Effect of a practice-based strategy on test ordering performance of primary care physicians: a randomized trial.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
CONTEXT: Numbers of diagnostic tests ordered by primary care physicians are growing and many of these tests seem to be unnecessary according to established, evidence-based guidelines. An innovative strategy that focused on clinical problems and associated tests was developed. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of a multifaceted strategy aimed at improving the performance of primary care physicians' test ordering. DESIGN: Multicenter, randomized controlled trial with a balanced, incomplete block design and randomization at group level. Thirteen groups of primary care physicians underwent the strategy for 3 clinical problems (arm A; cardiovascular topics, upper and lower abdominal complaints), while 13 other groups underwent the strategy for 3 other clinical problems (arm B; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma, general complaints, degenerative joint complaints). Each arm acted as a control for the other. SETTING: Primary care physician groups in 5 regions in the Netherlands with diagnostic centers recruited from May to September 1998. STUDY PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-six primary care physician groups, including 174 primary care physicians. INTERVENTION: During the 6 months of intervention, physicians discussed 3 consecutive, personal feedback reports in 3 small group meetings, related them to 3 evidence-based clinical guidelines, and made plans for change. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: According to existing national, evidence-based guidelines, a decrease in the total numbers of tests ordered per clinical problem, and of some defined inappropriate tests, is considered a quality improvement. RESULTS: For clinical problems allocated to arm A, the mean total number of requested tests per 6 months per physician was reduced from baseline to follow-up by 12% among physicians in the arm A intervention, but was unchanged in the arm B control, with a mean reduction of 67 more tests per physician per 6 months in arm A than in arm B (P =.01). For clinical problems allocated to arm B, the mean total number of requested tests per 6 months per physician was reduced from baseline to follow-up by 8% among physicians in the arm B intervention, and by 3% in the arm A control, with a mean reduction of 28 more tests per physician per 6 months in arm B than in arm A (P =.22). Physicians in arm A had a significant reduction in mean total number of inappropriate tests ordered for problems allocated to arm A, whereas the reduction in inappropriate test ordered physicians in arm B for problems allocated to arm B was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: In this study, a practice-based, multifaceted strategy using guidelines, feedback, and social interaction resulted in modest improvements in test ordering by primary care physicians.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».