Appl Clin Inform 2020; 11(02): 350-355
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1710024
Research Article
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Clinician Perceptions of a Computerized Decision Support System for Pediatric Type 2 Diabetes Screening

Hala K. El Mikati
1  Department of Pediatrics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
2  Pediatric and Adolescent Comparative Effectiveness Research (PACER), Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
,
Lisa Yazel-Smith
1  Department of Pediatrics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
2  Pediatric and Adolescent Comparative Effectiveness Research (PACER), Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
,
Randall W. Grout
1  Department of Pediatrics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
3  Regenstrief Institute, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
,
Stephen M. Downs
1  Department of Pediatrics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
3  Regenstrief Institute, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
,
Aaron E. Carroll
1  Department of Pediatrics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
2  Pediatric and Adolescent Comparative Effectiveness Research (PACER), Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
3  Regenstrief Institute, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
,
Tamara S. Hannon
1  Department of Pediatrics, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
2  Pediatric and Adolescent Comparative Effectiveness Research (PACER), Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana, United States
› Author Affiliations
Funding This project was funded by the Indiana University School of Medicine. This study was also supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (grant R01DK092717). The funding sources had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis and interpretation, writing the manuscript, and decision to submit the article for publication.
Further Information

Publication History

18 February 2020

26 March 2020

Publication Date:
13 May 2020 (online)

Abstract

Objective With the increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in youth, primary care providers must identify patients at high risk and implement evidence-based screening promptly. Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) provide clinicians with personalized reminders according to best evidence. One example is the Child Health Improvement through Computer Automation (CHICA) system, which, as we have previously shown, significantly improves screening for T2D. Given that the long-term success of any CDSS depends on its acceptability and its users' perceptions, we examined what clinicians think of the CHICA diabetes module.

Methods CHICA users completed an annual quality improvement and satisfaction questionnaire. Between May and August of 2015 and 2016, the survey included two statements related to the T2D-module: (1) “CHICA improves my ability to identify patients who might benefit from screening for T2D” and (2) “CHICA makes it easier to get the lab tests necessary to identify patients who have diabetes or prediabetes.” Answers were scored using a 5-point Likert scale and were later converted to a 2-point scale: agree and disagree. The Pearson chi-square test was used to assess the relationship between responses and the respondents. Answers per cohort were compared using the Mann–Whitney U-test.

Results The majority of respondents (N = 60) agreed that CHICA improved their ability to identify patients who might benefit from screening but disagreed as to whether it helped them get the necessary laboratories. Scores were comparable across both years.

Conclusion CHICA was endorsed as being effective for T2D screening. Research is needed to improve satisfaction for getting laboratories with CHICA.

Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

The study was performed in compliance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki on Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. The Indiana University Institutional Review Board approved this study.


Supplementary Material