Dataset Information

Primary care clinicians' views of paediatric respiratory infection surveillance information to inform clinical decision-making: a qualitative study.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

To investigate primary care clinicians' views of a prototype locally relevant, real-time viral surveillance system to assist diagnostic decision-making and antibiotic prescribing for paediatric respiratory tract infections (RTI). Clinicians' perspectives on the content, anticipated use and impact were explored to inform intervention development.

Background

Children with RTIs are overprescribed antibiotics. Pressures on primary care and diagnostic uncertainty can lead to decisional biases towards prescribing. We hypothesise that real-time paediatric RTI surveillance data could reduce diagnostic uncertainty and help reduce unnecessary antibiotic prescribing.

Methodology

Semistructured one-to-one interviews with 21 clinicians from a range of urban general practitioner surgeries explored the clinical context and views of the prototype system. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis.

Results

Though clinicians self-identified as rational (not over)prescribers, cognitive biases influenced antibiotic prescribing decisions. Clinicians sought to avoid 'anticipated regret' around not prescribing for a child who then deteriorated. Clinicians were not aware of formal infection surveillance information sources (tending to assume many viruses are around), perceiving the information as novel and potentially useful. Perceptions of surveillance information as presented included: not relevant to decision-making/management; useful to confirm decisions post hoc; and increasing risks of missing sick children. Clinicians expressed wariness of using population-level data to influence individual patient decision-making and expressed preference for threat (high-risk) information identified by surveillance, rather than reassuring information about viral RTIs.

Conclusions

More work is needed to develop a surveillance intervention if it is to beneficially influence decision-making and antibiotic prescribing in primary care. Key challenges for developing interventions are how to address cognitive biases and how to communicate reassuring information to risk-oriented clinicians.

SUBMITTER: Anderson EC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6597489 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Primary care clinicians' views of paediatric respiratory infection surveillance information to inform clinical decision-making: a qualitative study.

Anderson Emma C EC Kesten Joanna May JM Lane Isabel I Hay Alastair D AD Moss Timothy T Cabral Christie C

BMJ paediatrics open 20190523 1

<h4>Aim</h4>To investigate primary care clinicians' views of a prototype locally relevant, real-time viral surveillance system to assist diagnostic decision-making and antibiotic prescribing for paediatric respiratory tract infections (RTI). Clinicians' perspectives on the content, anticipated use and impact were explored to inform intervention development.<h4>Background</h4>Children with RTIs are overprescribed antibiotics. Pressures on primary care and diagnostic uncertainty can lead to decisi ...[more]

PMID: 31321318

Similar Datasets

Project description:Clinicians’ perspectives of the reasons for performing caesarean section (CS) are fundamental to deepening knowledge and understanding of factors influencing decision-making for CS. The aim of this study was to explore midwives’ and obstetricians’ views of factors influencing decision-making for CS for first-time mothers. A qualitative descriptive study with semi-structured one-to-one audio-recorded interviews was used to gather data from clinicians (15 midwives and 20 senior obstetricians). Following research ethics committee approval, clinicians, who were directly involved in the decision-making process for CS during the period of data collection, were purposively selected from three maternity units in the Republic of Ireland between June 2016 to July 2017. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. Three interrelated themes with several subthemes reflective of clinicians’ views and experiences emerged following data analysis. These were: ‘A fear factor’ describing clinicians’ fear of adverse outcomes and subsequent litigation, ‘Personal preferences versus a threshold–clinician driven factors emphasising the influence of clinicians’ personal beliefs, and ‘Standardised versus individualised care–a system perspective’ explaining the effects of, or lack of, organisational policy and its direct and indirect impact on the decision-making process. Findings show that decisions to perform a CS are, on occasion, based on clinicians’ personal beliefs and interpretation, similar to findings from other published literature. Consideration of broader issues related to organisational, socio-cultural and political context is essential when seeking solutions to the rising CS rates. The findings will enable clinicians to reflect on their day-to-day practice, in order to look for modifiable factors that influence their decision-making, and help women understand the multitude of factors that can lead to a decision to perform a CS. Findings will also contribute to the development of the ‘next step action’ and assist in devising future intervention studies to reduce any unnecessary CSs.

