Limits...
Making sense of a new technology in clinical practice: a qualitative study of patient and physician perspectives.

Pals RA, Hansen UM, Johansen CB, Hansen CS, Jørgensen ME, Fleischer J, Willaing I - BMC Health Serv Res (2015)

Bottom Line: Physicians generally found it difficult to communicate test results to patients in terms that patients could understand and to translate results into meaningful implications for the treatment of patients.Results of the study indicate that patients did not recall having done the CAN test nor recall receiving the results.It is suggested that more information about the CAN test be provided to patients and that a dialogue-based approach be used when communicating test results to patients in order to best support the use of the technology in clinical practice.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Health Promotion Research, Steno Diabetes Center A/S, Gentofte, Denmark. riap@steno.dk.

ABSTRACT

Background: The number of new technologies for risk assessment available in health care is increasing. These technologies are intended to contribute to both improved care practices and improved patient outcomes. To do so however, there is a need to study how new technologies are understood and interpreted by users in clinical practice. The objective of this study was to explore patient and physician perspectives on the usefulness of a new technology to detect Cardiovascular Autonomic Neuropathy (CAN) in a specialist diabetes clinic. The technology is a handheld device that measures resting heart rate and conducts three cardiac autonomic reflex tests to evaluate heart rate variability.

Methods: The study relied on three sources of data: observations of medical consultations where results of the CAN test were reported (n = 8); interviews with patients who had received the CAN test (n = 19); and interviews with physicians who reported results of the CAN test (n = 9). Data were collected at the specialist diabetes clinic between November 2013 and January 2014. Data were analysed using the concept of technological frames which is used to assess how physicians and patients understand and interpret the new technology.

Results: Physicians generally found it difficult to communicate test results to patients in terms that patients could understand and to translate results into meaningful implications for the treatment of patients. Results of the study indicate that patients did not recall having done the CAN test nor recall receiving the results. Furthermore, patients were generally unsure about the purpose of the CAN test and the implications of the results.

Discussion: Involving patients and physicians is essential when a new technology is introduced in clinical practice. This particularly includes the interpretation and communication processes related to its use.

Conclusions: The integration of a new risk assessment technology into clinical practice can be accompanied by several challenges. It is suggested that more information about the CAN test be provided to patients and that a dialogue-based approach be used when communicating test results to patients in order to best support the use of the technology in clinical practice.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Recruitment of participants for the study
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4580358&req=5

Fig2: Recruitment of participants for the study

Mentions: We (RASP, UMH, CBJ) used the following methods to recruit patients and physicians for interviews. Physicians were recruited through 1) personal approach following observations of consultations, 2) e-mail invitations to all physicians at the specialist diabetes clinic. Patients were recruited through 1) personal approach following observations of consultations, 2) phone calls based on data from the EPR Fig. 23.Fig. 2


Making sense of a new technology in clinical practice: a qualitative study of patient and physician perspectives.

Pals RA, Hansen UM, Johansen CB, Hansen CS, Jørgensen ME, Fleischer J, Willaing I - BMC Health Serv Res (2015)

Recruitment of participants for the study
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4580358&req=5

Fig2: Recruitment of participants for the study
Mentions: We (RASP, UMH, CBJ) used the following methods to recruit patients and physicians for interviews. Physicians were recruited through 1) personal approach following observations of consultations, 2) e-mail invitations to all physicians at the specialist diabetes clinic. Patients were recruited through 1) personal approach following observations of consultations, 2) phone calls based on data from the EPR Fig. 23.Fig. 2

Bottom Line: Physicians generally found it difficult to communicate test results to patients in terms that patients could understand and to translate results into meaningful implications for the treatment of patients.Results of the study indicate that patients did not recall having done the CAN test nor recall receiving the results.It is suggested that more information about the CAN test be provided to patients and that a dialogue-based approach be used when communicating test results to patients in order to best support the use of the technology in clinical practice.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Health Promotion Research, Steno Diabetes Center A/S, Gentofte, Denmark. riap@steno.dk.

ABSTRACT

Background: The number of new technologies for risk assessment available in health care is increasing. These technologies are intended to contribute to both improved care practices and improved patient outcomes. To do so however, there is a need to study how new technologies are understood and interpreted by users in clinical practice. The objective of this study was to explore patient and physician perspectives on the usefulness of a new technology to detect Cardiovascular Autonomic Neuropathy (CAN) in a specialist diabetes clinic. The technology is a handheld device that measures resting heart rate and conducts three cardiac autonomic reflex tests to evaluate heart rate variability.

Methods: The study relied on three sources of data: observations of medical consultations where results of the CAN test were reported (n = 8); interviews with patients who had received the CAN test (n = 19); and interviews with physicians who reported results of the CAN test (n = 9). Data were collected at the specialist diabetes clinic between November 2013 and January 2014. Data were analysed using the concept of technological frames which is used to assess how physicians and patients understand and interpret the new technology.

Results: Physicians generally found it difficult to communicate test results to patients in terms that patients could understand and to translate results into meaningful implications for the treatment of patients. Results of the study indicate that patients did not recall having done the CAN test nor recall receiving the results. Furthermore, patients were generally unsure about the purpose of the CAN test and the implications of the results.

Discussion: Involving patients and physicians is essential when a new technology is introduced in clinical practice. This particularly includes the interpretation and communication processes related to its use.

Conclusions: The integration of a new risk assessment technology into clinical practice can be accompanied by several challenges. It is suggested that more information about the CAN test be provided to patients and that a dialogue-based approach be used when communicating test results to patients in order to best support the use of the technology in clinical practice.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus