Electronic risk alerts to improve primary care management of chest pain: a randomized, controlled trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Sequist TD
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3304044 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Electronic risk alerts to improve primary care management of chest pain: a randomized, controlled trial.
Sequist Thomas D TD Morong Shane M SM Marston Amy A Keohane Carol A CA Cook E Francis EF Orav E John EJ Lee Thomas H TH
Journal of general internal medicine 20111013 4
<h4>Background</h4>The primary care evaluation of chest pain represents a significant diagnostic challenge.<h4>Objective</h4>To determine if electronic alerts to physicians can improve the quality and safety of chest pain evaluations.<h4>Design and participants</h4>Randomized, controlled trial conducted between November 2008 and January 2010 among 292 primary care clinicians caring for 7,083 adult patients with chest pain and no history of cardiovascular disease.<h4>Intervention</h4>Clinicians r ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background Most adults presenting with chest pain will not receive a diagnosis and be recorded with unattributed chest pain. The objective was to assess if they have increased risk of cardiovascular disease compared with those with noncoronary chest pain and determine whether investigations and interventions are targeted at those at highest risk. Methods and Results We used records from general practices in England linked to hospitalization and mortality information. The study population included patients aged 18 years or over with a new record of chest pain with a noncoronary cause or unattributed between 2002 and 2018, and no cardiovascular disease recorded up to 6 months (diagnostic window) afterward. We compared risk of a future cardiovascular event by type of chest pain, adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors and alternative explanations for chest pain. We determined prevalence of cardiac diagnostic investigations and preventative medication during the diagnostic window in patients with estimated cardiovascular risk ≥10%. There were 375 240 patients with unattributed chest pain (245 329 noncoronary chest pain). There was an increased risk of cardiovascular events for patients with unattributed chest pain, highest in the first year (hazard ratio, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.21-1.29]), persistent up to 10 years. Patients with unattributed chest pain had consistently increased risk of myocardial infarction over time but no increased risk of stroke. Thirty percent of patients at higher risk were prescribed lipid-lowering medication. Conclusions Patients presenting to primary care with unattributed chest pain are at increased risk of cardiovascular events. Primary prevention to reduce cardiovascular events appears suboptimal in those at higher risk.
| S-EPMC9075433 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the proportion of patients with neuropathic pain who achieve a clinically meaningful improvement in their pain with the use of different pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and a gray literature search.Study selectionRandomized controlled trials that reported a responder analysis of adults with neuropathic pain-specifically diabetic neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, or trigeminal neuralgia-treated with any of the following 8 treatments: exercise, acupuncture, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), topical rubefacients, opioids, anticonvulsant medications, and topical lidocaine.SynthesisA total of 67 randomized controlled trials were included. There was moderate certainty of evidence that anticonvulsant medications (risk ratio of 1.54; 95% CI 1.45 to 1.63; number needed to treat [NNT] of 7) and SNRIs (risk ratio of 1.45; 95% CI 1.33 to 1.59; NNT = 7) might provide a clinically meaningful benefit to patients with neuropathic pain. There was low certainty of evidence for a clinically meaningful benefit for rubefacients (ie, capsaicin; NNT = 7) and opioids (NNT = 8), and very low certainty of evidence for TCAs. Very low-quality evidence demonstrated that acupuncture was ineffective. All drug classes, except TCAs, had a greater likelihood of deriving a clinically meaningful benefit than having withdrawals due to adverse events (number needed to harm between 12 and 15). No trials met the inclusion criteria for exercise or lidocaine, nor were any trials identified for trigeminal neuralgia.ConclusionThere is moderate certainty of evidence that anticonvulsant medications and SNRIs provide a clinically meaningful reduction in pain in those with neuropathic pain, with lower certainty of evidence for rubefacients and opioids, and very low certainty of evidence for TCAs. Owing to low-quality evidence for many interventions, future high-quality trials that report responder analyses will be important to strengthen understanding of the relative benefits and harms of treatments in patients with neuropathic pain.
