<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
  xmlns:trackback="http://madskills.com/public/xml/rss/module/trackback/">
  <channel>
    <title>BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making</title>
    <link>http://barf.jcowboy.org</link>
    <description>BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making recent publications</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    
    <item>
      <title>The development of a web- and a print-based decision aid for prostate cancer screening.</title>
      <link>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&amp;db=PubMed&amp;dopt=Abstract&amp;list_uids=20199680</link>
      <description>Publication Date: 2010 Mar 3 PMID: 20199680&lt;br/&gt;Authors: Dorfman, C. S. - Williams, R. M. - Kassan, E. C. - Red, S. N. - Dawson, D. L. - Tuong, W. - Parker, E. R. - Ohene-Frempong, J. - Davis, K. M. - Krist, A. H. - Woolf, S. H. - Schwartz, M. D. - Fishman, M. B. - Cole, C. - Taylor, K. L.&lt;br/&gt;Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Whether early detection and treatment of prostate cancer (PCa) reduces disease-related mortality remains uncertain. As a result, tools are needed to facilitate informed decision making. While there have been several decision aids (DAs) developed and tested, very few have included an exercise to help men clarify their values and preferences about PCa screening. Further, only one DA has utilized an interactive web-based format, which allows for an expansion and customization of the material. We describe the development of two DAs, a booklet and an interactive website, each with a values clarification component and designed for use in diverse settings. METHODS: We conducted two feasibility studies to assess men's (45-70 years) Internet access and their willingness to use a web- vs. a print-based tool. The booklet was adapted from two previous versions evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the website was created to closely match the content of the revised booklet. Usability testing was conducted to obtain feedback regarding draft versions of the materials. The tools were also reviewed by a plain language expert and the interdisciplinary research team. Feedback on the content and presentation led to iterative modifications of the tools. RESULTS: The feasibility studies confirmed that the Internet was a viable medium, as the majority of men used a computer, had access to the Internet, and Internet use increased over time. Feedback from the usability testing on the length, presentation, and content of the materials was incorporated into the final versions of the booklet and website. Both the feasibility studies and the usability testing highlighted the need to address men's informed decision making regarding screening. CONCLUSIONS: Informed decision making for PCa screening is crucial at present and may be important for some time, particularly if a definitive recommendation either for or against screening does not emerge from ongoing prostate cancer screening trials. We have detailed our efforts at developing print- and web-based DAs to assist men in determining how to best meet their PCa screening preferences. Following completion of our ongoing RCT designed to test these materials, our goal will be to develop a dissemination project for the more effective tool. Trial Registration. NCT00623090.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;post to: &lt;a href = &quot;http://www.citeulike.org/posturl?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Fcmd%3DRetrieve%26db%3DPubMed%26dopt%3DAbstract%26list_uids%3D20199680&amp;title=Entrez+Pubmed&quot;&gt;CiteULike&lt;/a&gt;</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Sixteen years of ICPC use in Norwegian primary care: looking through the facts.</title>
      <link>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&amp;db=PubMed&amp;dopt=Abstract&amp;list_uids=20181271</link>
      <description>Publication Date: 2010 Feb 24 PMID: 20181271&lt;br/&gt;Authors: Botsis, T. - Bassoe, C. F. - Hartvigsen, G.&lt;br/&gt;Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The International Classification for Primary Care (ICPC) standard aims to facilitate simultaneous and longitudinal comparisons of clinical primary care practice within and across country borders; it is also used for administrative purposes. This study evaluates the use of the original ICPC-1 and the more complete ICPC-2 Norwegian versions in electronic patient records. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study of approximately 1.5 million ICPC codes and diagnoses that were collected over a 16-year period at 12 primary care sites in Norway. In the first phase of this period (transition phase, 1992-1999) physicians were allowed to not use an ICPC code in their practice while in the second phase (regular phase, 2000-2008) the use of an ICPC code was mandatory. The ICPC codes and diagnoses defined a problem event for each patient in the PROblem-oriented electronic MEDical record (PROMED). The main outcome measure of our analysis was the percentage of problem events in PROMEDs with inappropriate (or missing) ICPC codes and of diagnoses that did not map the latest ICPC-2 classification. Specific problem areas (pneumonia, anaemia, tonsillitis and diabetes) were examined in the same context. RESULTS: Codes were missing in 6.2% of the problem events; incorrect codes were observed in 4.0 % of the problem events and text mismatch between the diagnoses and the expected ICPC-2 diagnoses text in 53.8% of the problem events. Missing codes were observed only during the transition phase while incorrect and inappropriate codes were used all over the 16-year period. The physicians created diagnoses that did not exist in ICPC. These 'new' diagnoses were used with varying frequency; many of them were used only once. Inappropriate ICPC-2 codes were also observed in the selected problem areas and for both phases. CONCLUSIONS: Our results strongly suggest that physicians did not adhere to the ICPC standard due to its incompleteness, i.e. lack of many clinically important diagnoses. This indicates that ICPC is inappropriate for the classification of problem events and the clinical practice in primary care.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;post to: &lt;a href = &quot;http://www.citeulike.org/posturl?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Fcmd%3DRetrieve%26db%3DPubMed%26dopt%3DAbstract%26list_uids%3D20181271&amp;title=Entrez+Pubmed&quot;&gt;CiteULike&lt;/a&gt;</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Assessing the accuracy of an inter-institutional automated patient-specific health problem list.</title>
      <link>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&amp;db=PubMed&amp;dopt=Abstract&amp;list_uids=20178586</link>
      <description>Publication Date: 2010 Feb 23 PMID: 20178586&lt;br/&gt;Authors: Poissant, L. - Taylor, L. - Huang, A. - Tamblyn, R.&lt;br/&gt;Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Health problem lists are a key component of electronic health records and are instrumental in the development of decision-support systems that encourage best practices and optimal patient safety. Most health problem lists require initial clinical information to be entered manually and few integrate information across care providers and institutions. This study assesses the accuracy of a novel approach to create an inter-institutional automated health problem list in a computerized medical record(MOXXI) that integrates three sources of information for an individual patient: diagnostic codes from medical services claims from all treating physicians, therapeutic indications from electronic prescriptions, and single-indication drugs. METHODS: Data for this study were obtained from 121 general practitioners and all medical services provided for 22,248 of their patients. At the opening of a patient's file, all health problems detected through medical service utilization or single-indication drug use were flagged to the physician in the MOXXI system. Each new arising health problem were presented as 'potential' and physicians were prompted to specify if the health problem was valid (Y) or not (N) or if they preferred to reassess its validity at a later time. RESULTS: A total of 263,527 health problems, representing 891 unique problems, were identified for the group of 22,248 patients. Medical services claims contributed to the majority of problems identified (77%), followed by therapeutic indications from electronic prescriptions (14%), and single-indication drugs (9%). Physicians actively chose to assess 41.7% (n=106,950) of health problems. Overall, 73% of the problems assessed were considered valid; 42% originated from medical service diagnostic codes, 11% from single indication drugs, and 47% from prescription indications. Twelve percent of problems identified through other treating physicians were considered valid compared to 28% identified through study physician claims CONCLUSION: Automation of an inter-institutional problem list added over half of all validated problems to the health problem list of which 12% were generated by conditions treated by other physicians. Automating the integration of existing information sources provides timely access to accurate and relevant health problem information. It may also accelerate the uptake and use of electronic medical record systems.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;post to: &lt;a href = &quot;http://www.citeulike.org/posturl?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Fentrez%2Fquery.fcgi%3Fcmd%3DRetrieve%26db%3DPubMed%26dopt%3DAbstract%26list_uids%3D20178586&amp;title=Entrez+Pubmed&quot;&gt;CiteULike&lt;/a&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
