Developing an Audit and Feedback Dashboard for Family Physicians: A User-Centered Design Process
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
<h3>Context:</h3> Audit and Feedback (A&F), the summary and provision of clinical performance, is a popular quality improvement strategy. We are developing a web-based dashboard that uses data from the electronic medical record to help physicians identify gaps in care and act. However, A&F tools can only be effective if the targeted health professionals actively review their data and take action. In order to maximise the impact of A&F, the design should consider the needs and goals of clinicians. <h3>Objective:</h3> To describe the development of a user-centered design process to optimize the effect of an A&F dashboard for family physicians. <h3>Study Design and Analysis:</h3> Our design process includes (1) Prototype development based on A&F theory and input from clinical improvement leaders; (2) a co-creation workshop with family physician quality improvement leaders to develop personas (i.e., fictional characters that represent an archetype character); (3) user-centered interviews with family physicians to learn about the physician’s who will be using the dashboard and their context, and their reactions to the dashboard. <h3>Setting or Dataset:</h3> A workshop for the creation of personas and user-centered qualitative interviews with family physicians. <h3>Population Studied:</h3> Family physicians who contribute data to the University of Toronto Practice-Based Research Network <h3>Intervention/Instrument:</h3> Audit and Feedback dashboard <h3>Outcome Measures:</h3> N/A <h3>Results:</h3> Our persona workshop produced four personas that enabled the team to identify physician’s needs and wishes and facilitated empathy during the design process: Dr. Skeptic, Frazzled Physician, The Eager Implementer, and Sidney Big Wig. Our interviews found that: (1) physicians are interested in how they compare with their peers; however, if their performance was above average, they were not motivated to improve even if gaps in care remained; (2) Burnout levels are high, physicians are trying to catch up on missed care during the pandemic, and were not highly motivated to act on the dashboard data; (3) Features that were important to physicians were integration within the EMR, and up-to-date and accurate data. <h3>Conclusions:</h3> A successful design of an A&F performance dashboard should consider the serious lack of time and capacity among family physicians to engage in quality improvement work. If designed properly, the QI dashboard can be a great assistance in helping family physicians provide more proactive and targeted care.
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.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 découle