Brehaut Jamie C, Stiell Ian G, Graham Ian D
Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Health Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Acad Emerg Med. 2006 Apr;13(4):413-20. doi: 10.1197/j.aem.2005.11.080. Epub 2006 Mar 10.
The reasons why some clinical decision rules (CDRs) become widely used and others do not are not well understood. The authors wanted to know the following: 1) To what extent is widespread use of a new, relatively complex CDR an attainable goal? 2) How do physician perceptions of the new CDR compare with those of a widely used rule? 3) To what extent do physician subgroups differ in likelihood to use a new rule?
A survey of 399 Canadian emergency physicians was conducted using Dillman's Tailored Design Method for postal surveys. The physicians were queried regarding the Canadian Cervical-Spine Rule (C-Spine Rule). Results were analyzed via frequency distributions, tests of association, and logistic regression.
Response rate was 69.2% (262/376). Most respondents (83.6%) reported having already seen the Canadian C-Spine Rule, while 63.0% reported already using it. Of those who did not currently use the rule, 74.2% reported that they would consider using it in the future despite the fact that, compared with another widely used rule (the Ottawa Ankle Rules), the C-Spine Rule was rated as less easy to learn (z = 6.68, p < 0.001), remember (z = 7.37, p < 0.001), and use (z = 5.90, p < 0.001). Those who had never seen the rule before were older (chi2(2) = 5.10, p = 0.007) and more likely to work part-time (chi2(2) = 7.31, p = 0.026). The best predictors of whether the rule would be used was whether it had first been seen during training (odds ratio [OR], 2.62; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.14 to 6.04), was perceived as an efficient use of time (OR, 4.44; 95% CI = 1.12 to 16.89), and was too much trouble to apply (OR, 0.25; 95% CI = 0.08 to 0.77).
Widespread use of a relatively complex rule is possible. Older and part-time physicians were less likely to have seen the Canadian C-Spine Rule but not less likely to use it once they had seen it. Targeting hard-to-reach subpopulations while stressing the safety and convenience of these rules is most likely to increase use of new CDRs.
一些临床决策规则(CDR)被广泛应用而另一些却未被广泛应用的原因尚未完全明确。作者想了解以下几点:1)一个新的、相对复杂的CDR被广泛应用的目标在多大程度上可以实现?2)医生对新CDR的认知与对一个广泛应用的规则的认知相比如何?3)医生亚组在使用新规则的可能性上有多大差异?
采用迪尔曼的邮政调查定制设计方法对399名加拿大急诊科医生进行了一项调查。询问医生关于加拿大颈椎规则(C - 脊柱规则)的情况。通过频率分布、关联性检验和逻辑回归分析结果。
回复率为69.2%(262/376)。大多数受访者(83.6%)报告已经看过加拿大C - 脊柱规则,而63.0%报告已经在使用它。在那些目前未使用该规则的人中,74.2%报告他们未来会考虑使用它,尽管与另一个广泛使用的规则(渥太华踝关节规则)相比,C - 脊柱规则在学习(z = 6.68,p < 0.001)、记忆(z = 7.37,p < 0.001)和使用(z = 5.90,p < 0.001)方面被评为较难。那些以前从未看过该规则的人年龄较大(卡方(2)=5.10,p = 0.007)且更有可能兼职工作(卡方(2)=7.31,p = 0.026)。该规则是否会被使用的最佳预测因素是是否在培训期间首次看到它(优势比[OR],2.62;95%置信区间[CI]=1.14至6.04)、被认为能有效利用时间(OR,4.44;95% CI = 1.12至16.89)以及应用起来太麻烦(OR,0.25;95% CI = 0.08至0.77)。
一个相对复杂的规则有可能被广泛应用。年龄较大和兼职的医生不太可能看过加拿大C - 脊柱规则,但一旦看过,使用它的可能性并不小。针对难以触及的亚群体,同时强调这些规则的安全性和便利性,最有可能增加新CDR的使用。