Dataset Information

A cluster randomized trial evaluating electronic prescribing in an ambulatory care setting.

ABSTRACT: Medication errors, adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events are common and serious in terms of the harms and costs that they impose on the health system and those who use it. Errors resulting in preventable adverse drug events have been shown to occur most often at the stages of ordering and administration. This paper describes the protocol for a pragmatic trial of electronic prescribing to reduce prescription error. The trial was designed to overcome the limitations associated with traditional study design.This study was designed as a 65-week, cluster randomized, parallel study.The trial was conducted within ambulatory outpatient clinics in an academic tertiary care centre in Ontario, Canada. The electronic prescribing software for the study is a Canadian electronic prescribing software package which provides physician prescription entry with decision support at the point of care. Using a handheld computer (PDA) the physician selects medications using an error minimising menu-based pick list from a comprehensive drug database, create specific prescription instructions and then transmit the prescription directly and electronically to a participating pharmacy via facsimile or to the physician's printer using local area wireless technology. The unit of allocation and randomization is by 'week', i.e. the system is "on" or "off" according to the randomization scheme and the unit of analysis is the prescription, with adjustment for clustering of patients within practitioners.This paper describes the protocol for a pragmatic cluster randomized trial of point-of-care electronic prescribing, which was specifically designed to overcome the limitations associated with traditional study design.This trial has been registered with clinicaltrials.gov (ID: NCT00252395).

SUBMITTER: Zwarenstein MF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2092426 | biostudies-literature | 2007 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A cluster randomized trial evaluating electronic prescribing in an ambulatory care setting.

Zwarenstein Merrick F MF Dainty Katie N KN Quan Sherman S Kiss Alex A Adhikari Neill K J NK

Trials 20071003

<h4>Background</h4>Medication errors, adverse drug events and potential adverse drug events are common and serious in terms of the harms and costs that they impose on the health system and those who use it. Errors resulting in preventable adverse drug events have been shown to occur most often at the stages of ordering and administration. This paper describes the protocol for a pragmatic trial of electronic prescribing to reduce prescription error. The trial was designed to overcome the limitati ...[more]

PMID: 17915028

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Medication reviews are recognized services to increase quality of therapy and reduce medication risks. The selection of eligible patients with potential to receive a major benefit is based on assumptions rather than on factual data. Acceptance of interprofessional collaboration is crucial to increase the quality of medication therapy. OBJECTIVE:The research question was to identify and prioritize eligible patients for a medication review and to provide evidence-based criteria for patient selection. Acceptance of the prescribing general practitioner to implement pharmaceutical recommendations was measured and factors influencing physicians' acceptance were explored to obtain an impression on the extent of collaboration in medication review in an ambulatory care setting. METHODS:Based on data of a cluster-randomized controlled study (WestGem-study), the correlation between patient parameters and the individual performance in a medication review was calculated in a multiple logistic regression model. Physician's acceptance of the suggested intervention was assessed using feedback forms. Influential factors were analyzed. RESULTS:The number of drugs in use (p = 0.001), discrepancies between prescribed and used medicines (p = 0.014), the baseline Medication Appropriateness Index score (p<0.001) and the duration of the intervention (p = 0.006) could be identified as influential factors for a major benefit from a medication review, whereas morbidity (p>0.05) and a low kidney function (p>0.05) do not predetermine the outcome. Longitudinal patient care with repeated reviews showed higher interprofessional acceptance and superior patient benefit. A total of 54.9% of the recommendations in a medication review on drug therapy were accepted for implementation. CONCLUSIONS:The number of drugs in use and medication reconciliation could be a first rational step in patient selection for a medication review. Most elderly, multimorbid patients with polymedication experience a similar chance of receiving a benefit from a medication review. Longitudinal patient care should be preferred over confined medication reviews. The acceptance of medication reviews by physicians supports further implementation into health care systems. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ISRCTN ISRCTN41595373.