| S-EPMC8115961 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the proportion of chronic low back pain patients who achieve a clinically meaningful response from different pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and gray literature search.Study selectionPublished randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported a responder analysis of adults with chronic low back pain treated with any of the following 15 interventions: oral or topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), exercise, acupuncture, spinal manipulation therapy, corticosteroid injections, acetaminophen, oral opioids, anticonvulsants, tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, cannabinoids, oral muscle relaxants, or topical rubefacients.SynthesisA total of 63 RCTs were included. There was moderate certainty that exercise (risk ratio [RR] of 1.71; 95% CI 1.37 to 2.15; number needed to treat [NNT] of 7), oral NSAIDs (RR = 1.44; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.78; NNT = 6), and SNRIs (duloxetine; RR = 1.25; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.38; NNT = 10) provide clinically meaningful benefits to patients with chronic low back pain. Exercise was the only intervention with sustained benefit (up to 48 weeks). There was low certainty that spinal manipulation therapy and topical rubefacients benefit patients. The benefit of acupuncture disappeared in higher-quality, longer (> 4 weeks) trials. Very low-quality evidence demonstrated that corticosteroid injections are ineffective. Patients treated with opioids had a greater likelihood of discontinuing treatment owing to an adverse event (number needed to harm of 5) than continuing treatment to derive any clinically meaningful benefit (NNT = 16), while those treated with SNRIs (duloxetine) had a similar likelihood of continuing treatment to attain benefit (NNT = 10) as those discontinuing the medication owing to an adverse event (number need to harm of 11). One trial each of anticonvulsants and topical NSAIDs found similar benefit to that of placebo. No RCTs of acetaminophen, cannabinoids, muscle relaxants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or tricyclic antidepressants met the inclusion criteria.ConclusionExercise, oral NSAIDs, and SNRIs (duloxetine) provide a clinically meaningful reduction in pain, with exercise being the only intervention that demonstrated sustained benefit after the intervention ended. Future high-quality trials that report responder analyses are required to provide a better understanding of the benefits and harms of interventions for patients with chronic low back pain.
| S-EPMC7822613 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo improve the documentation and treatment of tobacco use in primary care, we developed and implemented a 3-part electronic health record enhancement: (1)smoking status icons, (2) tobacco treatment reminders, and (3) a Tobacco Smart Form that facilitated the ordering of medication and fax and e-mail counseling referrals.MethodsWe performed a cluster-randomized controlled trial of the enhancement in 26 primary care practices between December 19, 2006, and September 30, 2007. The primary outcome was the proportion of documented smokers who made contact with a smoking cessation counselor. Secondary outcomes included coded smoking status documentation and medication prescribing.ResultsDuring the 9-month study period, 132 630 patients made 315 962 visits to study practices. Coded documentation of smoking status increased from 37% of patients to 54% (+17%) in intervention practices and from 35% of patients to 46% (+11%) in control practices (P < .001 for the difference in differences). Among the 9589 patients who were documented smokers at the start of the study, more patients in the intervention practices were recorded as nonsmokers by the end of the study (5.3% vs 1.9% in control practices; P < .001). Among 12 207 documented smokers, more patients in the intervention practices made contact with a cessation counselor (3.9% vs 0.3% in control practices; P < .001). Smokers in the intervention practices were no more likely to be prescribed smoking cessation medication (2% vs 2% in control practices; P = .40).ConclusionThis electronic health record-based intervention improved smoking status documentation and increased counseling assistance to smokers but not the prescription of cessation medication.
| S-EPMC3005286 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy of interruptive electronic alerts in improving adherence to the American Board of Internal Medicine's Choosing Wisely recommendations to reduce unnecessary laboratory testing.Materials and methodsWe administered 5 cluster randomized controlled trials simultaneously, using electronic medical record alerts regarding prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, acute sinusitis treatment, vitamin D testing, carotid artery ultrasound screening, and human papillomavirus testing. For each alert, we assigned 5 outpatient clinics to an interruptive alert and 5 were observed as a control. Primary and secondary outcomes were the number of postalert orders per 100 patients at each clinic and number of triggered alerts divided by orders, respectively. Post hoc analysis evaluated whether physicians experiencing interruptive alerts reduced their alert-triggering behaviors.ResultsMedian postalert orders per 100 patients did not differ significantly between treatment and control groups; absolute median differences ranging from 0.04 to 0.40 for PSA testing. Median alerts per 100 orders did not differ significantly between treatment and control groups; absolute median differences ranged from 0.004 to 0.03. In post hoc analysis, providers receiving alerts regarding PSA testing in men were significantly less likely to trigger additional PSA alerts than those in the control sites (Incidence Rate Ratio 0.12, 95% CI [0.03-0.52]).DiscussionInterruptive point-of-care alerts did not yield detectable changes in the overall rate of undesired orders or the order-to-alert ratio between active and silent sites. Complementary behavioral or educational interventions are likely needed to improve efforts to curb medical overuse.ConclusionImplementation of interruptive alerts at the time of ordering was not associated with improved adherence to 5 Choosing Wisely guidelines.Trial registrationNCT02709772.
