Clinician views on how clinical decision support systems can help diagnose asthma in primary care: a qualitative study

Abstract

Objective

Asthma can be difficult to diagnose in primary care. Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) can assist clinicians when making diagnostic decisions, but the perspectives of intended users need to be incorporated into the software if the CDSS is to be clinically useful. Therefore, we aimed to understand health professional views on the value of an asthma diagnosis CDSS and the barriers and facilitators for use in UK primary care.

Methods

We recruited doctors and nurses working in UK primary care who had experience of assessing respiratory symptoms and diagnosing asthma. Qualitative interviews were used to explore clinicians’ experiences of making a diagnosis of asthma and understand views on a CDSS to support asthma diagnosis. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed thematically.

Results

16 clinicians (nine doctors, seven nurses) including 13 participants with over 10 years experience, contributed interviews. Participants saw the potential for a CDSS to support asthma diagnosis in primary care by structuring consultations, identifying relevant information from health records, and having visuals to communicate findings to patients. Being evidence based, regularly updated, integrated with software, quick and easy to use were considered important for a CDSS to be successfully implemented. Experienced clinicians were unsure a CDSS would help their routine practice, particularly in straightforward diagnostic scenarios, but thought a CDSS would be useful for trainees or less experienced colleagues.

Conclusions

To be adopted into clinical practice, clinicians were clear that a CDSS must be validated, integrated with existing software, and quick and easy to use.

Keywords:

• Asthma
• diagnosis
• primary care
• clinical decision support systems
• qualitative study

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge Victoria Carter, Francis Appiagyei, Derek Skinner, Megan Preston, Mark Buchner, Lesley Nelson and Matthew Murray for their support through the study and valuable contribution to the publication.

Disclosure statement

DP has advisory board membership with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Viatris, Teva Pharmaceuticals; consultancy agreements with AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Viatris, Teva Pharmaceuticals; grants and unrestricted funding for investigator-initiated studies (conducted through Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd) from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Viatris, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi Genzyme, and UK National Health Service; payment for lectures/speaking engagements from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, GlaxoSmithKline, Viatris, Novartis, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals and Sanofi Genzyme, Teva Pharmaceuticals; payment for travel/accommodation/meeting expenses from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, Teva Pharmaceuticals; stock/stock options from AKL Research and Development Ltd which produces phytopharmaceuticals; owns 74% of the social enterprise Optimum Patient Care Ltd (Australia and UK) and 92.61% of Observational and Pragmatic Research Institute Pte Ltd (Singapore); 5% shareholding in Timestamp which develops adherence monitoring technology; is peer reviewer for grant committees of the UK Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme, and Health Technology Assessment; and was an expert witness for GlaxoSmithKline. LD, ED, AC, VM, LC, CS, AB, BM, HM, AS and HP report there are no competing interests to declare.

Data availability statement

Anonymised qualitative data generated during the study may be available on application to the corresponding author.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Asthma & Lung UK under Grant AUK-PG-2018-404 and Chief Scientist Office under Grant CAF/17/01.