Acceptability and Feasibility of an Evidence-Based Requisition for Bone Mineral Density Testing in Clinical Practice

Introduction. The purpose of this study is to understand the experience of primary care providers (PCPs) using an evidence-based requisition for bone mineral density (BMD) testing. Methods. A qualitative descriptive approach was adopted. Participants were given 3 BMD Recommended Use Requisitions (RU...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Sarah E. P. Munce, Debra A. Butt, Rokeni (Sumi) Anantharajah, Susana Huang, Sonya Allin, Tarik Bereket, Susan B. Jaglal
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2016-01-01
Series:Journal of Osteoporosis
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/6967232
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849395551885328384
author Sarah E. P. Munce
Debra A. Butt
Rokeni (Sumi) Anantharajah
Susana Huang
Sonya Allin
Tarik Bereket
Susan B. Jaglal
author_facet Sarah E. P. Munce
Debra A. Butt
Rokeni (Sumi) Anantharajah
Susana Huang
Sonya Allin
Tarik Bereket
Susan B. Jaglal
author_sort Sarah E. P. Munce
collection DOAJ
description Introduction. The purpose of this study is to understand the experience of primary care providers (PCPs) using an evidence-based requisition for bone mineral density (BMD) testing. Methods. A qualitative descriptive approach was adopted. Participants were given 3 BMD Recommended Use Requisitions (RUR) to use over a 2-month period. Twenty-six PCPs were interviewed before using the RUR. Those who had received at least one BMD report resulting from RUR use were then interviewed again. An inductive thematic analysis was performed. Results. We identified four themes in interview data: (1) positive and negative characteristics of the RUR, (2) facilitators and barriers for implementation, (3) impact of the RUR, and (4) requisition preference. Positive characteristics of the RUR related to both its content and format. Negative characteristics related to the increased amount of time needed to complete the form. Facilitators to implementation included electronic availability and organizational endorsement. Time constraints were identified as a barrier to implementation. Participants perceived that the RUR would promote appropriate referrals and the majority of participants preferred the RUR to their current requisition. Conclusions. Findings from this study provide support for the RUR as an acceptable point-of-care tool for PCPs to promote appropriate BMD testing.
format Article
id doaj-art-aa73ca784a034f028dffdf70ba86e630
institution Kabale University
issn 2090-8059
2042-0064
language English
publishDate 2016-01-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Journal of Osteoporosis
spelling doaj-art-aa73ca784a034f028dffdf70ba86e6302025-08-20T03:39:35ZengWileyJournal of Osteoporosis2090-80592042-00642016-01-01201610.1155/2016/69672326967232Acceptability and Feasibility of an Evidence-Based Requisition for Bone Mineral Density Testing in Clinical PracticeSarah E. P. Munce0Debra A. Butt1Rokeni (Sumi) Anantharajah2Susana Huang3Sonya Allin4Tarik Bereket5Susan B. Jaglal6Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, CanadaDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Research Department, Toronto, ON, CanadaFamily and Community Medicine, The Scarborough Hospital, Scarborough, ON, CanadaFamily and Community Medicine, The Scarborough Hospital, Scarborough, ON, CanadaDepartment of Physical Therapy, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, CanadaDepartment of Physical Therapy, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, CanadaToronto Rehabilitation Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, CanadaIntroduction. The purpose of this study is to understand the experience of primary care providers (PCPs) using an evidence-based requisition for bone mineral density (BMD) testing. Methods. A qualitative descriptive approach was adopted. Participants were given 3 BMD Recommended Use Requisitions (RUR) to use over a 2-month period. Twenty-six PCPs were interviewed before using the RUR. Those who had received at least one BMD report resulting from RUR use were then interviewed again. An inductive thematic analysis was performed. Results. We identified four themes in interview data: (1) positive and negative characteristics of the RUR, (2) facilitators and barriers for implementation, (3) impact of the RUR, and (4) requisition preference. Positive characteristics of the RUR related to both its content and format. Negative characteristics related to the increased amount of time needed to complete the form. Facilitators to implementation included electronic availability and organizational endorsement. Time constraints were identified as a barrier to implementation. Participants perceived that the RUR would promote appropriate referrals and the majority of participants preferred the RUR to their current requisition. Conclusions. Findings from this study provide support for the RUR as an acceptable point-of-care tool for PCPs to promote appropriate BMD testing.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/6967232
spellingShingle Sarah E. P. Munce
Debra A. Butt
Rokeni (Sumi) Anantharajah
Susana Huang
Sonya Allin
Tarik Bereket
Susan B. Jaglal
Acceptability and Feasibility of an Evidence-Based Requisition for Bone Mineral Density Testing in Clinical Practice
Journal of Osteoporosis
title Acceptability and Feasibility of an Evidence-Based Requisition for Bone Mineral Density Testing in Clinical Practice
title_full Acceptability and Feasibility of an Evidence-Based Requisition for Bone Mineral Density Testing in Clinical Practice
title_fullStr Acceptability and Feasibility of an Evidence-Based Requisition for Bone Mineral Density Testing in Clinical Practice
title_full_unstemmed Acceptability and Feasibility of an Evidence-Based Requisition for Bone Mineral Density Testing in Clinical Practice
title_short Acceptability and Feasibility of an Evidence-Based Requisition for Bone Mineral Density Testing in Clinical Practice
title_sort acceptability and feasibility of an evidence based requisition for bone mineral density testing in clinical practice
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/6967232
work_keys_str_mv AT sarahepmunce acceptabilityandfeasibilityofanevidencebasedrequisitionforbonemineraldensitytestinginclinicalpractice
AT debraabutt acceptabilityandfeasibilityofanevidencebasedrequisitionforbonemineraldensitytestinginclinicalpractice
AT rokenisumianantharajah acceptabilityandfeasibilityofanevidencebasedrequisitionforbonemineraldensitytestinginclinicalpractice
AT susanahuang acceptabilityandfeasibilityofanevidencebasedrequisitionforbonemineraldensitytestinginclinicalpractice
AT sonyaallin acceptabilityandfeasibilityofanevidencebasedrequisitionforbonemineraldensitytestinginclinicalpractice
AT tarikbereket acceptabilityandfeasibilityofanevidencebasedrequisitionforbonemineraldensitytestinginclinicalpractice
AT susanbjaglal acceptabilityandfeasibilityofanevidencebasedrequisitionforbonemineraldensitytestinginclinicalpractice