The effects of a computerized clinical decision aid on clinical decision-making in psychosis care

Clinicians in mental healthcare have few objective tools to identify and analyze their patient's care needs. Clinical decision aids are tools that support this process. This study examines whether 1) clinicians working with a clinical decision aid (TREAT) discuss more of their patient's ca...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of psychiatric research 2022-12, Vol.156, p.532-537
Hauptverfasser: Roebroek, Lukas O., Bruins, Jojanneke, Boonstra, Albert, Veling, Wim, Jörg, Frederike, Sportel, B. Esther, Delespaul, Philippe A., Castelein, Stynke
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Clinicians in mental healthcare have few objective tools to identify and analyze their patient's care needs. Clinical decision aids are tools that support this process. This study examines whether 1) clinicians working with a clinical decision aid (TREAT) discuss more of their patient's care needs compared to usual treatment, and 2) agree on more evidence-based treatment decisions. Clinicians participated in consultations (n = 166) with patients diagnosed with psychotic disorders from four Dutch mental healthcare institutions (research registration number 201700763). Primary outcomes were measured with the modified Clinical Decision-making in Routine Care questionnaire and combined with psychiatric, physical and social wellbeing related care needs. A multilevel analysis compared discussed care needs and evidence-based treatment decisions between treatment as usual (TAU) before, TAU after and the TREAT condition. First, a significant increase in discussed care needs for TREAT compared to both TAU conditions (β = 20.2, SE = 5.2, p = 0.00 and β = 15.8, SE = 5.4, p = 0.01) was found. Next, a significant increase in evidence-based treatments decisions for care needs was observed for TREAT compared to both TAU conditions (β = 16.7, SE = 4.8, p = 0.00 and β = 16.0, SE = 5.1, p = 0.01). TREAT improved the discussion about physical health issues and social wellbeing related topics. It also increased evidence-based treatment decisions for care needs which are sometimes overlooked and difficult to treat. Our findings suggest that TREAT makes sense of routine outcome monitoring data and improves guideline-informed care.
ISSN:0022-3956
1879-1379
DOI:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2022.10.053