Mitchell A. Medow

Patients Derogate Physicians Who Use a Computer-Assisted Diagnostic Aid

Objective . To ascertain whether a physician who uses a computer-assisted diagnostic support system (DSS) would be rated less capable than a physician who does not. Method . Students assumed the role of a patient with a possible ankle fracture (experiment 1) or a possible deep vein thrombosis (experiment 2). They read a scenario that described an interaction with a physician who used no DSS, one who used an unspecified DSS, or one who used a DSS developed at a prestigious medical center. Participants were then asked to rate the interaction on 5 criteria, the most important of which was the diagnostic ability of the physician. In experiment 3, 74 patients in the waiting room of a clinic were randomly assigned to the same 3 types of groups as used in experiment 1. In experiment 4, 131 3rd- and 4th-year medical students read a scenario of a physician-patient interaction and were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 groups: the physician used no DSS, heeded the recommendation of a DSS, defied a recommendation of a DSS by treating in a less aggressive manner, or defied a recommendation of a DSS by treating in a more aggressive manner . Results . The participants always deemed the physician who used no decision aid to have the highest diagnostic ability. Conclusion . Patients may surmise that a physician who uses a DSS is not as capable as a physician who makes the diagnosis with no assistance from a DSS. Key words: decision support techniques; diagnosis computer assisted; patient satisfaction. (Med Decis Making 2007; 27: 189—202)

Why Do Patients Derogate Physicians Who Use a Computer-Based Diagnostic Support System?

Objective. To better understand 1) why patients have a negative perception of the use of computerized clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) and 2) what contributes to the documented heterogeneity in the evaluations of physicians who use a CDSS. Methods. Three vignette-based studies examined whether negative perceptions stemmed directly from the use of a computerized decision aid or the need to seek external advice more broadly (experiment 1) and investigated the contributing role of 2 individual difference measures, attitudes toward statistics (ATS; experiment 2) and the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scale (MHLC; experiment 3), to these findings. Results. A physician described as making an unaided diagnosis was rated significantly more positively on a number of attributes than a physician using a computerized decision aid but not a physician who sought the advice of an expert colleague (experiment 1). ATS were unrelated to perceptions of decision aid use (experiment 2); however, greater internal locus of control was associated with more positive feelings about unaided care and more negative feelings about care when a decision aid was used (experiment 3). Conclusion. Negative perceptions of computerized decision aid use may not be a product of the need to seek external advice more generally but may instead be specific to the use of a nonhuman tool and may be associated with individual differences in locus of control. Together, these 3 studies may be used to guide education efforts for patients.

Effect of Written and Computerized Decision Support Aids for the U.S. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research Depression Guidelines on the Evaluation of Hypothetical Clinical Scenarios

Objective. The objective of this study was to compare the effects of written and computerized decision support aids (DSAs) based on U.S. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research depression guidelines. Methods. Fifty-six internal medicine residents were randomized to evaluate clinical scenarios using either a written or a computerized DSA after first assessing scenarios without a DSA. The paired difference between aided and unaided scores was determined for diagnostic accuracy, treatment selection, severity and subtype classification, antipsychotic use, and mental health consultations. Results. Diagnostic accuracy with the written DSA increased from 64% to 73%, and with the computerized DSA decreased from 67% to 64% (P = 0.0065). Residents using the computerized DSA (vs. no DSA) requested fewer consultations (65% vs. 52%, P = 0.028). In post hoc analysis, the written DSA increased sensitivity (66% to 89%, P < 0.001) and the computerized DSA improved specificity (66% to 86%, P = 0.0020) but reduced sensitivity (67% to 49%, P = 0.011). Conclusions. A written DSA improved diagnostic accuracy, whereas a computerized DSA did not. However, the computerized DSA improved specificity and reduced mental health consultations.

Are Residents’ Decisions Influenced More by a Decision Aid or a Specialist’s Opinion? A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUNDPhysicians are reluctant to use decision aids despite their ability to improve care. A potential reason may be that physicians do not believe decision aid advice.OBJECTIVETo determine whether internal medicine residents lend more credence to contradictory decision aid or human advice.DESIGNRandomized controlled trial. Residents read a scenario of a patient with community-acquired pneumonia and were asked whether they would admit the patient to the intensive care unit or the floor. Residents were randomized to receive contrary advice from either a referenced decision aid or an anonymous pulmonologist. They were then asked, in light of this new information, where they would admit the patient.PARTICIPANTSOne hundred eight internal medicine residents.MEASUREMENTSThe percentage of residents who changed their admission location and the change in confidence in the decision.MAIN RESULTSResidents were more likely to change their original admission location (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.04 to 5.1, P = 0.04) and to reduce their confidence in the decision (adjusted difference between means −12.9%, 95% CI −3.0% to −22.8%, P = 0.011) in response to the referenced decision aid than to the anonymous pulmonologist. Confidence in their decision was more likely to change if they initially chose to admit the patient to the floor.CONCLUSIONSIn a hypothetical case of community-acquired pneumonia, physicians were influenced more by contrary advice from a referenced decision aid than an anonymous specialist. Whether this holds for advice from a respected specialist or in actual practice remains to be studied.

Severe constipation associated with extended-release bupropion therapy

PURPOSE A case of bupropion-induced constipation is reported. SUMMARY A 38-year-old man went to a clinic with a chief complaint of depression. He was prescribed extended-release bupropion 150 mg orally daily. Three weeks later, the patient returned to the clinic for a follow-up visit regarding his depression. He reported that his depression symptoms improved, but he complained of constipation and inflamed hemorrhoids from straining with defecation. He used docusate sodium, fiber supplements, and Preparation H(Wyeth) products with some relief. The bupropion was continued for his depression. Recommendations were given to the patient to increase fluids, maintain fiber intake, and add exercise. One week later, the patient complained of rectal pain and minimal bleeding. Prescriptions were given to the patient for hydrocortisone suppositories and 2.5% cream to be used twice daily. Three days later, the patient returned to the clinic complaining of increased pain and no relief from the hydrocortisone suppositories and cream. The rectal examination showed 3- and 5-cm hemorrhoids, one of which was thrombotic. The patient was instructed to continue hydrocortisone products, increase fluids, and continue docusate. Hemorrhoidectomy surgery was eventually performed, as well as a fissurectomy. The patient discontinued bupropion on his own due to the constipation approximately one week before the surgery. The constipation resolved after discontinuation of bupropion. CONCLUSION Extended-release bupropion was the probable cause of severe constipation in a man with multiple medical problems.