Understanding providers' attitudes and key concerns toward incorporating CVD risk prediction into clinical practice: a qualitative study

BackgroundAlthough risk prediction has become an integral part of clinical practice guidelines for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention, multiple studies have shown that patients' risk still plays almost no role in clinical decision-making. Because little is known about why this is so, we sought to understand providers' views on the opportunities, barriers, and facilitators of incorporating risk prediction to guide their use of cardiovascular preventive medicines.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with primary care providers (n=33) at VA facilities in the Midwest. Facilities were chosen using a maximum variation approach according to their geography, size, proportion of MD to non-MD providers, and percentage of full-time providers. Providers included MD/DO physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and clinical pharmacists. Providers were asked about their reaction to a hypothetical situation in which the VA would introduce a risk prediction-based approach to CVD treatment. We conducted matrix and content analysis to identify providers' reactions to risk prediction, reasons for their reaction, and exemplar quotes.ResultsMost providers were classified as Enthusiastic (n=14) or Cautious Adopters (n=15), with only a few Non-Adopters (n=4). Providers described four key concerns toward adopting risk prediction. Their primary concern was that risk prediction is not always compatible with a whole patient approach to patient care. Other concerns included questions about the validity of the proposed risk prediction model, potential workflow burdens, and whether risk prediction adds value to existing clinical practice. Enthusiastic, Cautious, and Non-Adopters all expressed both doubts about and support for risk prediction categorizable in the above four key areas of concern.ConclusionsProviders were generally supportive of adopting risk prediction into CVD prevention, but many had misgivings, which included concerns about impact on workflow, validity of predictive models, the value of making this change, and possible negative effects on providers' ability to address the whole patient. These concerns have likely contributed to the slow introduction of risk prediction into clinical practice. These concerns will need to be addressed for risk prediction, and other approaches relying on big data including machine learning and artificial intelligence, to have a meaningful role in clinical practice.

Automated summary

Providers generally support incorporating risk prediction into cardiovascular disease prevention, but have concerns regarding workflow impact, validity of predictive models, value of the change, and impact on whole patient care. These concerns need to be addressed for risk prediction to have a meaningful role in clinical practice.