Computer support for recording and interpreting family histories of breast and ovarian cancer in primary care (RAGs): qualitative evaluation with simulated patients

Abstract Objectives: To explore general practitioners' attitudes towards and use of a computer program for assessing genetic risk of cancer in primary care. Design: Qualitative analysis of semistructured interviews and video recordings of simulated consultations. Participants: Purposive sample of 15 general practitioners covering a range of computer literacy, interest in genetics, age, and sex. Interventions: Each doctor used the program in two consultations in which an actor played a woman concerned about her family history of cancer. Consultations were videotaped and followed by interviews with the video as a prompt to questioning. Main outcome measures: Use of computer program in the consultation. Results: The program was viewed as an appropriate application of information technology because of the complexity of cancer genetics and a sense of “guideline chaos” in primary care. Doctors found the program easy to use, but it often affected their control of the consultation. They needed to balance their desire to share the computer screen with the patient, driven by their concerns about the effect of the computer on doctor-patient communication, against the risk of premature disclosure of bad news. Conclusions: This computer program could provide the necessary support to assist assessment of genetic risk of cancer in primary care. The potential impact of computer software on the consultation should not be underestimated. This study highlights the need for careful evaluation when developing medical information systems. Key messages General practitioners are under increasing pressure to advise their patients about genetic predisposition to various diseases Computers could help doctors to give genetic advice by simplifying the construction and assessment of family trees and implementing referral guidelines This qualitative evaluation explored the context in which a computer program for assessing genetic risk of cancer would be used in general practice and issues surrounding its integration into a consultation Most of the doctors found the program easy to use, but it affected their control of the consultation—because of their desire to share the computer screen with the patient and their inability to anticipate the information that would be displayed The study identified important issues relating to the use of computers in consultations which may be of use in testing software for primary care in the future

[1]  Frederick Erickson.  Audiovisual Records as a Primary Data Source , 1982 .

[2]  O'Hagan Jj,et al.  The use of simulated patients in the assessment of actual clinical performance in general practice. , 1986 .

[3]  L. Davies,et al.  The use of simulated patients in the assessment of actual clinical performance in general practice. , 1986, The New Zealand medical journal.

[4]  P. Sedgwick,et al.  Distress and delay associated with urinary incontinence, frequency, and urgency in women. , 1988, BMJ.

[5]  D. Spiegelhalter,et al.  Evaluating medical expert systems: what to test and how? , 1990, Medical informatics = Medecine et informatique.

[6]  T. Timpka,et al.  Comparison of patients' and doctors' comments on video-recorded consultations. , 1991, Scandinavian journal of primary health care.

[7]  K. Burgio,et al.  Urinary incontinence. Why people do not seek help. , 1992, Journal of gerontological nursing.

[8]  M. Patton,et al.  Qualitative evaluation and research methods , 1992 .

[9]  Pamela Jordan.  Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques , 1994 .

[10]  R. Haynes,et al.  Effects of Computer-based Clinical Decision Support Systems on Clinician Performance and Patient Outcome: A Critical Appraisal of Research , 1994, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[11]  Toomas Timpka,et al.  Towards productive Knowledge-Based Systems in clinical organizations: a methods perspective , 1994, Artif. Intell. Medicine.

[12]  Science and Technology Committee's report on genetics. , 1995, BMJ.

[13]  H. Harris,et al.  Primary care for patients at genetic risk , 1995, BMJ.

[14]  Frank Sullivan,et al.  Has general practitioner computing made a difference to patient care? A systematic review of published reports , 1995, BMJ.

[15]  C. Heath,et al.  How do desk-top computers affect the doctor-patient interaction? , 1995, Family practice.

[16]  H. Sandvik.  Criterion validity of responses to patient vignettes: an analysis based on management of female urinary incontinence. , 1995, Family medicine.

[17]  H. Harris,et al.  Genetics in primary care. Report on workshop of EC Concerted Action on Genetics Services in Europe (CAGSE) in association with the Royal College of GP Spring Meeting, Blackpool, UK, 28 April 1995. , 1996, Journal of medical genetics.

[18]  D. Beevers,et al.  Alpha-adrenoceptor blocking drugs and female urinary incontinence: prevalence and reversibility. , 1996, British journal of clinical pharmacology.

[19]  J. Morse.  Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text and interaction , 1996 .

[20]  P. Impicciatore,et al.  Reliability of health information for the public on the world wide web: systematic survey of advice on managing fever in children at home , 1997, BMJ.

[21]  J. Fox,et al.  Evaluation of computer support for prescribing (CAPSULE) using simulated cases , 1997, BMJ.

[22]  D. A. Tong,et al.  Requests for medical advice from patients and families to health care providers who publish on the World Wide Web. , 1997, Archives of internal medicine.

[23]  Charles P. Friedman,et al.  Evaluation Methods in Medical Informatics , 1997, Computers and Medicine.

[24]  G D Lundberg,et al.  Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: Caveant lector et viewor--Let the reader and viewer beware. , 1997, JAMA.

[25]  The ContiNet of the International Continence Society , 1997, Neurourology and urodynamics.

[26]  L Ridsdale,et al.  What do patients want and not want to see about themselves on the computer screen: a qualitative study. , 1997, Scandinavian journal of primary health care.

[27]  John Fox,et al.  PROforma: a general technology for clinical decision support systems. , 1997, Computer methods and programs in biomedicine.

[28]  D. Fonda.  Promoting continence as a health issue. , 1997, European urology.

[29]  J C Wyatt,et al.  The origin, content, and workload of e-mail consultations. , 1998, JAMA.

[30]  R. Haynes,et al.  Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems on physician performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. , 1998, JAMA.

[31]  R. Hanka,et al.  Evaluating information technology in health care: barriers and challenges , 1998, BMJ.

[32]  S. Pauker,et al.  Implications for clinical services in Britain and the United States , 1998 .

[33]  G Eysenbach,et al.  Information in practice Towards quality management of medical information on the internet : evaluation , labelling , and filtering of information , 1998 .

[34]  G Eysenbach,et al.  Responses to unsolicited patient e-mail requests for medical advice on the World Wide Web. , 1998, JAMA.

[35]  John Fox,et al.  Disseminating medical knowledge: the PROforma approach , 1998, Artif. Intell. Medicine.

[36]  C. Pope,et al.  Qualitative Research in Health Care , 1999 .

[37]  J Emery,et al.  Computer support for genetic advice in primary care. , 1999, The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners.

[38]  W H Isbister,et al.  Qualitative research in health care , 2000, BMJ : British Medical Journal.