after ORA. Nearly two-thirds of GPs believed ORA would increase their litigation (246, 62%).ConclusionsSimilar to clinicians in other countries, GPs in our sample were sceptical of ORA, believing patients would worry more and find their records more confusing than helpful. Most GPs also believed the practice would exacerbate work burdens. However, the majority of GPs in this survey also agreed there were multiple benefits to patients having online access to their primary care health records. The findings of this survey also contribute to a growing body of contrastive research from countries where ORA is advanced, demonstrating clinicians are sceptical while studies indicate patients appear to derive multiple benefits.
| S-EPMC10806584 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDomestic violence and abuse (DVA) is common and damaging to health. UK national guidance advocates a multi-agency response to DVA, and domestic homicide reviews consistently recommend improved information-sharing between agencies. Identification of patients experiencing DVA in general practice may come from external information shared with the practice, such as police incident reports and multi-agency risk assessment conference (MARAC) reports. The aim of this study was to explore the views of general practitioners (GPs) and the police about sharing reports about DVA with GPs.MethodsQualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs, police staff and a partnership manager. Participants were located across England and Wales. Thematic analysis was undertaken.ResultsInterviews were conducted with 23 GPs, six police staff and one former partnership manager. Experiences of information-sharing with GPs about DVA varied. Participants described the relevance and value of external reports to GPs to help address the health consequences of DVA and safeguard patients. They balanced competing priorities when managing this information in the electronic medical record, namely visibility to GPs versus the risk of unintended disclosure to patients. GPs also spoke of the judgements they made about exploring DVA with patients based on external reports, which varied between abusive and non-abusive adults and children. Some felt constrained by short general practice consultations. Some police and GPs reflected on a loss of control when information about DVA was shared between agencies, and the risk of unintended consequences. Both police and GPs highlighted the importance of clear information and a shared understanding about responsibility for action.ConclusionGPs regarded external reports about DVA as relevant to their role, but safely recording this information in the electronic medical record and using it to support patients required complex judgements. Both GPs and police staff emphasised the importance of clarity of information and responsibility for action when information was shared between agencies about patients affected by DVA.
| S-EPMC7313185 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Ensembl software resources are a stable infrastructure to store, access and manipulate genome assemblies and their functional annotations. The Ensembl 'Core' database and Application Programming Interface (API) was our first major piece of software infrastructure and remains at the centre of all of our genome resources. Since its initial design more than fifteen years ago, the number of publicly available genomic, transcriptomic and proteomic datasets has grown enormously, accelerated by continuous advances in DNA-sequencing technology. Initially intended to provide annotation for the reference human genome, we have extended our framework to support the genomes of all species as well as richer assembly models. Cross-referenced links to other informatics resources facilitate searching our database with a variety of popular identifiers such as UniProt and RefSeq. Our comprehensive and robust framework storing a large diversity of genome annotations in one location serves as a platform for other groups to generate and maintain their own tailored annotation. We welcome reuse and contributions: our databases and APIs are publicly available, all of our source code is released with a permissive Apache v2.0 licence at http://github.com/Ensembl and we have an active developer mailing list ( http://www.ensembl.org/info/about/contact/index.html ). Database URL:http://www.ensembl.org.
| S-EPMC5467575 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatients surviving critical illnesses, such as sepsis, often suffer from long-term complications. After discharge from hospital, most patients are treated in primary care. Little is known how general practitioners (GPs) perform critical illness aftercare and how it can be improved. Within a randomised controlled trial, an outreach training programme has been developed and applied.ObjectivesThe aim of this study is to describe GPs' views and experiences of caring for postsepsis patients and of participating a specific outreach training.DesignSemistructured qualitative interviews.Setting14 primary care practices in the metropolitan area of Berlin, Germany.Participants14 GPs who had participated in a structured sepsis aftercare programme in primary care.ResultsThemes identified in sepsis aftercare were: continuity of care and good relationship with patients, GP's experiences during their patient's critical illness and impact of persisting symptoms. An outreach education as part of the intervention was considered by the GPs to be acceptable, helpful to improve knowledge of the management of postintensive care complications and useful for sepsis aftercare in daily practice.ConclusionsGPs provide continuity of care to patients surviving sepsis. Better communication at the intensive care unit-GP interface and training in management of long-term complications of sepsis may be helpful to improve sepsis aftercare.Trial registration numberISRCTN61744782.
| S-EPMC7878160 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo understand general practitioners' (GPs') awareness and knowledge of mammographic breast density (BD) and their perspectives around information and potential notification of BD for women.DesignQualitative study using semistructured telephone interviews. Interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed and analysed using framework analysis.SettingAustralia.ParticipantsAustralian GPs (n=30).ResultsGPs had limited knowledge of BD and little experience discussing BD with women. There were mixed views on notification of BD with some GPs believing this information would help informed decision making about breast health and that women have the right to know any information about their bodies. While others were concerned about causing unnecessary anxiety and were worried about the uncertainty about what to advise women to do with this information, particularly in relation to supplemental breast screening. The need for an equitable system where all women are either notified or not, and also provided with publicly funded supplemental screening was raised by GPs. Overall, there was high interest in education, training and support around the topic of BD.ConclusionsAustralian GPs require education, support and evidence-based guidelines to have discussions with women with dense breasts and help manage their risk, especially if widespread notification is to be introduced in population-based screening programmes.
| S-EPMC8375715 | biostudies-literature