Usefulness of a mobile app to improve performance of specialists in responding correctly to CRC screening and surveillance clinical scenarios

Abstract

Background and study aims The adherence to and knowledge of physicians about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and surveillance guidelines is still suboptimal, threatening the effectiveness of CRC screening. This study assessed the usefulness of a mobile decision support system (MDSS) to improve physician ability to recommend proper timing of and intervals for CRC screening and surveillance.

Patients and methods This was a binational, single-blinded, randomized clinical trial including gastroenterologists and colorectal surgeons from Argentina and Uruguay. The specialists were invited to respond to a questionnaire with 10 CRC screening and surveillance clinical scenarios, randomized into two groups, with and without access to a dedicated app (CaPtyVa). The main outcome measure was the proportion of physicians correctly solving at least 60 % of the clinical cases according to local guidelines.

Results A total of 213 physicians were included. The proportion of physicians responding correctly at least 60 % of the vignettes was higher in the app group as compared to the control group (90 % versus 56 %) (relative risk [RR] 1.6 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.34–1.91). The performance was also higher in the app group for both vignette categories: CRC screening (93 % vs 75 % RR 1.24, 95 %CI 1.01–1.40) and surveillance (85 % vs 47 % RR 1.81 95 %CI 1.46–2.22), respectively. Physicians considered the app easy to use and of great utility in daily practice.

Conclusions A MDSS was shown to be a useful tool that improved specialist performance in solving CRC screening and surveillance clinical scenarios. Its implementation in daily practice may facilitate the adherence of physicians to CRC screening and surveillance guidelines.

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 03. Februar 2021

Angenommen: 08. Juni 2021

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
12. November 2021

• References

• 1 Grimshaw J, Thomas R, MacLennan G. et al. Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technol Assess 2004; 61-72
• 2 Lugtenberg M, Burgers J, Westert G. Effects of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on quality of care: a systematic review. Qual Saf Health Care 2009; 18: 385-392
• 3 Gagliardi A, Alhabib S. Members of Guidelines International Network Implementation Working Group. Trends in guideline implementation: a scoping systematic review. Implement Sci 2015; 21: 54
• 4 Durieux P, Nizard R, Philippe R. et al. A clinical Decision Support System for prevention of venous thromboembolism. JAMA 2000; 7: 2816-2828
• 5 Hunt DL, Haynes RB, Hanna SE. et al. Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems on physician performance and patient outcome: a systematic review. JAMA 1998; 280: 1339-1346
• 6 McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J. et al. The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 2635-2645
• 7 Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donalson MS. et al. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999
• 8 Vincent C, Neale G, Woloshynowych M. et al. Adverse events in British hospitals: preliminary retrospective record review. BMJ 2001; 322: 517-519
• 9 Hunt DL, Haynes RB, Hanna SE. et al. Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems on physician performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA 1998; 280: 1339-1346
• 10 Bennett JW, Glasziou PP. Computerised reminders and feedback in medication management: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Med J Aust 2003; 178: 217-222
• 11 Walton RT, Harvey E, Dovey S. et al. Computerised advice on drug dosage to improve prescribing practice. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001; 1: CD002894
• 12 Walton R, Dovey S, Harvey E. et al. Computer support for determining drug dose: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 1999; 318: 984-990
• 13 Kaushal R, Shojania KG, Bates DW. Effects of computerized physician order entry and clinical decision support systems on medication safety: a systematic review. Arch Intern Med 2003; 163: 1409-1416
• 14 Bates DW, Teich JM, Lee J. et al. The impact of computerized physician order entry on medication error prevention. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1999; 6: 313-321
• 15 Shea S, DuMouchel W, Bahamonde L. A meta-analysis of 16 randomized controlled trials to evaluate computer-based clinical reminder systems for preventive care in the ambulatory setting. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1996; 3: 399-409
• 16 Bates DW, Teich JM, Lee J. et al. The impact of computerized physician order entry on medication error prevention. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1999; 6: 313-321
• 17 Hulscher ME, Wensing M, van der Weijden T. et al. Interventions to implement prevention in primary care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2001; 1: CD000362
• 18 Oxman AD, Thomson MA, Davis DA. et al. No magic bullets: a systematic review of 102 trials of interventions to improve professional practice. CMAJ 1995; 153: 1423-1431
• 19 Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I. et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin 2018; 68: 394-424
• 20 Doubeni C, Fedewa S, Levin T. et al. Modifiable failures in the colorectal cancer screening process and their association with risk of death. Gastroenterology 2019; 156: 63-67
• 21 Patell R, Karwa A, Lopez R. et al. Poor knowledge of colorectal cancer screening and surveillance guidelines in a national cohort of digestive disease specialists. Dig Dis Sci 2019; 64: 391-400
• 22 Instituto Nacional del Cáncer. Ministerio de Salud de La Nación. Cáncer colorrectal en la Argentina. Organización, cobertura y calidad de las acciones de prevención y control. Informe final de diciembre de 2011; diagnóstico de situación de la Argentina: 2013.
• 23 Iskandar H, Yan Y, Elwing J. et al. Predictors of poor adherence of US gastroenterologists with colonoscopy screening and surveillance guidelines. Dig Dis Sci 2015; 60: 971-978
• 24 Patel N, Tong L, Ahn C. et al. Post-polypectomy guideline adherence: importance of belief in guidelines, not guideline Knowledge or fear of missed cancer. Dig Dis Sci 2015; 60: 2937-2945
• 25 Djinbachian R, Dubé AJ, Durand M. et al. Adherence to post-polypectomy surveillance guidelines: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Endoscopy 2019; 51: 673-683
• 26 Kawamoto K, Houlihan CA, Balas D. et al. Improving clinical practice using clinical decision support systems: a systematic review of trials to identify features critical to success. BMJ 2005; 330: 765
• 27 Mandelblatt JS, Yabroff KR. Effectiveness of interventions designed to increase mammography use: a meta-analysis of provider-targeted strategies. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1999; 8: 759-767
• 28 Wendt T, Knaup-Gregori P, Winter A. et al. Decision support in medicine: a survey of problems of user acceptance. Stud Health Technol Inform 2000; 77: 852-856
• 29 Sim I, Gorman P, Greenes RA. et al. Clinical decision support systems for the practice of evidence-based medicine. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2001; 8: 527-534
• 30 Solberg LI, Brekke ML, Fazio CJ. et al. Lessons from experienced guideline implementers: attend to many factors and use multiple strategies. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 2000; 26: 171-188
• 31 Lane DS, Messina CR, Cavanagh MF. et al. A provider intervention to improve colorectal cancer screening in county health centers. Med Care 2008; 46: S109-S116
• 32 Schroy PC, Glick JT, Geller AC. et al. A novel educational strategy to enhance internal medicine residents' familial colorectal cancer knowledge and risk assessment skills. Am J Gastroenterol 2005; 100: 677-684