Response of General Practitioners to Computer-Generated Critiques of Hypertension Therapy

Abstract:

We recently have shown that a computer system, known as HyperCritic, can successfully audit general practitioners’ treatment of hypertension by analyzing computer-based patient records. HyperCritic reviews the electronic medical records and offers unsolicited advice. To determine which unsolicited advice might be perceived as inappropriate, builders of programs such as HyperCritic need insight into providers’ responses to computer-generated critique of their patient care. Twenty medical charts, describing in total 243 visits of patients with hypertension, were audited by 8 human reviewers and by the critiquing-system HyperCritic. A panel of 14 general practitioners subsequently judged the relevance of those critiques on a five-point scale ranging from relevant critique to erroneous or harmful critique. The panel judged reviewers’ comments to be either relevant or somewhat relevant in 61 to 68% of cases, and either erroneous or possibly erroneous in 15 to 18%; the panel judged HyperCritic’s comments to be either relevant or somewhat relevant in 65% of cases, and either erroneous or possibly erroneous in 16%. Comparison of individual members of the panel showed large differences; for example, the portion of HyperCritic’s comments judged relevant ranged from 0 to 82%. We conclude that, from the perspective of general practitioners, critiques generated by the critiquing system HyperCritic are perceived equally beneficial as critiques generated by human reviewers. Different general practitioners, however, judge the critiques differently. Before auditing systems based on computer-based patient records that are acceptable to practitioners can be introduced, additional studies are needed to evaluate the reasons a physician may have for judging critiques to be irrelevant, and to evaluate the effect of critiques on physician behavior.

Key-Words

Medical Audit - Attitude to Computers - Computer-Based Patient Records - Critiquing - Hypertension

• REFERENCES

• 1 Lomas J, Anderson GM, Domnick-Pierre K, Vayda ER, Enkin MW, Hannah W. Do practice guidelines guide practice? The effect of a consensus statement on the practice of physicians. N Engl J Med 1989; 321: 1311-5.
• 2 Lomas J. Words without action? The production, dissemination and impact of consensus recommendations. Ann Rev Publ Health 1991; 12: 41-65.
• 3 Soumarai SB, McLaughlin TJ, Avorn J. Improving drug prescribing in primary care: A critical analysis of the experimental literature. Millbank Quarterly 1989; 67: 268-317.
• 4 McDonald CJ, Tierney WM. Computer-stored medical records; Their future role in medical practice. JAMA 1988; 259: 3433-40.
• 5 Institute of Medicine, Committee on Improving the Patient Record. The Computer-Based Patient Record: An Essential Technology for Health Care. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 1991
• 6 Shortliffe EH, Tang PC. Patient records and computers. Ann Intern Med 1991; 115: 979-81.
• 7 McDonald CJ, Barnett GO. Medical-record systems. In: Shortliffe EH, Perreault LE. ed. Medical Informatics: Computer Applications in Health Care. Reading MA: Addi-son-Wesley; 1990: 181-218.
• 8 McDonald CJ, Hui SL, Smith DM. et al. Reminders to physicians from an introspective computer medical record. Ann Intern Med 1984; 700: 130-8.
• 9 Miller PL. Attending: Critiquing a physician’s management plan. IEEE Trans PAMI 1983; 05: 449-61.
• 10 Van der Lei J, Musen MA, Van der Does E, Man in ’t Veld AJ, Van Bemmel JH. Comparison of computer-aided and human review of general practitioners’ management of hypertension. Lancet 1991; 338: 1505-8.
• 11 Min Lau L, Warner HR. Performance of a diagnostic system (Iliad) as a tool for quality assurance. In: Clayton PD. ed. Proc 15th SCAMC Symposium. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1991: 1005-9.
• 12 Schmittling GT. Computer use by family physicians in the United States. J Fam Pract 1989; 29: 198-200.
• 13 Van der Lei J, Musen MA. A model for critiquing based on automated medical records. Comp Biomed Res 1991; 24: 344-78.
• 14 Westerhof HP, Boon MW, Cromme PVM, Van Bemmel JH. Elias: Support of the Dutch general practitioner. In: Reichertz PL, Engelbrecht R, Picollo U. ed. Present Status of Computer Support in Ambulatory Care. Berlin: Springer Verlag; 1987: 1-10. Lecture Notes in Medical Informatics
• 15 Branger PJ, Van der Wouden JC, Schudel BR. et al. Electronic data interchange between primary and secondary care providers. BMJ 1992; 305: 1068-70.
• 16 Royal College of General Practitioners. Classification of Diseases, Problems, and Procedures. London, England: Royal College of General Practitioners, Occasional paper; 26 1984.
• 17 Lamberts H, Wood M. ed. International Classification of Primary Care. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 1987
• 18 Shortliffe EH, Perreault LE. ed. Medical Informatics: Computer Applications in Health Care. Reading MA: Addison-Wes-ley; 1990
• 19 Schwartz W, Patil R, Szolovits P. Artificial intelligence in medicine: Where do we stand. N Engl J Med 1987; 316: 685-8.
• 20 Shortliffe EH. Testing reality: the introduction of decision-support technology for physicians. Meth Inform Med 1989; 28: 1-5.