| S-EPMC10161518 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Communication between specialists and primary care clinicians is suboptimal, and access to referrals is often limited, which can lead to lower quality, inefficiency, and errors. An electronic consultation (e-consultation) is an asynchronous, non-face-to-face consultation between a primary care clinician and a specialist using a secure electronic communication platform. The purpose of this study was to conduct a randomized controlled trial of e-consultations to test its efficacy and effectiveness in reducing wait times and improving access to specialty care.Primary care clinicians were randomized into a control (9 traditional) or an intervention (17 e-consultation) arm for referrals to cardiologists. Primary care clinicians were recruited from 12 practice sites in a community health center in Connecticut with mainly medically underserved patients. Two end points were analyzed with a Cox proportional hazards model where the hazard of either a visit or an e-consultation was linked to study arm, sex, race, and age.Thirty-six primary care clinicians participated in the study, referring 590 patients. In total, 69% of e-consultations were resolved without a visit to a cardiologist. After adjusting for covariates, median days to a review for an electronic consultation vs a visit for control patients were 5 and 24, respectively. A review of 6-month follow-up data found fewer cardiac-related emergency department visits for the intervention group.E-consultation referrals improved access to and timeliness of care for an underserved population, reduced overall specialty utilization, and streamlined specialty referrals without any increase in adverse cardiovascular outcomes. e-consultations are a potential solution for improving access to specialty care.
| S-EPMC4781516 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ContextPain and depression are the most common physical and psychological symptoms in primary care, respectively. Moreover, they co-occur 30% to 50% of the time and have adverse effects on quality of life, disability, and health care costs.ObjectiveTo determine if a combined pharmacological and behavioral intervention improves both depression and pain in primary care patients with musculoskeletal pain and comorbid depression.Design, setting, and patientsRandomized controlled trial (Stepped Care for Affective Disorders and Musculoskeletal Pain [SCAMP]) conducted at 6 community-based clinics and 5 Veterans Affairs general medicine clinics in Indianapolis, Indiana. Recruitment occurred from January 2005 to June 2007 and follow-up concluded in June 2008. The 250 patients had low back, hip, or knee pain for 3 months or longer and at least moderate depression severity (Patient Health Questionnaire 9 score > or = 10).InterventionPatients were randomly assigned to the intervention (n = 123) or to usual care (n = 127). The intervention consisted of 12 weeks of optimized antidepressant therapy (step 1) followed by 6 sessions of a pain self-management program over 12 weeks (step 2), and a continuation phase of therapy for 6 months (step 3).Main outcome measuresDepression (20-item Hopkins Symptom Checklist), pain severity and interference (Brief Pain Inventory), and global improvement in pain at 12 months.ResultsAt 12 months, 46 of the 123 intervention patients (37.4%) had a 50% or greater reduction in depression severity from baseline compared with 21 of 127 usual care patients (16.5%) (relative risk [RR], 2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.5-3.2), corresponding to a much lower number of patients with major depression (50 [40.7%] vs 87 [68.5%], respectively; RR, 0.6 [95% CI, 0.4-0.8]). Also, a clinically significant (> or = 30%) reduction in pain was much more likely in intervention patients (51 intervention patients [41.5%] vs 22 usual care patients [17.3%]; RR, 2.4 [95% CI, 1.6-3.2]), as was global improvement in pain (58 [47.2%] vs 16 [12.6%], respectively; RR, 3.7 [95% CI, 2.3-6.1]). More intervention patients also experienced benefits in terms of the primary outcome, which was a combined improvement in both depression and pain (32 intervention patients [26.0%] vs 10 usual care patients [7.9%]; RR, 3.3 [95% CI, 1.8-5.4]).ConclusionOptimized antidepressant therapy followed by a pain self-management program resulted in substantial improvement in depression as well as moderate reductions in pain severity and disability.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00118430.
