Comprehensive Process Model of Clinical Information Interaction in Primary Care: Results of a "best-fit" Framework Synthesis

Overview

Journal J Am Med Inform Assoc

Publisher Oxford University Press

Specialty Medical Informatics

Date 2017 Oct 13

PMID 29025114

Citations 5

Authors

Tiffany C Veinot

Charles R Senteio

David Hanauer

Julie C Lowery

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: To describe a new, comprehensive process model of clinical information interaction in primary care (Clinical Information Interaction Model, or CIIM) based on a systematic synthesis of published research.

Materials And Methods: We used the "best fit" framework synthesis approach. Searches were performed in PubMed, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PsycINFO, Library and Information Science Abstracts, Library, Information Science and Technology Abstracts, and Engineering Village. Two authors reviewed articles according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data abstraction and content analysis of 443 published papers were used to create a model in which every element was supported by empirical research.

Results: The CIIM documents how primary care clinicians interact with information as they make point-of-care clinical decisions. The model highlights 3 major process components: (1) context, (2) activity (usual and contingent), and (3) influence. Usual activities include information processing, source-user interaction, information evaluation, selection of information, information use, clinical reasoning, and clinical decisions. Clinician characteristics, patient behaviors, and other professionals influence the process.

Discussion: The CIIM depicts the complete process of information interaction, enabling a grasp of relationships previously difficult to discern. The CIIM suggests potentially helpful functionality for clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) to support primary care, including a greater focus on information processing and use. The CIIM also documents the role of influence in clinical information interaction; influencers may affect the success of CDSS implementations.

Conclusion: The CIIM offers a new framework for achieving CDSS workflow integration and new directions for CDSS design that can support the work of diverse primary care clinicians.

Citing Articles

Modelling of physicians' clinical information-seeking behaviour in Iran: a grounded theory study.

Daei A, Soleymani M, Zargham-Boroujeni A, Kelishadi R, Ashrafi-Rizi H BMJ Open. 2024; 14(4):e080602.

PMID: 38626973 PMC: 11029460. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-080602.

Examining primary care provider experiences with using a clinical decision support tool for pain management.

Mazurenko O, McCord E, McDonnell C, Apathy N, Sanner L, Adams M JAMIA Open. 2023; 6(3):ooad063.

PMID: 37575955 PMC: 10412405. DOI: 10.1093/jamiaopen/ooad063.

Health informatics interventions to minimize out-of-pocket medication costs for patients: what providers want.

Kiessling K, Iott B, Pater J, Toscos T, Wagner S, Gottlieb L JAMIA Open. 2022; 5(1):ooac007.

PMID: 35274083 PMC: 8903137. DOI: 10.1093/jamiaopen/ooac007.

Barriers and facilitators to implementation of menu labelling interventions from a food service industry perspective: a mixed methods systematic review.

Kerins C, McHugh S, McSharry J, Reardon C, Hayes C, Perry I Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2020; 17(1):48.

PMID: 32295647 PMC: 7161210. DOI: 10.1186/s12966-020-00948-1.

Psychosocial information use for clinical decisions in diabetes care.

Senteio C, Adler-Milstein J, Richardson C, Veinot T J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2019; 26(8-9):813-824.

PMID: 31329894 PMC: 7647218. DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocz053.

References

Carroll C, Booth A, Leaviss J, Rick J . "Best fit" framework synthesis: refining the method. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013; 13:37. PMC: 3618126. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-37. View

Sharma V, Lepping P, Krishna M, Durrani S, Copeland J, Mottram P . Mental health diagnosis by nurses using the Global Mental Health Assessment Tool: a validity and feasibility study. Br J Gen Pract. 2008; 58(551):411-6. PMC: 2418993. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp08X299218. View

Weiss R, Charney E, Baumgardner R, German P, Mellits E, Skinner E . Changing patient management: what influences the practicing pediatrician?. Pediatrics. 1990; 85(5):791-5. View

Unertl K, Weinger M, Johnson K, Lorenzi N . Describing and modeling workflow and information flow in chronic disease care. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009; 16(6):826-36. PMC: 3002133. DOI: 10.1197/jamia.M3000. View

Rasch R, Cogdill K . Nurse practitioners' information needs and information seeking: implications for practice and education. Holist Nurs Pract. 2000; 13(4):90-7. DOI: 10.1097/00004650-199907000-00013. View

Cook D, Sorensen K, Wilkinson J, Berger R . Barriers and decisions when answering clinical questions at the point of care: a grounded theory study. JAMA Intern Med. 2013; 173(21):1962-9. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.10103. View

Langley C, Faulkner A, Watkins C, Gray S, Harvey I . Use of guidelines in primary care--practitioners' perspectives. Fam Pract. 1998; 15(2):105-11. DOI: 10.1093/fampra/15.2.105. View

Makoul G, Clayman M . An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters. Patient Educ Couns. 2005; 60(3):301-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2005.06.010. View

Pyne T, Newman K, Leigh S, Cowling A, Rounce K . Meeting the information needs of clinicians for the practice of evidence-based healthcare. Health Libr Rev. 1999; 16(1):3-14. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2532.1999.00200.x. View

10.

Patel V, Arocha J, Kaufman D . A primer on aspects of cognition for medical informatics. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2001; 8(4):324-43. PMC: 130077. DOI: 10.1136/jamia.2001.0080324. View

11.

Dobscha S, Corson K, Hickam D, Perrin N, Kraemer D, Gerrity M . Depression decision support in primary care: a cluster randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2006; 145(7):477-87. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-145-7-200610030-00005. View

12.

Hayward J, Thomson F, Milne H, Buckingham S, Sheikh A, Fernando B . 'Too much, too late': mixed methods multi-channel video recording study of computerized decision support systems and GP prescribing. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013; 20(e1):e76-84. PMC: 3715350. DOI: 10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001484. View

13.

Haggerty J, Tudiver F, Brown J, Herbert C, Ciampi A, Guibert R . Patients' anxiety and expectations: how they influence family physicians' decisions to order cancer screening tests. Can Fam Physician. 2006; 51:1658-9. PMC: 1479496. View

14.

Nandy S, Gantley M, Underwood M . Referral for minor mental illness: a qualitative study. Br J Gen Pract. 2001; 51(467):461-5. PMC: 1314027. View

15.

Murray E, Charles C, Gafni A . Shared decision-making in primary care: tailoring the Charles et al. model to fit the context of general practice. Patient Educ Couns. 2005; 62(2):205-11. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2005.07.003. View

16.

Roshanov P, Misra S, Gerstein H, Garg A, Sebaldt R, Mackay J . Computerized clinical decision support systems for chronic disease management: a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review. Implement Sci. 2011; 6:92. PMC: 3170626. DOI: 10.1186/1748-5908-6-92. View

17.

Edelman E, Lin B, Doksum T, Drohan B, Edelson V, Dolan S . Implementation of an electronic genomic and family health history tool in primary prenatal care. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2014; 166C(1):34-44. DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.c.31389. View

18.

Bryan C, Boren S . The use and effectiveness of electronic clinical decision support tools in the ambulatory/primary care setting: a systematic review of the literature. Inform Prim Care. 2008; 16(2):79-91. DOI: 10.14236/jhi.v16i2.679. View

19.

Chambliss M, Conley J . Answering clinical questions. J Fam Pract. 1996; 43(2):140-4. View

20.

Dee C, Blazek R . Information needs of the rural physician: a descriptive study. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1993; 81(3):259-64. PMC: 225785. View