 |
|
Enhancement of Clinicians' Diagnostic Reasoning by Computer-Based Consultation
A Multisite Study of 2 Systems
Charles P. Friedman, PhD;
Arthur S. Elstein, PhD;
Fredric M. Wolf, PhD;
Gwendolyn C. Murphy, PhD;
Timothy M. Franz, PhD;
Paul S. Heckerling, MD;
Paul L. Fine, MD;
Thomas M. Miller, MD;
Vijoy Abraham, MS
JAMA. 1999;282:1851-1856.
Context Computer-based diagnostic decision support systems (DSSs) were developed to improve health care quality by providing accurate, useful, and timely diagnostic information to clinicians. However, most studies have emphasized the accuracy of the computer system alone, without placing clinicians in the role of direct users.
Objective To explore the extent to which consultations with DSSs improve clinicians' diagnostic hypotheses in a set of diagnostically challenging cases.
Design Partially randomized controlled trial conducted in a laboratory setting, using a prospective balanced experimental design in 1995-1998.
Setting Three academic medical centers, none of which were involved in the development of the DSSs.
Participants A total of 216 physicians: 72 at each site, including 24 internal medicine faculty members, 24 senior residents, and 24 fourth-year medical students. One physician's data were lost to analysis.
Intervention Two DSSs, ILIAD (version 4.2) and Quick Medical Reference (QMR; version 3.7.1), were used by participants for diagnostic evaluation of a total of 36 cases based on actual patients. After training, each subject evaluated 9 of the 36 cases, first without and then using a DSS, and suggested an ordered list of diagnostic hypotheses after each evaluation.
Main Outcome Measure Diagnostic accuracy, measured as the presence of the correct diagnosis on the hypothesis list and also using a derived diagnostic quality score, before and after consultation with the DSSs.
Results Correct diagnoses appeared in subjects' hypothesis lists for 39.5% of cases prior to consultation and 45.4% of cases after consultation. Subjects' mean diagnostic quality scores increased from 5.7 (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.5-5.9) to 6.1 (95% CI, 5.9-6.3) (effect size: Cohen d = 0.32; 95% CI, 0.23-0.41; P<.001). Larger increases (P = .048) were observed for students than for residents and faculty. Effect size varied significantly (P<.02) by DSS (Cohen d = 0.20; 95% CI, 0.08-0.32 for ILIAD vs Cohen d = 0.45; 95% CI, 0.31-0.59 for QMR).
Conclusions Our study supports the idea that "hands-on" use of diagnostic DSSs can influence diagnostic reasoning of clinicians. The larger effect for students suggests a possible educational role for these systems.
Author Affiliations: Center for Biomedical Informatics and Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa (Dr Friedman and Mr Abraham); Departments of Medical Education (Dr Elstein) and Medicine (Dr Heckerling), University of Illinois, Chicago; Division of Medical Informatics, Department of Medical Education, University of Washington, Seattle (Dr Wolf); Departments of Nutrition (Dr Murphy) and Medicine (Dr Miller), University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; Department of Psychology, Indiana University, South Bend (Dr Franz); and Department of Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (Dr Fine).
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLE
November 17, 1999
JAMA. 1999;282(19):1885-1886.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Predictors of Diagnostic Accuracy and Safe Management in Difficult Diagnostic Problems in Family Medicine
Kostopoulou et al.
Med Decis Making 2008;28:668-680.
ABSTRACT
Evaluation of the GIDEON Expert Computer Program for the Diagnosis of Imported Febrile Illnesses
Bottieau et al.
Med Decis Making 2008;28:435-442.
ABSTRACT
The Influence of a Physician's Use of a Diagnostic Decision Aid on the Malpractice Verdicts of Mock Jurors
Arkes et al.
Med Decis Making 2008;28:201-208.
ABSTRACT
Patients Derogate Physicians Who Use a Computer-Assisted Diagnostic Aid
Arkes et al.
Med Decis Making 2007;27:189-202.
ABSTRACT
Effectiveness of Clinician-selected Electronic Information Resources for Answering Primary Care Physicians' Information Needs
McKibbon and Fridsma
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2006;13:653-659.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Getting physicians to accept new information technology: insights from case studies.
Lapointe and Rivard
CMAJ 2006;174:1573-1578.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Comparative Impact of Guidelines, Clinical Data, and Decision Support on Prescribing Decisions: An Interactive Web Experiment with Simulated Cases
Sintchenko et al.
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2004;11:71-77.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Dental Informatics: An Emerging Biomedical Informatics Discipline
Schleyer
ADR 2003;17:4-8.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Measuring the Impact of Diagnostic Decision Support on the Quality of Clinical Decision Making: Development of a Reliable and Valid Composite Score
Ramnarayan et al.
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2003;10:563-572.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
How well does decision support software perform in the emergency department?
Graber and VanScoy
Emerg. Med. J. 2003;20:426-428.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Computer Decision Support as a Source of Interpretation Error: The Case of Electrocardiograms
Tsai et al.
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2003;10:478-483.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Evaluation of a Cardiac Diagnostic Program in a Typical Clinical Setting
Fraser et al.
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2003;10:373-381.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
A User-centered Model for Web Site Design: Needs Assessment, User Interface Design, and Rapid Prototyping
Kinzie et al.
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2002;9:320-330.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Automatic Structuring of Radiology Reports: Harbinger of a Second Information Revolution in Radiology
Langlotz
Radiology 2002;224:5-7.
FULL TEXT
When to Use Web-based Surveys
Wyatt
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 2000;7:426-429.
FULL TEXT
Recent advances: Consumer health informatics
Eysenbach
BMJ 2000;320:1713-1716.
FULL TEXT
Impact of New Technologies in Medicine: A Global Theme Issue
Mark and Glass
JAMA 1999;282:1875-1875.
FULL TEXT
|
