Patient facing decision support system for interpretation of laboratory test results.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
In some healthcare systems, it is common that patients address laboratory test centers directly without a physician's recommendation. This practice is widely spread in Russia with about 28% of patients who visiting laboratory test centers for diagnostics. This causes an issue when patients get no help from the physician in understanding the results. Computer decision support systems proved to efficiently solve a resource consuming task of interpretation of the test results. So, a decision support system can be implemented to rise motivation and empower the patients who visit a laboratory service without a doctor's referral.Methods
We have developed a clinical decision support system for patients that solves a classification task and finds a set of diagnoses for the provided laboratory tests results. The Wilson and Lankton's assessment model was applied to measure patients' acceptance of the solution.Results
A first order predicates-based decision support system has been implemented to analyze laboratory test results and deliver reports in natural language to patients. The evaluation of the system showed a high acceptance of the decision support system and of the reports that it generates.Conclusions
Detailed notification of the laboratory service patients with elements of the decision support is significant for the laboratory data management, and for patients' empowerment and safety.
SUBMITTER: Kopanitsa G
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6053711 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Patient facing decision support system for interpretation of laboratory test results.
Kopanitsa Georgy G Semenov Ilia I
BMC medical informatics and decision making 20180720 1
<h4>Background</h4>In some healthcare systems, it is common that patients address laboratory test centers directly without a physician's recommendation. This practice is widely spread in Russia with about 28% of patients who visiting laboratory test centers for diagnostics. This causes an issue when patients get no help from the physician in understanding the results. Computer decision support systems proved to efficiently solve a resource consuming task of interpretation of the test results. So ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundApplied pharmacogenomics presents opportunities for improving patient care through precision medicine, particularly when paired with appropriate clinical decision support (CDS). However, a lack of patient resources for understanding pharmacogenomic test results may hinder shared decision-making and patient confidence in treatment. We sought to create a patient pharmacogenomics education and results delivery platform complementary to a CDS system to facilitate further research on the relevance of patient education to pharmacogenomics.MethodsWe conceptualized a model that extended the data access layer of an existing institutional CDS tool to allow for the pairing of decision supports offered to providers with patient-oriented summaries at the same level of phenotypic specificity. We built a two-part system consisting of a secure portal for patient use and an administrative dashboard for patient summary creation. The system was built in an ASP.NET and AngularJS architecture, and all data was housed in a HIPAA-compliant data center, with PHI secure in transit and at rest.ResultsThe YourPGx Patient Portal was deployed on the institutional network in June 2019. Fifty-eight unique patient portal summaries have been written so far, which can provide over 4500 results modules to the pilot population of 544 patients. Patient behavior on the portal is being logged for further research.ConclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first automated system designed and deployed to provide detailed, personalized patient pharmacogenomics education complementary to a clinical decision support system. Future work will expand upon this system to allow for telemedicine and patient notification of new or updated results.
| S-EPMC8390782 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Patient portals are considered valuable instruments for self-management of long term conditions, however, there are concerns over how patients might interpret and act on the clinical information they access. We hypothesized that visual cues improve patients' abilities to correctly interpret laboratory test results presented through patient portals. We also assessed, by applying eye-tracking methods, the relationship between risk interpretation and visual search behaviour. METHODS:We conducted a controlled study with 20 kidney transplant patients. Participants viewed three different graphical presentations in each of low, medium, and high risk clinical scenarios composed of results for 28 laboratory tests. After viewing each clinical scenario, patients were asked how they would have acted in real life if the results were their own, as a proxy of their risk interpretation. They could choose between: 1) Calling their doctor immediately (high interpreted risk); 2) Trying to arrange an appointment within the next 4 weeks (medium interpreted risk); 3) Waiting for the next appointment in 3 months (low interpreted risk). For each presentation, we assessed accuracy of patients' risk interpretation, and employed eye tracking to assess and compare visual search behaviour. RESULTS:Misinterpretation of risk was common, with 65% of participants underestimating the need for action across all presentations at least once. Participants found it particularly difficult to interpret medium risk clinical scenarios. Participants who consistently understood when action was needed showed a higher visual search efficiency, suggesting a better strategy to cope with information overload that helped them to focus on the laboratory tests most relevant to their condition. CONCLUSIONS:This study confirms patients' difficulties in interpreting laboratories test results, with many patients underestimating the need for action, even when abnormal values were highlighted or grouped together. Our findings raise patient safety concerns and may limit the potential of patient portals to actively involve patients in their own healthcare.
