IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v40y2020i4p428-437.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Developing a Clinical Decision Support Tool for Appropriate Antibiotic Prescribing in Australian General Practice: A Simulation Study

Author

Listed:
  • Jo-Anne Manski-Nankervis

    (Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia)

  • Ruby Biezen

    (Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia)

  • Karin Thursky

    (The National Centre for Antimicrobial Stewardship, The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia)

  • Douglas Boyle

    (Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia)

  • Malcolm Clark

    (Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia)

  • Sean Lo

    (Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia)

  • Kirsty Buising

    (The National Centre for Antimicrobial Stewardship, The Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia)

Abstract

Background. Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing can lead to antimicrobial resistance and drug side effects. Tools that assist general practitioners (GPs) in prescribing decisions may help to optimize prescribing. The aim of this study was to explore the use, acceptability, and feasibility of a clinical decision support (CDS) tool that incorporates evidence-based guidelines and consumer information that integrates with the electronic medical record (EMR). Methods. Eight GPs completed an interview and brief survey after participating in 2 simulated consultations. The survey consisted of demographic questions, perception of realism and representativeness of consultations, Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire, and System Usability Scale. Qualitative data were analyzed using framework analysis. Video data were reviewed, with length of consultation and time spent using the CDS tool documented. Results. Survey responses indicated that all GPs thought the consultations were “real†and representative of real-life consultations; 7 of 8 GPs were satisfied with usability of the tool. Key qualitative findings included that the tool assisted with clinical decision making and informed appropriate antibiotic prescribing. Accessibility and ease of use, including content (guideline and patient education resources), layout, and format, were key factors that determined whether GPs said that they would access the tool in everyday practice. Integration of the tool at multiple sites within the EMR facilitated access to guidelines and assisted in ensuring that the tool fit the clinical workflow. Conclusion. Our CDS tool was acceptable to GPs. Key features required for the tool were easy navigation, clear and useful guideline content, ability to fit into the clinical workflow, and incorporation into the EMR. Piloting of the tool in general practices to assess the impact and feasibility of use in real-world consultations will now be undertaken.

Suggested Citation

  • Jo-Anne Manski-Nankervis & Ruby Biezen & Karin Thursky & Douglas Boyle & Malcolm Clark & Sean Lo & Kirsty Buising, 2020. "Developing a Clinical Decision Support Tool for Appropriate Antibiotic Prescribing in Australian General Practice: A Simulation Study," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(4), pages 428-437, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:40:y:2020:i:4:p:428-437
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X20926136
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X20926136
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X20926136?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:40:y:2020:i:4:p:428-437. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.