Use of Mobile Clinical Decision Support Software by Junior Doctors at a UK Teaching Hospital: Identification and Evaluation of Barriers to Engagement

Abstract

BackgroundClinical decision support (CDS) tools improve clinical diagnostic decision making and patient safety. The availability of CDS to health care professionals has grown in line with the increased prevalence of apps and smart mobile devices. Despite these benefits, patients may have safety concerns about the use of mobile devices around medical equipment.ObjectiveThis research explored the engagement of junior doctors (JDs) with CDS and the perceptions of patients about their use. There were three objectives for this research: (1) to measure the actual usage of CDS tools on mobile devices (mCDS) by JDs, (2) to explore the perceptions of JDs about the drivers and barriers to using mCDS, and (3) to explore the perceptions of patients about the use of mCDS.MethodsThis study used a mixed-methods approach to study the engagement of JDs with CDS accessed through mobile devices. Usage data were collected on the number of interactions by JDs with mCDS. The perceived drivers and barriers for JDs to using CDS were then explored by interviews. Finally, these findings were contrasted with the perception of patients about the use of mCDS by JDs.ResultsNine of the 16 JDs made a total of 142 recorded interactions with the mCDS over a 4-month period. Only 27 of the 114 interactions (24%) that could be categorized as on-shift or off-shift occurred on-shift. Eight individual, institutional, and cultural barriers to engagement emerged from interviews with the user group. In contrast to reported cautions and concerns about the impact of clinicians’ use of mobile phone on patient health and safety, patients had positive perceptions about the use of mCDS.ConclusionsPatients reported positive perceptions toward mCDS. The usage of mCDS to support clinical decision making was considered to be positive as part of everyday clinical practice. The degree of engagement was found to be limited due to a number of individual, institutional, and cultural barriers. The majority of mCDS engagement occurred outside of the workplace. Further research is required to verify these findings and assess their implications for future policy and practice.

Launching and evaluating a mobile phone app to provide contemporary, evidence-based advice about self-treatable conditions

“…The authors hope that this paper encourages others to consider undertaking a similar project. The key findings are similar to those reported elsewhere in relation to usefulness as an educational tool at undergraduate level for medical and pharmacy students (16)(17)(18) and to support clinical decision-making in practice (19)(20)(21)(22)(23) .…”

New Ways to Teach and Learn in China and Finland

“…In the specialty of family medicine (Archibald et al, 2014), residents reported that iPads were valuable when searching for information and for detecting drug interactions but also pointed out that typing notes on a mobile device was not convenient. A study on the use of clinical decision tools in mobile phones revealed an interesting cultural norm of not using mobile devices at patients' bedsides (Patel et al, 2015). However, in the same study, patients were actually positive about doctors using mobile devices in patient care.…”

Evaluation of a Clinical Decision Support System for Dyslipidemia Treatment (HTE-DLPR) by QoE questionnaire

“…On the other hand, the fact that the first prototype of HTE-DLPR is a standalone desktop application which requires prior installation to use and that it lacks automatic data capture have been major factors in the lower assessment of appearance and performance. Both factors are critical factors that can act as limiting barriers in its dissemination in clinical practice [21]. Using QoE tool for mHealth applications may provide major assessment advantages in terms of providing the necessary feedback to users on the detection of potential areas of improvement, the ability to quantitatively assess a mHealth application and to thereby compare it with other similar applications or future versions [17].…”