title: How do medical doctors use a web-based oncology protocol system? A comparison of Australian doctors at different levels of medical training using logfile analysis and an online survey.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Electronic decision support is commonplace in medical practice. However, its adoption at the point-of-care is dependent on a range of organisational, patient and clinician-related factors. In particular, level of clinical experience is an important driver of electronic decision support uptake. Our objective was to examine the way in which Australian doctors at different stages of medical training use a web-based oncology system (http://www.eviq.org.au).
  
  
  METHODS
  We used logfiles to examine the characteristics of eviQ registrants (2009-2012) and patterns of eviQ use in 2012, according to level of medical training. We also used a web-based survey to evaluate the way doctors at different levels of medical training use the online system and to elicit perceptions of the system's utility in oncology care.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Our study cohort comprised 2,549 eviQ registrants who were hospital-based medical doctors across all levels of training. 65% of the cohort used eviQ in 2012, with 25% of interns/residents, 61% of advanced oncology trainees and 47% of speciality-qualified oncologists accessing eviQ in the last 3 months of 2012. The cohort accounted for 445,492 webhits in 2012. On average, advanced trainees used eviQ up to five-times more than other doctors (42.6 webhits/month compared to 22.8 for specialty-qualified doctors and 7.4 webhits/month for interns/residents). Of the 52 survey respondents, 89% accessed eviQ's chemotherapy protocols on a daily or weekly basis in the month prior to the survey. 79% of respondents used eviQ at least weekly to initiate therapy and to support monitoring (29%), altering (35%) or ceasing therapy (19%). Consistent with the logfile analysis, advanced oncology trainees report more frequent eviQ use than doctors at other stages of medical training.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The majority of the Australian oncology workforce are registered on eviQ. The frequency of use directly mirrors the clinical role of doctors and attitudes about the utility of eviQ in decision-making. Evaluations of this kind generate important data for system developers and medical educators to drive improvements in electronic decision support to better meet the needs of clinicians. This end-user focus will optimise the uptake of systems which will translate into improvements in processes of care and patient outcomes.
authors.forename: Julia M
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: Langton
authors.forename: Bianca
authors.initials: B
authors.lastname: Blanch
authors.forename: Nicole
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Pesa
authors.forename: Jae Min
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: Park
authors.forename: Sallie-Anne
authors.initials: SA
authors.lastname: Pearson
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D024221:Antineoplastic Protocols / Q000592:standards*; D001315:Australia; D020000:Decision Support Systems, Clinical / Q000592:standards*; D006801:Humans; D020407:Internet; D008495:Medical Oncology / Q000193:education / Q000592:standards*; D010820:Physicians / Q000592:standards*
references.citation: BMC Health Serv Res. 2009 Aug 28;9:154
references.pmid: 19715591
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2012 Jan 5;366(1):1-7
references.pmid: 22216839
references.citation: J Cancer Educ. 2010 Jun;25(2):196-205
references.pmid: 20440666
references.citation: Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2011 Dec;7(4):357-63
references.pmid: 22151985
references.citation: BMC Cancer. 2013 Mar 12;13:112
references.pmid: 23497080
references.citation: J Clin Oncol. 2012 Apr 10;30(11):1235-41
references.pmid: 22412138
references.citation: J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005 May-Jun;12(3):315-21
references.pmid: 15684126
references.citation: Cancer. 2005 Dec 1;104(11):2477-83
references.pmid: 16245353
references.citation: J Oncol Pract. 2007 Mar;3(2):79-86
references.pmid: 20859376
references.citation: J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007 Apr 18;99(8):579-80
references.pmid: 17440151
references.citation: Br J Cancer. 2011 Oct 11;105(8):1166-72
references.pmid: 21934686
references.citation: J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2010 Jan-Feb;17(1):25-33
references.pmid: 20064798
references.citation: Med Decis Making. 2005 Mar-Apr;25(2):178-85
references.pmid: 15800302
references.citation: JAMA. 2005 Mar 9;293(10):1223-38
references.pmid: 15755945
references.citation: BMJ. 2012 May 17;344:e3223
references.pmid: 22597353
references.citation: BMJ. 2005 Apr 2;330(7494):765
references.pmid: 15767266
references.citation: JAMA. 1998 Oct 21;280(15):1339-46
references.pmid: 9794315
references.citation: Intern Med J. 2005 Jul;35(7):399-404
references.pmid: 15958109
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 2012 Dec 27;367(26):2538-9
references.pmid: 23268669
references.citation: Med J Aust. 2012 Jan 16;196(1):58-61
references.pmid: 22256937
references.citation: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2009 Feb 11;9:11
references.pmid: 19210782
references.citation: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Jul 16;(3):CD002894
references.pmid: 18646085
references.citation: Cancer. 2009 Dec 1;115(23):5579-88
references.pmid: 19711462
references.citation: Intern Med J. 2012 Jan;42(1):57-64
references.pmid: 20546055