Project description:BACKGROUND: It is uncertain whether the range and frequency of Diagnostic Thinking Processes (DTP) and pieces of information (concepts) involved in dental restorative treatment planning are different between students and expert clinicians. METHODS: We video-recorded dental visits with one standardized patient. Clinicians were subsequently interviewed and their cognitive strategies explored using guide questions; interviews were also recorded. Both visit and interview were content-analyzed, following the Gale and Marsden model for clinical decision-making. Limited tests used to contrast data were t, chi2, and Fisher's. Scott's pi was used to determine inter-coder reliability. RESULTS: Fifteen dentists and 17 senior dental students participated in visits lasting 32.0 minutes (+/- 12.9) among experts, and 29.9 +/- 7.1 among students; contact time with patient was 26.4 +/- 13.9 minutes (experts), and 22.2 +/- 7.5 (students). The time elapsed between the first and the last instances of the clinician looking in the mouth was similar between experts and students. Ninety eight types of pieces of information were used in combinations with 12 DTPs. The main differences found in DTP utilization had dentists conducting diagnostic interpretations of findings with sufficient certainty to be considered definitive twice as often as students. Students resorted more often to more general or clarifying enquiry in their search for information than dentists. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in diagnostic strategies and concepts existed within clearly delimited types of cognitive processes; such processes were largely compatible with the analytic and (in particular) non-analytic approaches to clinical decision-making identified in the medical field. Because we were focused on a clinical presentation primarily made up of non-emergency treatment needs, use of other DTPs and concepts might occur when clinicians evaluate emergency treatment needs, complex rehabilitative cases, and/or medically compromised patients.

Project description:BackgroundCaesarean section rates are increasing worldwide and are a growing concern with limited explanation of the factors that influence the rising trend. Understanding obstetricians' and midwives' views can give insight to the problem. This systematic review aimed to offer insight and understanding, through aggregation, summary, synthesis and interpretation of findings from studies that report obstetricians' and midwives' views on the factors that influence the decision to perform caesarean section.MethodsThe electronic databases of PubMed (1958-2016), CINAHL (1988-2016), Maternity and Infant Care (1971-2016), PsycINFO (1980-2016) and Web of Science (1991-2016) were searched in September 2016. All quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods studies, published in English, whose aim was to explore obstetricians' and/or midwives' views of factors influencing decision-making for caesarean section were included. Papers were independently reviewed by two authors for selection by title, abstract and full text. Thomas et al's 12 assessment criteria checklist (2003) was used to assess methodological quality of the included studies.ResultThe review included 34 studies: 19 quantitative, 14 qualitative, and one using mixed methods, involving 7785 obstetricians and 1197 midwives from 20 countries. Three main themes, each with several subthemes, emerged. Theme 1: "clinicians' personal beliefs"-('Professional philosophies'; 'beliefs in relation to women's request for CS'; 'ambiguous versus clear clinical reasons'); Theme 2: "health care systems"-('litigation'; 'resources'; 'private versus public/insurance/payments'; 'guidelines and management policy'). Theme 3: "clinicians' characteristics" ('personal convenience'; 'clinicians' demographics'; 'confidence and skills').ConclusionThis systematic review and metasynthesis identified clinicians' personal beliefs as a major factor that influenced the decision to perform caesarean section, further contributed by the influence of factors related to the health care system and clinicians' characteristics. Obstetricians and midwives are directly involved in the decision to perform a caesarean section, hence their perspectives are vital in understanding various factors that have influence on decision-making for caesarean section. These results can help clinicians identify and acknowledge their role as crucial members in the decision-making process for caesarean section within their organisation, and to develop intervention studies to reduce caesarean section rates in future.

Project description:Despite an increased awareness of shared decision-making (SDM) and its prominent position on the health policy agenda, its implementation in routine care remains a challenge in Germany. In order to overcome this challenge, it is important to understand healthcare providers' views regarding SDM and to take their perspectives and opinions into account in the development of an implementation program. The present study aimed at exploring a) the attitudes of different healthcare providers regarding SDM in oncology and b) their experiences with treatment decisions in daily practice.A qualitative study was conducted using focus groups and individual interviews with different healthcare providers at the University Cancer Center Hamburg, Germany. Focus groups and interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed using conventional content analysis and descriptive statistics.N = 4 focus groups with a total of N = 25 participants and N = 17 individual interviews were conducted. Attitudes regarding SDM varied greatly between the different participants, especially concerning the definition of SDM, the attitude towards the degree of patient involvement in decision-making and assumptions about when SDM should take place. Experiences on how treatment decisions are currently made varied. Negative experiences included time and structural constraints, and a lack of (multidisciplinary) communication. Positive experiences comprised informed patients, involvement of relatives and a good physician-patient relationship.The results show that German healthcare providers in oncology have a range of attitudes that currently function as barriers towards the implementation of SDM. Also, their experiences on how decision-making is currently done reveal difficulties in actively involving patients in decision-making processes. It will be crucial to take these attitudes and experiences seriously and to subsequently disentangle existing misconceptions in future implementation programs.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study uses the diffusion of innovations (DOI) theory to comprehensively understand the adoption of shared decision-making (SDM) in clinical practice, specifically focusing on the 'knowledge' and 'persuasion' stages within DOI. We aim to understand the challenges and dynamics associated with SDM adoption, offering insights for more patient-centred decision-making in healthcare.DesignThis qualitative study employs a modified framework analysis approach, integrating ethnographic and interview data from prior research, along with additional interviews. The framework used is based on the DOI theory.Study setting and participantsThis study was conducted in the obstetrics and gynaecology department of a tertiary teaching hospital in the Eastern region of the Netherlands. It included interviews with 20 participants, including gynaecologists, obstetrics registrars and junior doctors currently practising in the department. Additionally, data from prior research conducted within the same department were incorporated, ensuring the maintenance of contextual consistency.ResultsFindings reveal a complex interplay between SDM's benefits and challenges. Clinicians value SDM for upholding patient autonomy and enhancing medical practice, viewing it as valuable for medical decision-making. Decision aids are seen as advantageous in supporting treatment decisions. Challenges include compatibility issues between patient and clinician preferences, perceptions of SDM as time-consuming and difficult and limitations imposed by the rapid pace of healthcare and its swift decisions. Additionally, perceived complexity varies by situation, influenced by colleagues' attitudes, with limited trialability and sparsely observed instances of SDM.ConclusionsClinicians' decision to adopt or reject SDM is multifaceted, shaped by beliefs, cognitive processes and contextual challenges. Cognitive dissonance is critical as clinicians reconcile their existing practices with the adoption of SDM. Practical strategies such as practice assessments, open discussions about SDM's utility and reflective practice through professional development initiatives empower clinicians to make the best informed decision to adopt or reject SDM.

