Table III. DS3 Tool Questionnaire Descriptives (N = 32).
| Subscale/Items | Overall M (SD) | Surgeons M (SD) | Non-Surgeons M (SD) | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A. General Attitudes toward DS3 Tool | ||||
| 1. The DS3 tool would be best embedded in the EMR (vs. stand-alone product). | 4.26 (0.57) | 4.21 (0.69) | 4.33 (0.48) | 0.64 |
| 2. The DS3 tool has the potential to improve quality and safety of surgical care. | 4.22 (0.60) | 4.21 (0.69) | 4.27 (0.59) | 0.82 |
| 3. The DS3 does NOT capture all risk factors for all procedures.1 | 4.13 (0.57) | 4.36 (0.49) | 4.00 (0.57) | 0.09 |
| 4. The DS3 tool would be easy to understand and use after receiving training. | 3.90 (0.47) | 3.79 (0.42) | 4.07 (0.45) | 0.09 |
| 5. Risk prediction from the DS3 will improve patient care. | 3.81 (0.83) | 3.71 (1.06) | 3.87 (0.64) | 0.64 |
| 6. The DS3 does NOT account for intra-operative events which may influence postoperative risk. 1 | 3.69 (0.66) | 3.71 (0.61) | 3.77 (0.72) | 0.83 |
| 7. Not all variables in the DS3 are available at the time of pre-op consultation (e.g., ASA).1 | 3.57 (1.04) | 3.43 (1.01) | 3.71 (1.13) | 0.49 |
| 8. The DS3 tool would be more effective than what we are currently using in my hospital. | 3.53 (0.80) | 3.43 (0.93) | 3.53 (0.64) | 0.72 |
| 9. The DS3 tool is applicable to my patient population. | 3.37 (0.89) | 3.14 (1.02) | 3.57 (0.75) | 0.22 |
| 10. The DS3 does NOT adequately assess interaction between risk factors and surgical procedure (i.e. high risk patient/low risk procedure vs. low risk patient/high risk procedure).1 | 3.17 (0.75) | 3.43 (0.75) | 3.00 (0.70) | 0.14 |
| 11. It takes too much time to enter data in the DS3 tool.1 | 3.16 (0.68) | 3.07 (0.47) | 3.27 (0.88) | 0.47 |
| 12. The DS3 can easily be incorporated into routine clinical care. | 3.10 (0.94) | 3.14 (0.86) | 2.93 (1.03) | 0.56 |
| 13. The DS3 tool requires too many resources.1 | 3.03 (0.71) | 3.00 (0.67) | 3.14 (0.77) | 0.60 |
| 14. The DS3 tool is too complex.1 | 2.90 (0.66) | 2.93 (0.61) | 2.86 (0.77) | 0.78 |
| 15. It will be difficult to identify who is responsible for entering data into the DS3 tool. 1 | 2.84 (0.77) | 2.93 (0.82) | 2.80 (0.77) | 0.66 |
| 16. Risk prediction from the DS3 is available in a timely fashion to allow for intervention. | 2.67 (0.88) | 2.71 (0.82) | 2.57 (0.93) | 0.67 |
| Average score on General Attitudes2 subscale | 3.01 (0.58) | 3.09 (0.31) | 3.04 (0.45) | 0.72 |
| B. Information Technology Aspects of DS3 Tool | ||||
| 1. The DS3 tool could be readily adapted for different electronic systems of care. | 3.88 (0.76) | 3.85 (0.55) | 3.91 (0.94) | 0.84 |
| 2. If clinic personnel wanted to use the DS3 tool, I would implement it in the care setting. | 3.81 (0.69) | 3.64 (0.74) | 4.00 (0.63) | 0.21 |
| 3. The DS3 tool would require a lot of updating and troubleshooting.1 | 3.29 (0.89) | 3.43 (0.75) | 3.25 (1.05) | 0.62 |
| 4. The DS3 tool could be easily implemented within my facility's electronic infrastructure. | 3.18 (1.05) | 2.86 (1.16) | 3.33 (0.77) | 0.24 |
| 5. The DS3 tool would make my job easier. | 3.15 (0.71) | 2.86 (0.66) | 3.42 (0.66) | 0.04* |
| 6. Integrating the DS3 tool into the care setting is NOT my responsibility.1 | 2.70 (0.95) | 2.93 (0.91) | 2.55 (0.93) | 0.31 |
| 7. The DS3 tool would take too much time to integrate into the system.1 | 2.68 (0.81) | 2.71 (0.46) | 2.75 (1.05) | 0.91 |
| Average score on Information Technology2 subscale | 3.22 (0.52) | 3.12 (0.32) | 3.30 (0.72) | 0.39 |
| C. Impact of DS3 Tool on Practitioners' Work | ||||
| 1. The DS3 tool will enhance discussions I have with patients regarding informed consent. | 4.00 (0.83) | 4.00 (0.78) | 4.00 (0.95) | 1.00 |
| 2. The DS3 tool will improve the quality of care I provide. | 3.36 (0.82) | 3.14 (0.94) | 3.58 (0.66) | 0.19 |
| 3. I would recommend the DS3 tool to my other colleagues at other hospitals. | 3.40 (0.57) | 2.36 (0.49) | 2.82 (0.60) | 0.86 |
| 4. I intend to adopt and use the DS3 tool once it becomes available. | 3.28 (0.54) | 3.36 (0.63) | 3.10 (0.31) | 0.25 |
| 5. The DS3 tool will enable me to accomplish tasks more quickly. | 2.70 (0.72) | 2.29 (0.46) | 3.08 (0.66) | 0.002** |
| 6. Decision-support tools interfere with my ability to provide high quality care.1 | 2.62 (0.63) | 3.64 (0.49) | 3.18 (0.60) | 0.04* |
| 7. The DS3 tool will NOT help me identify high-risk patients.1 | 2.50 (1.03) | 2.50 (0.85) | 2.36 (1.20) | 0.74 |
| Average score on Impact of DS3 Tool on Work2 subscale | 3.05 (0.95) | 3.32 (0.45) | 2.94 (1.10) | 0.24 |
| D. Impact of DS3 Tool on Clinical Care Setting | ||||
| 1. Reducing surgical complications is a high priority for my practice. | 4.58 (0.70) | 4.86 (0.36) | 4.36 (0.80) | 0.05* |
| 2. The DS3 tool will be a good education training tool for residents. | 4.11 (0.49) | 4.07 (0.47) | 4.15 (0.55) | 0.68 |
| 3. The DS3 tool will improve allocation of resources and appropriate level of care post-operatively (e.g., ICU, step down, overnight observation vs. outpatient). | 3.81 (0.68) | 3.79 (0.80) | 3.92 (0.51) | 0.63 |
| 4. The DS3 tool is compatible with existing beliefs and practices at my facility. | 3.69 (0.67) | 3.86 (0.53) | 3.50 (0.79) | 0.18 |
| 5. There would be high demand for the DS3 tool within the surgical clinics at my facility. | 3.04 (0.44) | 3.14 (0.53) | 2.91 (0.30) | 0.20 |
| 6. The DS3 tool will NOT improve coding and capture of co-morbidities in my clinic.1 | 2.54 (0.81) | 2.57 (0.85) | 2.50 (0.79) | 0.82 |
| Average score on Impact of DS3 Tool on Clinic2 subscale | 3.58 (0.69) | 3.85 (0.38) | 3.39 (0.80) | 0.06 |
Note. 1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree.
*
p≤0.05
**
p≤0.01
1
Items were reverse scored prior to creation of average score.
2
Higher score indicates more positive attitudes.