Project description:BackgroundA gap exists between evidence and practice regarding the management of cardiovascular risk factors. This gap could be narrowed if systematically developed clinical practice guidelines were effectively implemented in clinical practice. We evaluated the effects of a tailored intervention to support the implementation of systematically developed guidelines for the use of antihypertensive and cholesterol-lowering drugs for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.Methods and findingsWe conducted a cluster-randomized trial comparing a tailored intervention to passive dissemination of guidelines in 146 general practices in two geographical areas in Norway. Each practice was randomized to either the tailored intervention (70 practices; 257 physicians) or control group (69 practices; 244 physicians). Patients started on medication for hypertension or hypercholesterolemia during the study period and all patients already on treatment that consulted their physician during the trial were included. A multifaceted intervention was tailored to address identified barriers to change. Key components were an educational outreach visit with audit and feedback, and computerized reminders linked to the medical record system. Pharmacists conducted the visits. Outcomes were measured for all eligible patients seen in the participating practices during 1 y before and after the intervention. The main outcomes were the proportions of (1) first-time prescriptions for hypertension where thiazides were prescribed, (2) patients assessed for cardiovascular risk before prescribing antihypertensive or cholesterol-lowering drugs, and (3) patients treated for hypertension or hypercholesterolemia for 3 mo or more who had achieved recommended treatment goals. The intervention led to an increase in adherence to guideline recommendations on choice of antihypertensive drug. Thiazides were prescribed to 17% of patients in the intervention group versus 11% in the control group (relative risk 1.94; 95% confidence interval 1.49-2.49, adjusted for baseline differences and clustering effect). Little or no differences were found for risk assessment prior to prescribing and for achievement of treatment goals.ConclusionsOur tailored intervention had a significant impact on prescribing of antihypertensive drugs, but was ineffective in improving the quality of other aspects of managing hypertension and hypercholesterolemia in primary care.

Project description:BackgroundThe 2016 U.S. Centers for Disease Control Opioid Prescribing Guideline (CDC Guideline) is currently being revised amid concern that it may be harmful to people with chronic pain on long-term opioid therapy (CP-LTOT). However, a methodology to faithfully implement the CDC guideline, measure prescriber adherence, and systematically test its effect on patient and public health outcomes is lacking. We developed and tested a CDC Guideline implementation strategy (termed TOWER), focusing on an outpatient HIV-focused primary care setting.MethodsTOWER was developed in a stakeholder-engaged, multi-step iterative process within an Information, Motivation and Behavioral Skills (IMB) framework of behavior change. TOWER consists of: 1) a patient-facing opioid management app (OM-App); 2) a progress note template (OM-Note) to guide the office visit; and 3) a primary care provider (PCP) training. TOWER was evaluated in a 9-month, randomized-controlled trial of HIV-PCPs (N = 11) and their patients with HIV and CP-LTOT (N = 40). The primary outcome was CDC Guideline adherence based on electronic health record (EHR) documentation and measured by the validated Safer Opioid Prescribing Evaluation Tool (SOPET). Qualitative data including one-on-one PCP interviews were collected. We also piloted patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) reflective of domains identified as important by stakeholders (pain intensity and function; mood; substance use; medication use and adherence; relationship with provider; stigma and discrimination).ResultsPCPs randomized to TOWER were 48% more CDC Guideline adherent (p < 0.0001) with significant improvements in use of: non-pharmacologic treatments, functional treatment goals, opioid agreements, prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs), opioid benefit/harm assessment, and naloxone prescribing. Qualitative data demonstrated high levels of confidence in conducting these care processes among intervention providers, and that OM-Note supported these efforts while experience with OM-App was mixed. There were no intervention-associated safety concerns (defined as worsening of any of the PROMs).ConclusionsCDC-guideline adherence can be promoted and measured, and is not associated with worsening of outcomes for people with HIV receiving LTOT for CP. Future work would be needed to document scalability of these results and to determine whether CDC-guideline adherence results in a positive effect on public health. Trial registration https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03669939 . Registration date: 9/13/2018.

