Frequency of use and acceptability of clinical prediction rules for pulmonary embolism among Swiss general internal medicine residents.

Faller, N; Stalder, O; Limacher, A; Bassetti, S; Beer, J H; Genné, D; Battegay, E; Hayoz, D; Leuppi, J; Mueller, B; Perrier, A; Waeber, G; Rodondi, N; Aujesky, D (2017). Frequency of use and acceptability of clinical prediction rules for pulmonary embolism among Swiss general internal medicine residents. Thrombosis research, 160, pp. 9-13. Elsevier 10.1016/j.thromres.2017.09.028

[img] Text
Faller ThrombRes 2017.pdf - Published Version
Restricted to registered users only
Available under License Publisher holds Copyright.

Download (128kB) | Request a copy
[img]
Preview
Text
Faller ThrombRes 2017_accmanuscript.pdf - Accepted Version
Available under License Creative Commons: Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works (CC-BY-NC-ND).

Download (534kB) | Preview

INTRODUCTION Whether clinical prediction rules for pulmonary embolism are accepted and used among general internal medicine residents remains uncertain. We therefore evaluated the frequency of use and acceptability of the Revised Geneva Score (RGS) and the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI), and explored which factors were associated with rule use. MATERIALS/METHODS In an online survey among general internal medicine residents from 10 Swiss hospitals, we assessed rule acceptability using the Ottawa Acceptability of Decision Rules Instrument (OADRI) and explored the association between physician and training-related factors and rule use using mixed logistic regression models. RESULTS The response rate was 50.4% (433/859). Overall, 61% and 36% of the residents reported that they always or regularly use the RGS and the PESI, respectively. The mean overall OADRI score was 4.3 (scale 0-6) for the RGS and 4.1 for the PESI, indicating a good acceptability. Rule acceptability (odds ratio [OR] 6.19 per point, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.64-10.51), prior training in emergency medicine (OR 5.14, CI 2.20-12.01), and availability of internal guidelines recommending RGS use (OR 4.25, CI 2.15-8.43) were associated with RGS use. Rule acceptability (OR 6.43 per point, CI 4.17-9.92) and rule taught at medical school (OR 2.06, CI 1.24-3.43) were associated with PESI use. CONCLUSIONS The RGS was more frequently used than the PESI. Both rules were considered acceptable. Rule acceptability, prior training in emergency medicine, availability of internal guidelines, and rule taught at medical school were associated with rule use and represent potential targets for quality improvement interventions.

Item Type:

Journal Article (Original Article)

Division/Institute:

04 Faculty of Medicine > Medical Education > Institute of General Practice and Primary Care (BIHAM)
04 Faculty of Medicine > Pre-clinic Human Medicine > CTU Bern
04 Faculty of Medicine > Pre-clinic Human Medicine > Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine
04 Faculty of Medicine > Department of General Internal Medicine (DAIM) > Clinic of General Internal Medicine > Centre of Competence for General Internal Medicine

UniBE Contributor:

Stalder, Odile; Limacher, Andreas; Rodondi, Nicolas and Aujesky, Drahomir

Subjects:

600 Technology > 610 Medicine & health
300 Social sciences, sociology & anthropology > 360 Social problems & social services

ISSN:

0049-3848

Publisher:

Elsevier

Language:

English

Submitter:

Tanya Karrer

Date Deposited:

04 Jan 2018 10:39

Last Modified:

19 Oct 2018 02:30

Publisher DOI:

10.1016/j.thromres.2017.09.028

PubMed ID:

29080550

Uncontrolled Keywords:

Acceptability Clinical prediction rule Pulmonary embolism Rule use Survey

BORIS DOI:

10.7892/boris.106754

URI:

https://boris.unibe.ch/id/eprint/106754

Actions (login required)

Edit item Edit item
Provide Feedback