Protocol for the 'e-Nudge trial' : a randomised controlled trial of electronic feedback to reduce the cardiovascular risk of individuals in general practice [ISRCTN64828380]

Background: Cardiovascular disease (including coronary heart disease and stroke) is a major cause of death and disability in the United Kingdom, and is to a large extent preventable, by lifestyle modification and drug therapy. The recent standardisation of electronic codes for cardiovascular risk variables through the United Kingdom's new General Practice contract provides an opportunity for the application of risk algorithms to identify high risk individuals. This randomised controlled trial will test the benefits of an automated system of alert messages and practice searches to identify those at highest risk of cardiovascular disease in primary care databases. Design: Patients over 50 years old in practice databases will be randomised to the intervention group that will receive the alert messages and searches, and a control group who will continue to receive usual care. In addition to those at high estimated risk, potentially high risk patients will be identified who have insufficient data to allow a risk estimate to be made. Further groups identified will be those with possible undiagnosed diabetes, based either on elevated past recorded blood glucose measurements, or an absence of recent blood glucose measurement in those with established cardiovascular disease. Outcome measures: The intervention will be applied for two years, and outcome data will be collected for a further year. The primary outcome measure will be the annual rate of cardiovascular events in the intervention and control arms of the study. Secondary measures include the proportion of patients at high estimated cardiovascular risk, the proportion of patients with missing data for a risk estimate, and the proportion with undefined diabetes status at the end of the trial

Systematic review of economic evaluations and cost analyses of guideline implementation strategies

Objectives To appraise the quality of economic studies undertaken as part of evaluations of guideline implementation strategies; determine their resources use; and recommend methods to improve future studies. Methods Systematic review of economic studies undertaken alongside robust study designs of clinical guideline implementation strategies published (1966-1998). Studies assessed against the BMJ economic evaluations guidelines for each stage of the guideline process (guideline development, implementation and treatment). Results 235 studies were identified, 63 reported some information on cost. Only 3 studies provided evidence that their guideline was effective and efficient. 38 reported the treatment costs only, 12 implementation and treatment costs, 11 implementation costs alone, and two guideline development, implementation and treatment costs. No study gave reasonably complete information on costs. Conclusions Very few satisfactory economic evaluations of guideline implementation strategies have been performed. Current evaluations have numerous methodological defects and rarely consider all relevant costs and benefits. Future evaluations should focus on evaluating the implementation of evidence based guidelines. Keywords: Cost-effectiveness analysis, physician (or health care professional) behaviour, practice guidelines, quality improvement, systematic review.Peer reviewedAuthor versio

The GUIDES checklist: development of a tool to improve the successful use of guideline-based computerised clinical decision support

Background: Computerised decision support (CDS) based on trustworthy clinical guidelines is a key component of a learning healthcare system. Research shows that the effectiveness of CDS is mixed. Multifaceted context, system, recommendation and implementation factors may potentially affect the success of CDS interventions. This paper describes the development of a checklist that is intended to support professionals to implement CDS successfully. Methods: We developed the checklist through an iterative process that involved a systematic review of evidence and frameworks, a synthesis of the success factors identified in the review, feedback from an international expert panel that evaluated the checklist in relation to a list of desirable framework attributes, consultations with patients and healthcare consumers and pilot testing of the checklist. Results: We screened 5347 papers and selected 71 papers with relevant information on success factors for guideline-based CDS. From the selected papers, we developed a 16-factor checklist that is divided in four domains, i.e. the CDS context, content, system and implementation domains. The panel of experts evaluated the checklist positively as an instrument that could support people implementing guideline-based CDS across a wide range of settings globally. Patients and healthcare consumers identified guideline-based CDS as an important quality improvement intervention and perceived the GUIDES checklist as a suitable and useful strategy. Conclusions: The GUIDES checklist can support professionals in considering the factors that affect the success of CDS interventions. It may facilitate a deeper and more accurate understanding of the factors shaping CDS effectiveness. Relying on a structured approach may prevent that important factors are missed