Project description:BackgroundMultiple policy initiatives encourage more cautious prescribing of opioids in light of their risks. Electronic health record (EHR) redesign can influence prescriber choices, but some redesigns add to workload.ObjectiveTo estimate the effect of an EHR prescribing redesign on both opioid prescribing choices and keystrokes.DesignQuality improvement quasi-experiment, analyzed as interrupted time series.ParticipantsAdult patients of an academic multispecialty practice and a federally qualified health center (FQHC) who received new prescriptions for short-acting opioids, and their providers.InterventionIn the redesign, new prescriptions of short-acting opioids defaulted to the CDC-recommended minimum for opioid-naïve patients, with no alerts or hard stops, such that 9 keystrokes were required for a guideline-concordant prescription and 24 for a non-concordant prescription.Main measuresProportion of guideline-concordant prescriptions, defined as new prescriptions with a 3-day supply or less, calculated per 2-week period. Number of mouse clicks and keystrokes needed to place prescriptions.Key resultsAcross the 2 sites, 22,113 patients received a new short-acting opioid prescription from 821 providers. Before the intervention, both settings showed secular trends toward smaller-quantity prescriptions. At the academic practice, the intervention was associated with an immediate increase in guideline-concordant prescriptions from an average of 12% to 31% of all prescriptions. At the FQHC, about 44% of prescriptions were concordant at the time of the intervention, which was not associated with an additional significant increase. However, total keystrokes needed to place the concordant prescriptions decreased 62.7% from 3552 in the 6 months before the intervention to 1323 in the 6 months afterwards.ConclusionsAutocompleting prescription forms with guideline-recommended values was associated with a large increase in guideline concordance in an organization where baseline concordance was low, but not in an organization where it was already high. The redesign markedly reduced the number of keystrokes needed to place orders, with important implications for EHR-related stress.Trial registrationwww.ClinicalTrials.gov protocol 1710018646.

Project description:Patients are increasingly seen as active partners in healthcare. While patient involvement in individual clinical decisions has been extensively studied, no trial has assessed how patients can effectively be involved in collective healthcare decisions affecting the population. The goal of this study was to test the impact of involving patients in setting healthcare improvement priorities for chronic care at the community level.Cluster randomized controlled trial. Local communities were randomized in intervention (priority setting with patient involvement) and control sites (no patient involvement).Communities in a canadian region were required to set priorities for improving chronic disease management in primary care, from a list of 37 validated quality indicators.Patients were consulted in writing, before participating in face-to-face deliberation with professionals.Professionals established priorities among themselves, without patient involvement.A total of 172 individuals from six communities participated in the study, including 83 chronic disease patients, and 89 health professionals.The primary outcome was the level of agreement between patients' and professionals' priorities. Secondary outcomes included professionals' intention to use the selected quality indicators, and the costs of patient involvement.Priorities established with patients were more aligned with core generic components of the Medical Home and Chronic Care Model, including: access to primary care, self-care support, patient participation in clinical decisions, and partnership with community organizations (p?<?0.01). Priorities established by professionals alone placed more emphasis on the technical quality of single disease management. The involvement intervention fostered mutual influence between patients and professionals, which resulted in a 41% increase in agreement on common priorities (95%CI: +12% to +58%, p?<?0.01). Professionals' intention to use the selected quality indicators was similar in intervention and control sites. Patient involvement increased the costs of the prioritization process by 17%, and required 10% more time to reach consensus on common priorities.Patient involvement can change priorities driving healthcare improvement at the population level. Future research should test the generalizability of these findings to other contexts, and assess its impact on patient care.The Netherlands National Trial Register #NTR2496.

Dataset Information

A cluster randomized trial evaluating electronic prescribing in an ambulatory care setting.

Publications

A cluster randomized trial evaluating electronic prescribing in an ambulatory care setting.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets