de Jong Judith D, Groenewegen Peter P, Spreeuwenberg Peter, Westert Gert P, de Bakker Dinny H
NIVEL-Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, PO Box 1568, 3500 BN Utrecht, the Netherlands.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2009 Jan 30;9:20. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-9-20.
Translating scientific evidence into daily practice is problematic. All kinds of intervention strategies, using educational and/or directive strategies, aimed at modifying behavior, have evolved, but have been found only partially successful. In this article the focus is on (computerized) decision support systems (DSSs). DSSs intervene in physicians' daily routine, as opposed to interventions that aim at influencing knowledge in order to change behavior. We examined whether general practitioners (GPs) are prescribing in accordance with the advice given by the DSS and whether there is less variation in prescription when the DSS is used.
Data were used from the Second Dutch National Survey of General Practice (DNSGP2), collected in 2001. A total of 82 diagnoses, 749811 contacts, 133 physicians, and 85 practices was included in the analyses. GPs using the DSS daily were compared to GPs who do not use the DSS. Multilevel analyses were used to analyse the data. Two outcome measures were chosen: whether prescription was in accordance with the advice of the DSS or not, and a measure of concentration, the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI).
GPs who use the DSS daily prescribe more according to the advice given in the DSS than GPs who do not use the DSS. Contradictory to our expectation there was no significant difference between the HHIs for both groups: variation in prescription was comparable.
We studied the use of a DSS for drug prescribing in general practice in the Netherlands. The DSS is based on guidelines developed by the Dutch College of General Practitioners and implemented in the Electronic Medical Systems of the GPs. GPs using the DSS more often prescribe in accordance with the advice given in the DSS compared to GPs not using the DSS. This finding, however, did not mean that variation is lower; variation is the same for GPs using and for GPs not using a DSS. Implications of the study are that DSSs can be used to implement guidelines, but that it should not be expected that variation is limited.
将科学证据转化为日常实践存在问题。旨在改变行为的各种干预策略不断发展,这些策略采用教育和/或指导策略,但仅有部分取得成功。本文重点关注(计算机化)决策支持系统(DSS)。与旨在影响知识以改变行为的干预措施不同,DSS干预医生的日常工作。我们研究了全科医生(GP)的处方是否符合DSS给出的建议,以及使用DSS时处方的差异是否更小。
使用2001年收集的第二次荷兰全国全科医学调查(DNSGP2)的数据。分析纳入了82种诊断、749811次诊疗、133名医生和85家诊所。将每天使用DSS的全科医生与不使用DSS的全科医生进行比较。采用多水平分析来分析数据。选择了两个结果指标:处方是否符合DSS的建议,以及一个集中度指标,即赫芬达尔-赫希曼指数(HHI)。
每天使用DSS的全科医生比不使用DSS的全科医生更遵循DSS给出的建议进行处方。与我们的预期相反,两组的HHI没有显著差异:处方差异相当。
我们研究了荷兰全科医疗中DSS在药物处方方面的应用。该DSS基于荷兰全科医生学院制定并在全科医生电子医疗系统中实施的指南。与不使用DSS的全科医生相比,使用DSS的全科医生更常按照DSS给出的建议进行处方。然而,这一发现并不意味着差异更小;使用DSS和不使用DSS的全科医生的差异是相同的。该研究的意义在于,DSS可用于实施指南,但不应期望差异会受到限制。