Factors Associated with Ordering and Completion of Laboratory Monitoring Tests for High-Risk Medications in the Ambulatory Setting: A Dissertation

Since the Institute of Medicine highlighted the devastating impact of medical errors in their seminal report, “To Err is Human” (2000), efforts have been underway to improve patient safety. A portion of medical errors are due to medication errors, and a large portion of these can be attributed to inadequate laboratory monitoring. In this thesis, I attempt to address this small but important corner of this patient safety endeavor. Why are patients not getting their laboratory monitoring tests? Do they fail to complete them or do doctors not order the tests in the first place? Which prescribers and which patients are least likely to do what is needed for testing to happen and what interventions would be most promising? To address these questions, I conducted a systematic review of existing interventions. I then proceeded with three aims: 1) To identify reasons that patients give for missing monitoring tests; 2) To identify patient and provider factors associated with monitoring test ordering; and 3) To identify patient and provider factors associated with completion of ordered testing. To achieve these aims, I worked with patients and data at the Fallon Clinic. For aim 1, I conducted a qualitative analysis of their reasons for missing tests as well as reporting completion and ordering rates. For aims 2 and 3, I used electronic medical record data and conducted a regression with patient and provider characteristics as covariates to identify factors contributing to test ordering and completion. Interviews revealed that patients had few barriers to completion, with forgetting being the most common reason for missing a test. The quantitative studies showed that: older patients with more interactions with the health care system were more likely to have tests ordered and were more likely to complete them; providers who more frequently prescribe a drug were more likely to order testing for it; and drug-test combinations that were particularly dangerous, indicated by a black box warning, were more likely to have appropriate ordering, though for these combinations, primary care providers were less likely to order tests appropriately, and patients were less likely to complete tests. Taken together, my work can inform future interventions in laboratory monitoring and patient safety

Computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes.

Clinical practice does not always reflect best practice and evidence, partly because of unconscious acts of omission, information overload, or inaccessible information. Reminders may help clinicians overcome these problems by prompting them to recall information that they already know or would be expected to know and by providing information or guidance in a more accessible and relevant format, at a particularly appropriate time. This is an update of a previously published review. To evaluate the effects of reminders automatically generated through a computerized system (computer-generated) and delivered on paper to healthcare professionals on quality of care (outcomes related to healthcare professionals' practice) and patient outcomes (outcomes related to patients' health condition). We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, six other databases and two trials registers up to 21 September 2016 together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We included individual- or cluster-randomized and non-randomized trials that evaluated the impact of computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals, alone (single-component intervention) or in addition to one or more co-interventions (multi-component intervention), compared with usual care or the co-intervention(s) without the reminder component. Review authors working in pairs independently screened studies for eligibility and abstracted data. For each study, we extracted the primary outcome when it was defined or calculated the median effect size across all reported outcomes. We then calculated the median improvement and interquartile range (IQR) across included studies using the primary outcome or median outcome as representative outcome. We assessed the certainty of the evidence according to the GRADE approach. We identified 35 studies (30 randomized trials and five non-randomized trials) and analyzed 34 studies (40 comparisons). Twenty-nine studies took place in the USA and six studies took place in Canada, France, Israel, and Kenya. All studies except two took place in outpatient care. Reminders were aimed at enhancing compliance with preventive guidelines (e.g. cancer screening tests, vaccination) in half the studies and at enhancing compliance with disease management guidelines for acute or chronic conditions (e.g. annual follow-ups, laboratory tests, medication adjustment, counseling) in the other half.Computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals, alone or in addition to co-intervention(s), probably improves quality of care slightly compared with usual care or the co-intervention(s) without the reminder component (median improvement 6.8% (IQR: 3.8% to 17.5%); 34 studies (40 comparisons); moderate-certainty evidence).Computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals alone (single-component intervention) probably improves quality of care compared with usual care (median improvement 11.0% (IQR 5.4% to 20.0%); 27 studies (27 comparisons); moderate-certainty evidence). Adding computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals to one or more co-interventions (multi-component intervention) probably improves quality of care slightly compared with the co-intervention(s) without the reminder component (median improvement 4.0% (IQR 3.0% to 6.0%); 11 studies (13 comparisons); moderate-certainty evidence).We are uncertain whether reminders, alone or in addition to co-intervention(s), improve patient outcomes as the certainty of the evidence is very low (n = 6 studies (seven comparisons)). None of the included studies reported outcomes related to harms or adverse effects of the intervention. There is moderate-certainty evidence that computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals probably slightly improves quality of care, in terms of compliance with preventive guidelines and compliance with disease management guidelines. It is uncertain whether reminders improve patient outcomes because the certainty of the evidence is very low. The heterogeneity of the reminder interventions included in this review also suggests that reminders can probably improve quality of care in various settings under various conditions

Effectiveness of electronic guideline-based implementation systems in ambulatory care settings - a systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Electronic guideline-based decision support systems have been suggested to successfully deliver the knowledge embedded in clinical practice guidelines. A number of studies have already shown positive findings for decision support systems such as drug-dosing systems and computer-generated reminder systems for preventive care services.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A systematic literature search (1990 to December 2008) of the English literature indexed in the Medline database, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CRD (DARE, HTA and NHS EED databases) was conducted to identify evaluation studies of electronic multi-step guideline implementation systems in ambulatory care settings. Important inclusion criterions were the multidimensionality of the guideline (the guideline needed to consist of several aspects or steps) and real-time interaction with the system during consultation. Clinical decision support systems such as one-time reminders for preventive care for which positive findings were shown in earlier reviews were excluded. Two comparisons were considered: electronic multidimensional guidelines versus usual care (comparison one) and electronic multidimensional guidelines versus other guideline implementation methods (comparison two).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Twenty-seven publications were selected for analysis in this systematic review. Most designs were cluster randomized controlled trials investigating process outcomes more than patient outcomes. With success defined as at least 50% of the outcome variables being significant, none of the studies were successful in improving patient outcomes. Only seven of seventeen studies that investigated process outcomes showed improvements in process of care variables compared with the usual care group (comparison one). No incremental effect of the electronic implementation over the distribution of paper versions of the guideline was found, neither for the patient outcomes nor for the process outcomes (comparison two).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>There is little evidence at the moment for the effectiveness of an increasingly used and commercialised instrument such as electronic multidimensional guidelines. After more than a decade of development of numerous electronic systems, research on the most effective implementation strategy for this kind of guideline-based decision support systems is still lacking. This conclusion implies a considerable risk towards inappropriate investments in ineffective implementation interventions and in suboptimal care.</p

Guideline-based decision support in medicine : modeling guidelines for the development and application of clinical decision support systems

Guideline-based Decision Support in Medicine Modeling Guidelines for the Development and Application of Clinical Decision Support Systems The number and use of decision support systems that incorporate guidelines with the goal of improving care is rapidly increasing. Although developing systems that are both effective in supporting clinicians and accepted by them has proven to be a difficult task, of the systems that were evaluated by a controlled trial, the majority showed impact. The work, described in this thesis, aims at developing a methodology and framework that facilitates all stages in the guideline development process, ranging from the definition of models that represent guidelines to the implementation of run-time systems that provide decision support, based on the guidelines that were developed during the previous stages. The framework consists of 1) a guideline representation formalism that uses the concepts of primitives, Problem-Solving Methods (PSMs) and ontologies to represent guidelines of various complexity and granularity and different application domains, 2) a guideline authoring environment that enables guideline authors to define guidelines, based on the newly developed guideline representation formalism, and 3) a guideline execution environment that translates defined guidelines into a more efficient symbol-level representation, which can be read in and processed by an execution-time engine. The described methodology and framework were used to develop and validate a number of guidelines and decision support systems in various clinical domains such as Intensive Care, Family Practice, Psychiatry and the areas of Diabetes and Hypertension control

Can computerized clinical decision support systems improve practitioners' diagnostic test ordering behavior? A decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Underuse and overuse of diagnostic tests have important implications for health outcomes and costs. Decision support technology purports to optimize the use of diagnostic tests in clinical practice. The objective of this review was to assess whether computerized clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) are effective at improving ordering of tests for diagnosis, monitoring of disease, or monitoring of treatment. The outcome of interest was effect on the diagnostic test-ordering behavior of practitioners.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Ovid's EBM Reviews database, Inspec, and reference lists for eligible articles published up to January 2010. We included randomized controlled trials comparing the use of CCDSSs to usual practice or non-CCDSS controls in clinical care settings. Trials were eligible if at least one component of the CCDSS gave suggestions for ordering or performing a diagnostic procedure. We considered studies 'positive' if they showed a statistically significant improvement in at least 50% of test ordering outcomes.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Thirty-five studies were identified, with significantly higher methodological quality in those published after the year 2000 (<it>p </it>= 0.002). Thirty-three trials reported evaluable data on diagnostic test ordering, and 55% (18/33) of CCDSSs improved testing behavior overall, including 83% (5/6) for diagnosis, 63% (5/8) for treatment monitoring, 35% (6/17) for disease monitoring, and 100% (3/3) for other purposes. Four of the systems explicitly attempted to reduce test ordering rates and all succeeded. Factors of particular interest to decision makers include costs, user satisfaction, and impact on workflow but were rarely investigated or reported.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Some CCDSSs can modify practitioner test-ordering behavior. To better inform development and implementation efforts, studies should describe in more detail potentially important factors such as system design, user interface, local context, implementation strategy, and evaluate impact on user satisfaction and workflow, costs, and unintended consequences.</p

Geisinger Health System: Achieving the Potential of System Integration Through Innovation, Leadership, Measurement, and Incentives

Presents a case study of a physician-led nonprofit healthcare group exhibiting the attributes of an ideal healthcare delivery system as defined by the Fund. Describes how its ProvenCare model improved clinical outcomes with reduced resource utilization

Evaluation of a Process Change on Mammography Screening Rates in a Family and Community Medicine Clinic

Abstract Background and Significance: Breast cancer is the 2nd leading cause of cancer death among women worldwide. Mammography is a screening approach used in the detection of breast cancer and proven to help reduce mortality. Only 72.8% of eligible American women have been screened for breast cancer within the past 2 years. One urban family and community medicine clinic (FCM) fell below the national average with a rate of 60.9%; as a result, they implemented an evidence-based strategy to improve mammography rates within the clinic. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implementation of a telephone outreach with direct scheduling intervention within the FCM Clinic and Women’s Health (WH) Clinic. Methods: The study design was a descriptive study with a comparison group to evaluate a process change in ordering and scheduling mammograms. A chart audit and a perceived barriers survey was conducted at the FCM Clinic and the WH Clinic, the comparison group. Results: A total of 200 patients (100 pre, 100 post) were analyzed at the FCM and WH Clinic. There was a non-significant increase in mammography completion at the FCM Clinic from 20% (n = 10) pre- to 32% (n = 16) post-intervention. There was a significant increase (p = 0.04) in mammography completion at the WH Clinic from 66% (n = 33) pre- to 84% (n = 42) post-intervention. Providers’ perceptions of barriers to mammography completion were time constraints and fear of mammography-related pain. Conclusion: Telephone outreach with direct scheduling was found to be an effective method for increasing mammography rates. However, the addition of a proactive approach to ordering and scheduling mammograms could increase rates to meet or exceed the quality measure target. Keywords: mammography, breast cancer screening, telephone outreac