MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399277564 · doi:10.2196/55667

Clinical Acceptability of a Quality Improvement Program for Reducing Cardiovascular Disease Risk in People With Chronic Kidney Disease in Australian General Practice: Qualitative Study

2024· article· en· W4399277564 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Caroline McBride, Barbara Hunter, Natalie Lumsden, Kaleswari Somasundaram, Rita McMorrow, Douglas Boyle, Jon Emery, Craig Nelson, Jo‐Anne Manski‐Nankervis

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Human Factors · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicElectronic Health Records Systems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)WorkflowKidney diseaseDashboardMedicineQualitative researchQuality managementRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)Medical educationNursingFamily medicineComputer scienceSurgeryData scienceOperations managementEngineeringInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Future Health Today (FHT) is a technology program that integrates with general practice clinical software to provide point of care (PoC) clinical decision support and a quality improvement dashboard. This qualitative study looks at the use of FHT in the context of cardiovascular disease risk in chronic kidney disease (CKD). Objective: This study aims to explore factors influencing clinical implementation of the FHT module focusing on cardiovascular risk in CKD, from the perspectives of participating general practitioner staff. Methods: Practices in Victoria were recruited to participate in a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial using FHT, of which 19 practices were randomly assigned to use FHT's cardiovascular risk in CKD program. A total of 13 semistructured interviews were undertaken with a nominated general practitioner (n=7) or practice nurse (n=6) from 10 participating practices. Interview questions focused on the clinical usefulness of the tool and its place in clinical workflows. Qualitative data were coded by 2 researchers and analyzed using framework analysis and Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory. Results: All 13 interviewees had used the FHT PoC tool, and feedback was largely positive. Overall, clinicians described engaging with the tool as a "prompt" or "reminder" system. Themes reflected that the tool's goals and clinical content were aligned with clinician's existing priorities and knowledge, and the tool's design facilitated easy integration into existing workflows. The main barrier to implementation identified by 2 clinicians was notification fatigue. A total of 7 interviewees had used the FHT dashboard tool. The main barriers to use were its limited integration into clinical workflows, such that some participants did not know of its existence; clinicians' competing clinical priorities; and limited time to learn and use the tool. Conclusions: This study identified many facilitators for the successful use of the FHT PoC program, in the context of cardiovascular risk in CKD, and barriers to the use of the dashboard program. This work will be used to inform the wider implementation of FHT, as well as the development of future modules of FHT for other risk or disease states.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.116
GPT teacher head0.566
Teacher spread0.450 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Human FactorsSame topicElectronic Health Records SystemsFrench-language works237,207