Project description:Rationale & objectiveGreater understanding of the challenges to shared decision making about treatment of advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) is needed to support implementation of shared decision making in clinical practice.Study designQualitative study.Setting & participantsPatients aged≥65 years with advanced CKD and their clinicians recruited from 3 medical centers participated in semi-structured interviews. In-depth review of patients' electronic medical records was also performed.Analytical approachInterview transcripts and medical record notes were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis.ResultsTwenty-nine patients (age 73±6 years, 66% male, 59% White) and 10 of their clinicians (age 52±12 years, 30% male, 70% White) participated in interviews. Four themes emerged from qualitative analysis: (1) competing priorities-patients and their clinicians tended to differ on when to prioritize CKD and dialysis planning above other personal or medical problems; (2) focusing on present or future-patients were more focused on living well now while clinicians were more focused on preparing for dialysis and future adverse events; (3) standardized versus individualized approach to CKD-although clinicians tried to personalize care recommendations to their patients, the patients perceived their clinicians as taking a monolithic approach to CKD that was predicated on clinical practice guidelines and medical literature rather than the patients' lived experiences with CKD and personal values and goals; and (4) power dynamics-patients described cautiously navigating a power differential in their therapeutic relationship with their clinicians whereas clinicians seemed less attuned to these power dynamics.LimitationsThematic saturation was based on patient interviews. Themes presented might incompletely reflect clinicians' perspectives.ConclusionsEfforts to improve shared decision making for treatment of advanced CKD will likely need to explicitly address differences between patients and their clinicians in approaches to decision making about treatment of advanced CKD and perceived power imbalances in the therapeutic relationship.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough an increasing number of studies are documenting uses of syndromic surveillance by front line public health, few detail the value added from linking syndromic data to public health decision-making. This study seeks to understand how syndromic data informed specific public health actions during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic.MethodsSemi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with participants from Ontario's public health departments, the provincial ministry of health and federal public health agency to gather information about syndromic surveillance systems used and the role of syndromic data in informing specific public health actions taken during the pandemic. Responses were compared with how the same decisions were made by non-syndromic surveillance users.ResultsFindings from 56 interviews (82% response) show that syndromic data were most used for monitoring virus activity, measuring impact on the health care system and informing the opening of influenza assessment centres in several jurisdictions, and supporting communications and messaging, rather than its intended purpose of early outbreak detection. Syndromic data had limited impact on decisions that involved the operation of immunization clinics, school closures, sending information letters home with school children or providing recommendations to health care providers. Both syndromic surveillance users and non-users reported that guidance from the provincial ministry of health, communications with stakeholders and vaccine availability were driving factors in these public health decisions.ConclusionsSyndromic surveillance had limited use in decision-making during the 2009 H1N1 pandemic in Ontario. This study provides insights into the reasons why this occurred. Despite this, syndromic data were valued for providing situational awareness and confidence to support public communications and recommendations. Developing an understanding of how syndromic data are utilized during public health events provides valuable evidence to support future investments in public health surveillance.

Dataset Information

Primary care clinicians' views of paediatric respiratory infection surveillance information to inform clinical decision-making: a qualitative study.

Aim

Background

Methodology

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Primary care clinicians' views of paediatric respiratory infection surveillance information to inform clinical decision-making: a qualitative study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets