Background: Digital triage tools for sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing can potentially be used as a substitute for the triage that general practitioners (GPs) perform to lower their work... Show moreBackground: Digital triage tools for sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing can potentially be used as a substitute for the triage that general practitioners (GPs) perform to lower their work pressure. The studied tool is based on medical guidelines. The same guidelines support GPs' decision-making process. However, research has shown that GPs make decisions from a holistic perspective and, therefore, do not always adhere to those guidelines. To have a high-quality digital triage tool that results in an efficient care process, it is important to learn more about GPs' decision-making process. Objective: The first objective was to identify whether the advice of the studied digital triage tool aligned with GPs' daily medical practice. The second objective was to learn which factors influence GPs' decisions regarding referral for diagnostic testing. In addition, this study provides insights into GPs' decision-making process. Methods: A qualitative vignette-based study using semistructured interviews was conducted. In total, 6 vignettes representing patient cases were discussed with the participants (GPs). The participants needed to think aloud whether they would advise an STI test for the patient and why. A thematic analysis was conducted on the transcripts of the interviews. The vignette patient cases were also passed through the digital triage tool, resulting in advice to test or not for an STI. A comparison was made between the advice of the tool and that of the participants. Results: In total, 10 interviews were conducted. Participants (GPs) had a mean age of 48.30 (SD 11.88) years. For 3 vignettes, the advice of the digital triage tool and of all participants was the same. In those vignettes, the patients' risk factors were sufficiently clear for the participants to advise the same as the digital tool. For 3 vignettes, the advice of the digital tool differed from that of the participants. Patient-related factors that influenced the participants' decision-making process were the patient's anxiety, young age, and willingness to be tested. Participants would test at a lower threshold than the triage tool because of those factors. Sometimes, participants wanted more information than was provided in the vignette or would like to conduct a physical examination. These elements were not part of the digital triage tool. Conclusions: The advice to conduct a diagnostic STI test differed between a digital triage tool and GPs. The digital triage tool considered only medical guidelines, whereas GPs were open to discussion reasoning from a holistic perspective. The GPs' decision-making process was influenced by patients' anxiety, willingness to be tested, and age. On the basis of these results, we believe that the digital triage tool for STI testing could support GPs and even replace consultations in the future. Further research must substantiate how this can be done safely. Show less
Background: Digital health technologies (DHTs), such as electronic health records and prescribing systems, are transforming health care delivery around the world. The quality of information in DHTs... Show moreBackground: Digital health technologies (DHTs), such as electronic health records and prescribing systems, are transforming health care delivery around the world. The quality of information in DHTs is key to the quality and safety of care. We developed a novel clinical information quality (CLIQ) framework to assess the quality of clinical information in DHTs. Objective: This study explored clinicians' perspectives on the relevance, definition, and assessment of information quality dimensions in the CLIQ framework. Methods: We used a systematic and iterative eDelphi approach to engage clinicians who had information governance roles or personal interest in information governance; the clinicians were recruited through purposive and snowball sampling techniques. Data were collected using semistructured online questionnaires until consensus was reached on the information quality dimensions in the CLIQ framework. Responses on the relevance of the dimensions were summarized to inform decisions on retention of the dimensions according to prespecified rules. Thematic analysis of the free-text responses was used to revise definitions and the assessment of dimensions. Results: Thirty-five clinicians from 10 countries participated in the study, which was concluded after the second round. Consensus was reached on all dimensions and categories in the CLIQ framework: informativeness (accuracy, completeness, interpretability, plausibility, provenance, and relevance), availability (accessibility, portability, security, and timeliness), and usability (conformance, consistency, and maintainability). A new dimension, searchability, was introduced in the availability category to account for the ease of finding needed information in the DHTs. Certain dimensions were renamed, and some definitions were rephrased to improve clarity. Conclusions: The CLIQ framework reached a high expert consensus and clarity of language relating to the information quality dimensions. The framework can be used by health care managers and institutions as a pragmatic tool for identifying and forestalling information quality problems that could compromise patient safety and quality of care. Show less
Background: Digital health technologies (DHTs), such as electronic health records and prescribing systems, are transforming health care delivery around the world. The quality of information in DHTs... Show moreBackground: Digital health technologies (DHTs), such as electronic health records and prescribing systems, are transforming health care delivery around the world. The quality of information in DHTs is key to the quality and safety of care. We developed a novel clinical information quality (CLIQ) framework to assess the quality of clinical information in DHTs.Objective: This study explored clinicians’ perspectives on the relevance, definition, and assessment of information quality dimensions in the CLIQ framework.Methods: We used a systematic and iterative eDelphi approach to engage clinicians who had information governance roles or personal interest in information governance; the clinicians were recruited through purposive and snowball sampling techniques. Data were collected using semistructured online questionnaires until consensus was reached on the information quality dimensions in the CLIQ framework. Responses on the relevance of the dimensions were summarized to inform decisions on retention of the dimensions according to prespecified rules. Thematic analysis of the free-text responses was used to revise definitions and the assessment of dimensions.Results: Thirty-five clinicians from 10 countries participated in the study, which was concluded after the second round. Consensus was reached on all dimensions and categories in the CLIQ framework: informativeness (accuracy, completeness, interpretability, plausibility, provenance, and relevance), availability (accessibility, portability, security, and timeliness), and usability (conformance, consistency, and maintainability). A new dimension, searchability, was introduced in the availability category to account for the ease of finding needed information in the DHTs. Certain dimensions were renamed, and some definitions were rephrased to improve clarity.Conclusions: The CLIQ framework reached a high expert consensus and clarity of language relating to the information quality dimensions. The framework can be used by health care managers and institutions as a pragmatic tool for identifying and forestalling information quality problems that could compromise patient safety and quality of care. Show less
Background: Digital health technologies (DHTs), such as electronic health records and prescribing systems, are transforming health care delivery around the world. The quality of information in DHTs... Show moreBackground: Digital health technologies (DHTs), such as electronic health records and prescribing systems, are transforming health care delivery around the world. The quality of information in DHTs is key to the quality and safety of care. We developed a novel clinical information quality (CLIQ) framework to assess the quality of clinical information in DHTs.Objective: This study explored clinicians’ perspectives on the relevance, definition, and assessment of information quality dimensions in the CLIQ framework.Methods: We used a systematic and iterative eDelphi approach to engage clinicians who had information governance roles or personal interest in information governance; the clinicians were recruited through purposive and snowball sampling techniques. Data were collected using semistructured online questionnaires until consensus was reached on the information quality dimensions in the CLIQ framework. Responses on the relevance of the dimensions were summarized to inform decisions on retention of the dimensions according to prespecified rules. Thematic analysis of the free-text responses was used to revise definitions and the assessment of dimensions.Results: Thirty-five clinicians from 10 countries participated in the study, which was concluded after the second round. Consensus was reached on all dimensions and categories in the CLIQ framework: informativeness (accuracy, completeness, interpretability, plausibility, provenance, and relevance), availability (accessibility, portability, security, and timeliness), and usability (conformance, consistency, and maintainability). A new dimension, searchability, was introduced in the availability category to account for the ease of finding needed information in the DHTs. Certain dimensions were renamed, and some definitions were rephrased to improve clarity.Conclusions: The CLIQ framework reached a high expert consensus and clarity of language relating to the information quality dimensions. The framework can be used by health care managers and institutions as a pragmatic tool for identifying and forestalling information quality problems that could compromise patient safety and quality of care. Show less
Background: Digital health technologies (DHTs), such as electronic health records and prescribing systems, are transforming health care delivery around the world. The quality of information in DHTs... Show moreBackground: Digital health technologies (DHTs), such as electronic health records and prescribing systems, are transforming health care delivery around the world. The quality of information in DHTs is key to the quality and safety of care. We developed a novel clinical information quality (CLIQ) framework to assess the quality of clinical information in DHTs.Objective: This study explored clinicians’ perspectives on the relevance, definition, and assessment of information quality dimensions in the CLIQ framework.Methods: We used a systematic and iterative eDelphi approach to engage clinicians who had information governance roles or personal interest in information governance; the clinicians were recruited through purposive and snowball sampling techniques. Data were collected using semistructured online questionnaires until consensus was reached on the information quality dimensions in the CLIQ framework. Responses on the relevance of the dimensions were summarized to inform decisions on retention of the dimensions according to prespecified rules. Thematic analysis of the free-text responses was used to revise definitions and the assessment of dimensions.Results: Thirty-five clinicians from 10 countries participated in the study, which was concluded after the second round. Consensus was reached on all dimensions and categories in the CLIQ framework: informativeness (accuracy, completeness, interpretability, plausibility, provenance, and relevance), availability (accessibility, portability, security, and timeliness), and usability (conformance, consistency, and maintainability). A new dimension, searchability, was introduced in the availability category to account for the ease of finding needed information in the DHTs. Certain dimensions were renamed, and some definitions were rephrased to improve clarity.Conclusions: The CLIQ framework reached a high expert consensus and clarity of language relating to the information quality dimensions. The framework can be used by health care managers and institutions as a pragmatic tool for identifying and forestalling information quality problems that could compromise patient safety and quality of care. Show less
Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, several home monitoring programs have described the success of reducing hospital admissions, but only a few studies have investigated the experiences of... Show moreBackground: During the COVID-19 pandemic, several home monitoring programs have described the success of reducing hospital admissions, but only a few studies have investigated the experiences of patients and health care professionals.Objective: The objective of our study was to determine patients' and health care professionals' experiences and satisfaction with employing the COVID-box.Methods: In this single-center, retrospective, observational study, patients and health care professionals were asked to anonymously fill out multiple-choice questionnaires with questions on a 5-point or 10-point Likert scale. The themes addressed by patients were the sense of reassurance and safety, experiences with teleconsultations, their appreciation for staying at home, and the instructions for using the COVID-box. The themes addressed by health care professionals who treated patients with the COVID-box were the characteristics of the COVID-box, the technical support service and general satisfaction, and their expectations and support for this telemonitoring concept. Scores were interpreted as insufficient (<= 2 or <= 5, respectively), sufficient (3 or 6-7, respectively), or good (>= 4 or >= 8, respectively) on a 5-point or 10-point Likert scale.Results: A total of 117 patients and 25 health care professionals filled out the questionnaires. The median score was 4 (IQR 4-5) for the sense of safety, the appreciation for staying at home, and experiences with teleconsultations, with good scores from 76.5% (88/115), 86% (56/65), and 83.6% (92/110) of the patients, respectively. Further, 74.4% (87/117) of the patients scored the home monitoring program with a score of >= 8. Health care professionals scored the COVID-box with a minimum median score of 7 (IQR 7-10) on a 10-point scale for all domains (ie, the characteristics of the COVID-box and the technical support service and general satisfaction). For the sense of safety, user-friendliness, and additional value of the COVID-box, the median scores were 8 (IQR 8-10), 8 (IQR 7-9), and 10 (IQR 8-10), respectively, with good scores from 86% (19/22), 75% (15/20), and 96% (24/25) of the health care professionals, respectively. All health care professionals (25/25, 100%) gave a score of >= 8 for supporting this home monitoring concept, with a median score of 10 (IQR 10-10).Conclusions: The positive experiences and satisfaction of involved users are key factors for the successful implementation of a novel eHealth solution. In our study, patients, as well as health care professionals, were highly satisfied with the use of the home monitoring program-the COVID-box project. Remote home monitoring may be an effective approach in cases of increased demand for hospital care and high pressure on health care systems. Show less
Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, several home monitoring programs have described the success of reducing hospital admissions, but only a few studies have investigated the experiences of... Show moreBackground: During the COVID-19 pandemic, several home monitoring programs have described the success of reducing hospital admissions, but only a few studies have investigated the experiences of patients and health care professionals.Objective: The objective of our study was to determine patients’ and health care professionals’ experiences and satisfaction with employing the COVID-box.Methods: In this single-center, retrospective, observational study, patients and health care professionals were asked to anonymously fill out multiple-choice questionnaires with questions on a 5-point or 10-point Likert scale. The themes addressed by patients were the sense of reassurance and safety, experiences with teleconsultations, their appreciation for staying at home, and the instructions for using the COVID-box. The themes addressed by health care professionals who treated patients with the COVID-box were the characteristics of the COVID-box, the technical support service and general satisfaction, and their expectations and support for this telemonitoring concept. Scores were interpreted as insufficient (≤2 or ≤5, respectively), sufficient (3 or 6-7, respectively), or good (≥4 or ≥8, respectively) on a 5-point or 10-point Likert scale.Results: A total of 117 patients and 25 health care professionals filled out the questionnaires. The median score was 4 (IQR 4-5) for the sense of safety, the appreciation for staying at home, and experiences with teleconsultations, with good scores from 76.5% (88/115), 86% (56/65), and 83.6% (92/110) of the patients, respectively. Further, 74.4% (87/117) of the patients scored the home monitoring program with a score of ≥8. Health care professionals scored the COVID-box with a minimum median score of 7 (IQR 7-10) on a 10-point scale for all domains (ie, the characteristics of the COVID-box and the technical support service and general satisfaction). For the sense of safety, user-friendliness, and additional value of the COVID-box, the median scores were 8 (IQR 8-10), 8 (IQR 7-9), and 10 (IQR 8-10), respectively, with good scores from 86% (19/22), 75% (15/20), and 96% (24/25) of the health care professionals, respectively. All health care professionals (25/25, 100%) gave a score of ≥8 for supporting this home monitoring concept, with a median score of 10 (IQR 10-10).Conclusions: The positive experiences and satisfaction of involved users are key factors for the successful implementation of a novel eHealth solution. In our study, patients, as well as health care professionals, were highly satisfied with the use of the home monitoring program—the COVID-box project. Remote home monitoring may be an effective approach in cases of increased demand for hospital care and high pressure on health care systems. Show less
Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, several home monitoring programs have described the success of reducing hospital admissions, but only a few studies have investigated the experiences of... Show moreBackground: During the COVID-19 pandemic, several home monitoring programs have described the success of reducing hospital admissions, but only a few studies have investigated the experiences of patients and health care professionals.Objective: The objective of our study was to determine patients’ and health care professionals’ experiences and satisfaction with employing the COVID-box.Methods: In this single-center, retrospective, observational study, patients and health care professionals were asked to anonymously fill out multiple-choice questionnaires with questions on a 5-point or 10-point Likert scale. The themes addressed by patients were the sense of reassurance and safety, experiences with teleconsultations, their appreciation for staying at home, and the instructions for using the COVID-box. The themes addressed by health care professionals who treated patients with the COVID-box were the characteristics of the COVID-box, the technical support service and general satisfaction, and their expectations and support for this telemonitoring concept. Scores were interpreted as insufficient (≤2 or ≤5, respectively), sufficient (3 or 6-7, respectively), or good (≥4 or ≥8, respectively) on a 5-point or 10-point Likert scale.Results: A total of 117 patients and 25 health care professionals filled out the questionnaires. The median score was 4 (IQR 4-5) for the sense of safety, the appreciation for staying at home, and experiences with teleconsultations, with good scores from 76.5% (88/115), 86% (56/65), and 83.6% (92/110) of the patients, respectively. Further, 74.4% (87/117) of the patients scored the home monitoring program with a score of ≥8. Health care professionals scored the COVID-box with a minimum median score of 7 (IQR 7-10) on a 10-point scale for all domains (ie, the characteristics of the COVID-box and the technical support service and general satisfaction). For the sense of safety, user-friendliness, and additional value of the COVID-box, the median scores were 8 (IQR 8-10), 8 (IQR 7-9), and 10 (IQR 8-10), respectively, with good scores from 86% (19/22), 75% (15/20), and 96% (24/25) of the health care professionals, respectively. All health care professionals (25/25, 100%) gave a score of ≥8 for supporting this home monitoring concept, with a median score of 10 (IQR 10-10).Conclusions: The positive experiences and satisfaction of involved users are key factors for the successful implementation of a novel eHealth solution. In our study, patients, as well as health care professionals, were highly satisfied with the use of the home monitoring program—the COVID-box project. Remote home monitoring may be an effective approach in cases of increased demand for hospital care and high pressure on health care systems. Show less
