METHODS: A scoping review was carried out using the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework. The search strategy was developed iteratively, with three main aspects: general practice/primary care contexts, risk assessment/decision support tools, and workload-related factors. Three databases were searched in 2019, and updated in 2021, covering articles published since 2009: Medline (Ovid), HMIC (Ovid) and Web of Science (TR). Double screening was completed by two reviewers, and data extracted from included articles were analysed.
RESULTS: The search resulted in 5,594 references, leading to 95 full articles, referring to 87 studies, after screening. Of these, 36 studies were based in the USA, 21 in the UK and 11 in Australia. A further 18 originated from Canada or Europe, with the remaining studies conducted in New Zealand, South Africa and Malaysia. Studies examined the use of eCDS tools and reported some findings related to their impact on workload, including on consultation duration. Most studies were qualitative and exploratory in nature, reporting health professionals' subjective perceptions of consultation duration as opposed to objectively-measured time spent using tools or consultation durations. Other workload-related findings included impacts on cognitive workload, "workflow" and dialogue with patients, and clinicians' experience of "alert fatigue".
CONCLUSIONS: The published literature on the impact of eCDS tools in general practice showed that limited efforts have focused on investigating the impact of such tools on workload and workflow. To gain an understanding of this area, further research, including quantitative measurement of consultation durations, would be useful to inform the future design and implementation of eCDS tools.
Objectives: We explored the perceptions and practices related to the use of radioprotective garments among medical radiation workers in public hospitals, and sought to understand the reasons for non-adherence.
Design and setting: A qualitative approach was applied by conducting face-to-face in-depth interviews with 18 medical radiation workers from three university hospitals using a semi-structured interview guide.
Results: Five themes emerged with respect to perceptions on the use of radioprotective garments: (i) the dilemmas in practising radiation protection, (ii) indication of workers' credibility, (iii) physical appearance of radioprotective garments, (iv) practicality of radioprotective garment use, and (v) impact on workflow. Actual lack of radioprotective garment use was attributed to inadequate number of thyroid shield and other garments, radioprotective garments' unsightly appearance including being dirty and defective, impracticality of using radioprotective garments for some nuclear medicine procedures, disruption of workflow because of workers' limited movements, attitudes of workers, and organisational influences.
Conclusion: Medical radiation workers demonstrated a definitive practice of using radioprotective aprons, but often neglected to use thyroid shields and other garments. Availability and hygiene are reported as the core issues, while unclear guidelines on practical use of radioprotective garments appear to lead to confusion among medical radiation workers. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first qualitative study of its kind from a middle-income Asian setting.