Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bindels, R.
Right arrow Articles by Winkens, R. A. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bindels, R.
Right arrow Articles by Winkens, R. A. G.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

International Journal for Quality in Health Care 15:501-508 (2003)
© 2003 International Society for Quality in Health Care

User satisfaction with a real-time automated feedback system for general practitioners: a quantitative and qualitative study

Rianne Bindels1, Arie Hasman1, Mieke Derickx1, Jan W. J. van Wersch2 and Ron A. G. Winkens3,4

1 Department of Medical Informatics and
4 Department of General Practice, Maastricht University, Maastricht,
2 Atrium Medical Center Heerlen, Heerlen,
3 Transmural Care Unit, University Hospital Maastricht, Maastricht, The Netherlands

Objective. The GRIF automated feedback system produces real-time comments on the appropriateness of diagnostic tests ordered by general practitioners (GPs) based on recommendations from accepted national and regional practice guidelines. We investigated the experiences of GPs with this system and, more specifically, with the recommendations produced by the system as well as their views on using this system in daily practice.

Setting. We tested the GRIF system in an experiment in a laboratory setting and in a daily practice trial.

Study participants. General practitioners.

Intervention. In the laboratory experiment, GPs used the GRIF system to assess the appropriateness of 30 request forms. Each of the GPs was confronted with requests they had submitted to the diagnostic unit of the hospital in the past. In the field trial, the GRIF system was applied during patient consultations for 1 year.

Main outcome measures. We measured GPs’ satisfaction with the system using a questionnaire, and also conducted group discussions (in the laboratory experiment) and in-depth interviews (in the field trial) to elicit GPs’ opinions of and experiences with the system. In addition, we explored GPs’ reasons for not accepting the comments offered by the GRIF system.

Results. The results show that the GPs in the laboratory experiment had more positive attitudes towards the system compared with participants in the field trial. All discussion groups and most of the GPs in the field trial regarded receiving the immediate feedback during the test ordering process as an important advantage. The most frequently mentioned reason to reject the recommendation was disagreement with the content and/or the recommendations in the practice guidelines.

Conclusion. Apart from securing agreement on guideline content, a prerequisite for using GRIF in daily practice on a large scale is that more attention is paid to promotion of the guidelines and their adoption, and stimulation of a positive attitude towards the practice guidelines among the users.

Keywords: clinical decision support systems, guideline adherence, primary health care, user-satisfaction

Accepted for publication August 5, 2003.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.