↓ Skip to main content

Diagnostic accuracy of GPs when using an early-intervention decision support system: a high-fidelity simulation

Overview of attention for article published in British Journal of General Practice, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
32 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
9 Mendeley
Title
Diagnostic accuracy of GPs when using an early-intervention decision support system: a high-fidelity simulation
Published in
British Journal of General Practice, January 2017
DOI 10.3399/bjgp16x688417
Pubmed ID
Authors

Olga Kostopoulou, Talya Porat, Derek Corrigan, Samhar Mahmoud, Brendan C Delaney

Abstract

Observational and experimental studies of the diagnostic task have demonstrated the importance of the first hypotheses that come to mind for accurate diagnosis. A prototype decision support system (DSS) designed to support GPs' first impressions has been integrated with a commercial electronic health record (EHR) system. To evaluate the prototype DSS in a high-fidelity simulation. Within-participant design: 34 GPs consulted with six standardised patients (actors) using their usual EHR. On a different day, GPs used the EHR with the integrated DSS to consult with six other patients, matched for difficulty and counterbalanced. Entering the reason for encounter triggered the DSS, which provided a patient-specific list of potential diagnoses, and supported coding of symptoms during the consultation. At each consultation, GPs recorded their diagnosis and management. At the end, they completed a usability questionnaire. The actors completed a satisfaction questionnaire after each consultation. There was an 8-9% absolute improvement in diagnostic accuracy when the DSS was used. This improvement was significant (odds ratio [OR] 1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.13 to 1.77, P<0.01). There was no associated increase of investigations ordered or consultation length. GPs coded significantly more data when using the DSS (mean 12.35 with the DSS versus 1.64 without), and were generally satisfied with its usability. Patient satisfaction ratings were the same for consultations with and without the DSS. The DSS prototype was successfully employed in simulated consultations of high fidelity, with no measurable influences on patient satisfaction. The substantially increased data coding can operate as motivation for future DSS adoption.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 22%
United States 1 11%
Unknown 6 67%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 22%
Other 2 22%
Researcher 2 22%
Professor 1 11%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 11%
Other 1 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 44%
Psychology 2 22%
Unspecified 1 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 11%
Social Sciences 1 11%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 April 2017.
All research outputs
#243,815
of 8,071,305 outputs
Outputs from British Journal of General Practice
#108
of 1,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,727
of 257,720 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Journal of General Practice
#9
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,071,305 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,897 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 257,720 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.