| S-EPMC5809992 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDirect access of patients to their web-based patient portal, including laboratory test results, has become increasingly common. Numeric laboratory results can be challenging to interpret for patients, which may lead to anxiety, confusion, and unnecessary doctor consultations. Laboratory results can be presented in different formats, but there is limited evidence regarding how these presentation formats impact patients' processing of the information.ObjectiveThis study aims to synthesize the evidence on effective formats for presenting numeric laboratory test results with a focus on outcomes related to patients' information processing, including affective perception, perceived magnitude, cognitive perception, perception of communication, decision, action, and memory.MethodsThe search was conducted in 3 databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase) from inception until May 31, 2023. We included quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods articles describing or comparing formats for presenting diagnostic laboratory test results to patients. Two reviewers independently extracted and synthesized the characteristics of the articles and presentation formats used. The quality of the included articles was assessed by 2 independent reviewers using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.ResultsA total of 18 studies were included, which were heterogeneous in terms of study design and primary outcomes used. The quality of the articles ranged from poor to excellent. Most studies (n=16, 89%) used mock test results. The most frequently used presentation formats were numerical values with reference ranges (n=12), horizontal line bars with colored blocks (n=12), or a combination of horizontal line bars with numerical values (n=8). All studies examined perception as an outcome, while action and memory were studied in 1 and 3 articles, respectively. In general, participants' satisfaction and usability were the highest when test results were presented using horizontal line bars with colored blocks. Adding reference ranges or personalized information (eg, goal ranges) further increased participants' perception. Additionally, horizontal line bars significantly decreased participants' tendency to search for information or to contact their physician, compared with numerical values with reference ranges.ConclusionsIn this review, we synthesized available evidence on effective presentation formats for laboratory test results. The use of horizontal line bars with reference ranges or personalized goal ranges increased participants' cognitive perception and perception of communication while decreasing participants' tendency to contact their physicians. Action and memory were less frequently studied, so no conclusion could be drawn about a single preferred format regarding these outcomes. Therefore, the use of horizontal line bars with reference ranges or personalized goal ranges is recommended to enhance patients' information processing of laboratory test results. Further research should focus on real-life settings and diverse presentation formats in combination with outcomes related to patients' information processing.
| S-EPMC11347896 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatients are increasingly able to access their laboratory test results via patient portals. However, merely providing access does not guarantee comprehension. Patients could experience confusion when reviewing their test results.ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to examine the challenges and needs of patients when comprehending laboratory test results.MethodsWe conducted a web-based survey with 203 participants and a set of semistructured interviews with 13 participants. We assessed patients' perceived challenges and needs (both informational and technological needs) when they attempted to comprehend test results, factors associated with patients' perceptions, and strategies for improving the design of patient portals to communicate laboratory test results more effectively. Descriptive and correlation analysis and thematic analysis were used to analyze the survey and interview data, respectively.ResultsPatients face a variety of challenges and confusion when reviewing laboratory test results. To better comprehend laboratory results, patients need different types of information, which are grouped into 2 categories-generic information (eg, reference range) and personalized or contextual information (eg, treatment options, prognosis, what to do or ask next). We also found that several intrinsic factors (eg, laboratory result normality, health literacy, and technology proficiency) significantly impact people's perceptions of using portals to view and interpret laboratory results. The desired enhancements of patient portals include providing timely explanations and educational resources (eg, a health encyclopedia), increasing usability and accessibility, and incorporating artificial intelligence-based technology to provide personalized recommendations.ConclusionsPatients face significant challenges in interpreting the meaning of laboratory test results. Designers and developers of patient portals should employ user-centered approaches to improve the design of patient portals to present information in a more meaningful way.
| S-EPMC7752528 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There are several methods to read skin prick test results in type-I allergy testing. A commonly used method is to characterize the wheal size by its 'average diameter'. A more accurate method is to scan the area of the wheal to calculate the actual size. In both methods, skin prick test (SPT) results can be corrected for histamine-sensitivity of the skin by dividing the results of the allergic reaction by the histamine control. The objectives of this study are to compare different techniques of quantifying SPT results, to determine a cut-off value for a positive SPT for histamine equivalent prick -index (HEP) area, and to study the accuracy of predicting cashew nut reactions in double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC) tests with the different SPT methods.Data of 172 children with cashew nut sensitisation were used for the analysis. All patients underwent a DBPCFC with cashew nut. Per patient, the average diameter and scanned area of the wheal size were recorded. In addition, the same data for the histamine-induced wheal were collected for each patient. The accuracy in predicting the outcome of the DBPCFC using four different SPT readings (i.e. average diameter, area, HEP-index diameter, HEP-index area) were compared in a Receiver-Operating Characteristic (ROC) plot.Characterizing the wheal size by the average diameter method is inaccurate compared to scanning method. A wheal average diameter of 3 mm is generally considered as a positive SPT cut-off value and an equivalent HEP-index area cut-off value of 0.4 was calculated. The four SPT methods yielded a comparable area under the curve (AUC) of 0.84, 0.85, 0.83 and 0.83, respectively. The four methods showed comparable accuracy in predicting cashew nut reactions in a DBPCFC.The 'scanned area method' is theoretically more accurate in determining the wheal area than the 'average diameter method' and is recommended in academic research. A HEP-index area of 0.4 is determined as cut-off value for a positive SPT. However, in clinical practice, the 'average diameter method' is also useful, because this method provides similar accuracy in predicting cashew nut allergic reactions in the DBPCFC.Trial number NTR3572.
| S-EPMC4763448 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectivesPhysician-facing decision support tools facilitate shared decision-making (SDM) during informed consent, but it is unclear whether they are comprehensive in the domains they measure. In this scoping review, we aimed to (1) identify the physician-facing tools used during SDM; (2) assess the patient-centered domains measured by these tools; (3) determine whether tools are available for older adults and for use in various settings (elective vs. emergent); and (4) characterize domains future tools should measure.MethodsUsing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for Scoping Reviews, Embase, Medline, and Web of Science were queried for articles published between January 2000 and September 2022. Articles meeting inclusion criteria underwent title and abstract review. Eligible studies underwent data abstraction by two reviewers.ResultsOf 4365 articles identified, 160 were eligible. Tools to aid in surgical SDM focus on elective procedures (79%) and the outpatient setting (71%). Few tools are designed for older adults (5%) or for nonelective procedures (9%). Risk calculators were most common, followed by risk indices, prognostic nomograms, and communication tools. Of the domains measured, prognosis was more commonly measured (85%), followed by alternatives (28%), patient goals (36%), and expectations (46%). Most tools represented only one domain (prognosis, 33.1%) and only 6.7% represented all four domains.Conclusions and implicationsTools to aid in the surgical SDM process measure short-term prognosis more often than patient-centered domains such as long-term prognosis, patient goals, and expectations. Further research should focus on communication tools, the needs of older patients, and use in diverse settings.
| S-EPMC10431347 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Computerized Clinical Decision Support Systems (CCDSS) have become increasingly important in ensuring patient safety and supporting all phases of clinical decision making. The aim of this study is to evaluate, through a CCDSS, the rate of the laboratory tests overuse and to estimate the cost of the inappropriate requests in a large university hospital. METHOD:In this observational study, hospital physicians submitted the examination requests for the inpatients through a Computerized Physician Order Entry. Violations of the rules in tests requests were intercepted and counted by a CCDSS, over a period of 20 months. Descriptive and inferential statistics (Student's t-test and ANOVA) were made. Finally, the monthly comprehensive cost of the laboratory tests was calculated. RESULTS:During the observation period a total of 5,716,370 requests were analyzed and 809,245 violations were counted. The global rate of overuse was 14.2% ± 3.0%. The most inappropriate exams were Alpha Fetoprotein (85.8% ± 30.5%), Chlamydia trachomatis Nucleic Acid Amplification (48.7% ± 8.8%) and Alkaline Phosphatase (20.3% ± 6.5%). The monthly cost of over-utilization was 56,534€ for basic panel, 14,421€ for coagulation, 4,758€ for microbiology, 432€ for immunology exams. All the exams, generated an estimated avoidable cost of 1,719,337€ (85,967€ per month) for the hospital. CONCLUSIONS:The study confirms the wide variability in over-utilization rates of laboratory tests. For these reasons, the real impact of inappropriateness is difficult to assess, but the generated costs for patients, hospitals and health systems are certainly high and not negligible. It would be desirable for international medical communities to produce a complete panel of prescriptive rules for all the most common laboratory exams that is useful not only to reduce costs, but also to ensure standardization and high-quality care.
| S-EPMC7410244 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStudies have revealed inappropriate laboratory testing as a source of waste. This review aimed at evaluating the effects and features of CDSSs on physicians' appropriate laboratory test ordering in inpatient hospitals.MethodMedline through PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Cochrane were queried without any time period restriction. Studies using CDSSs as an intervention to improve laboratory test ordering as the primary aim were included. The study populations in the included studies were laboratory tests, physicians ordering laboratory tests, or the patients for whom laboratory tests were ordered. The included papers were evaluated for their outcomes related to the effect of CDSSs which were categorized based on the outcomes related to tests, physician, and patients. The primary outcome measures were the number and cost of the ordered laboratory tests. The instrument from The National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NIH) was used to assess the quality of the included studies. Moreover, we applied a checklist for assessing the quality and features of the CDSSs presented in the included studies. A narrative synthesis was used to describe and compare the designs and the results of included studies.ResultSixteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were conducted based on a quasi-experimental design. The results showed improvement in laboratory test-related outcomes (e.g. proportion and cost of tests) and also physician-related outcomes (e.g. guideline adherence and orders cancellation). Patient-related outcomes (e.g. length of stay and mortality rate) were not well investigated in the included studies. In addition, the evidence about applying CDSS as a decision aid for interpreting laboratory results was rare.ConclusionCDSSs increase appropriate test ordering in hospitals through eliminating redundant test orders and enhancing evidence-based practice. Appropriate testing and cost saving were both affected by the CDSSs. However, the evidence is limited about the effects of laboratory test CDSSs on patient-related outcomes.
| S-EPMC7814592 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Genomic testing is increasingly performed in oncology, but concerns remain regarding the clinician's ability to interpret results. In the current study, the authors sought to determine the agreement between physicians and genomic annotators from the Precision Oncology Decision Support (PODS) team at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston regarding actionability and the clinical use of test results. METHODS:On a prospective protocol, patients underwent clinical genomic testing for hotspot mutations in 46 or 50 genes. Six months after sequencing, physicians received questionnaires for patients who demonstrated a variant in an actionable gene, investigating their perceptions regarding the actionability of alterations and clinical use of these findings. Genomic annotators independently classified these variants as actionable, potentially actionable, unknown, or not actionable. RESULTS:Physicians completed 250 of 288 questionnaires (87% response rate). Physicians considered 168 of 250 patients (67%) as having an actionable alteration; of these, 165 patients (98%) were considered to have an actionable alteration by the PODS team and 3 were of unknown significance. Physicians were aware of genotype-matched therapy available for 119 patients (71%) and 48 of these 119 patients (40%) received matched therapy. Approximately 46% of patients in whom physicians regarded alterations as not actionable (36 of 79 patients) were classified as having an actionable/potentially actionable mutation by the PODS team. However, many of these were only theoretically actionable due to limited trials and/or therapies (eg, KRAS). CONCLUSIONS:Physicians are aware of recurrent mutations in actionable genes on "hotspot" panels. As larger genomic panels are used, there may be a growing need for annotation of actionability. Decision support to increase awareness of genomically relevant trials and novel treatment options for recurrent mutations (eg, KRAS) also are needed. Cancer 2018;124:966-72. © 2017 American Cancer Society.
| S-EPMC5821595 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundColorectal Cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of cancer death among men and women in the United States. Research has shown that the risk of CRC associates with genetic and lifestyle factors. It is possible to prevent or minimize certain CRC risks by adopting a healthy lifestyle. Existing Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSS) mainly targeted physicians as the CDSS users. As a result, the availability of patient-oriented CDSS is limited. Our project is to develop patient-oriented CDSS for active CRC management.MethodsWe implemented an online patient-oriented CRC CDSS for the public to learn about CRC, assess CRC risk levels, understand personalized CRC risk factors, and seek professional advices for people with CRC concerns. The system is implemented based on the Django Model-View-Controller (MVC) framework with an extensible background MySQL database. A CRC absolute risk prediction model is applied to calculate the personalized CRC risk score with a user-friendly web survey. An interactive dashboard using advanced data visualization technics will display and interpret the risk scores and factors. Based on the risk assessment, a structured decision tree algorithm will provide the recommendations on customized CRC screening methods. The CDSS also provides a search function for preferred providers and hospitals based on geographical information and patient preferences.ResultsA prototype of the patient-oriented CRC CDSS has been developed. It provides an open assessment of potential CRC risks via an online survey. The CRC risk predictive model has been implemented. The prediction outcomes of risk levels and factors are presented to the users through a personalized interactive visualization interface, to guide the public on how to reduce the CRC risks by changing their living styles (such as smoking and drinking) and diet characteristics (such as consumptions of red meat and milk). The CDSS will also provide customized recommendations on screening methods based on the corresponding risk factors. For users seeking professional clinicians, the CDSS also provides a convenient tool for searching nearby hospitals and available doctors based on the location preferences and providers characteristics (such as gender, language, and specialty).ConclusionsThis CRC CDSS prototype provides a patient-friendly interface for CRC risk assessment and gives a personalized interpretation on important CRC risk factors. It is a useful tool to educate the public on CRC, to provide guidance on minimizing CRC risks, and to promote early CRC screening that reduces the CRC occurrences.
| S-EPMC6284274 | biostudies-literature