| S-EPMC2884224 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCurrent pain management recommendations emphasize leveraging interdisciplinary teams. We aimed to identify key features of interdisciplinary team structures and processes associated with improved pain outcomes for patients experiencing chronic pain in primary care settings.MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL for randomized studies published after 2009. Included studies had to report patient-reported pain outcomes (e.g., BPI total pain, GCPS pain intensity, RMDQ pain-related disability), include primary care as an intervention setting, and demonstrate some evidence of teamwork or teaming; specifically, they needed to involve at least two clinicians interacting with each other and with patients in an ongoing process over at least two timepoints. We assessed study quality with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We narratively synthesized intervention team structures and processes, comparing among interventions that reported a clinically meaningful improvement in patient-reported pain outcomes defined by the minimal clinically important difference (MCID).ResultsWe included 13 total interventions in our review, of which eight reported a clinically meaningful improvement in at least one patient-reported pain outcome. No included studies had an overall high risk of bias. We identified the role of a care manager as a common structural feature of the interventions with some clinical effect on patient-reported pain. The team processes involving clinicians varied across interventions reporting clinically improved pain outcomes. However, when analyzing team processes involving patients, six of the interventions with some clinical effect on pain relied on pre-scheduled phone calls for continuous patient follow-up.DiscussionOur review suggests that interdisciplinary interventions incorporating teamwork and teaming can improve patient-reported pain outcomes in comparison to usual care. Given the current evidence, future interventions might prioritize care managers and mechanisms for patient follow-up to help bridge the gap between clinical guidelines and the implementation of interdisciplinary, team-based chronic pain care.
| S-EPMC9086072 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundParticipation rates in colorectal cancer screening are below recommended European targets.AimTo evaluate the effectiveness of an alert in primary care electronic medical records (EMRs) to increase individuals' participation in an organised, population-based colorectal cancer screening programme when compared with usual care.Design and settingCluster randomised controlled trial in primary care centres of Barcelona, Spain.MethodParticipants were males and females aged 50-69 years, who were invited to the first round of a screening programme based on the faecal immunochemical test (FIT) (n = 41 042), and their primary care professional. The randomisation unit was the physician cluster (n = 130) and patients were blinded to the study group. The control group followed usual care as per the colorectal cancer screening programme. In the intervention group, as well as usual care, an alert to health professionals (cluster level) to promote screening was introduced in the individual's primary care EMR for 1 year. The main outcome was colorectal cancer screening participation at individual participant level.ResultsIn total, 67 physicians and 21 619 patients (intervention group) and 63 physicians and 19 423 patients (control group) were randomised. In the intention-to-treat analysis screening participation was 44.1% and 42.2% respectively (odds ratio 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.97 to 1.20, P = 0.146). However, in the per-protocol analysis screening uptake in the intervention group showed a statistically significant increase, after adjusting for potential confounders (OR, 1.11; 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.22; P = 0.018).ConclusionThe use of an alert in an individual's primary care EMR is associated with a statistically significant increased uptake of an organised, FIT-based colorectal cancer screening programme in patients attending primary care centres.
| S-EPMC4917051 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsMost adults presenting in primary care with chest pain symptoms will not receive a diagnosis ('unattributed' chest pain) but are at increased risk of cardiovascular events. To assess within patients with unattributed chest pain, risk factors for cardiovascular events and whether those at greatest risk of cardiovascular disease can be ascertained by an existing general population risk prediction model or by development of a new model.Methods and resultsThe study used UK primary care electronic health records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked to admitted hospitalizations. Study population was patients aged 18 plus with recorded unattributed chest pain 2002-2018. Cardiovascular risk prediction models were developed with external validation and comparison of performance to QRISK3, a general population risk prediction model. There were 374 917 patients with unattributed chest pain in the development data set. The strongest risk factors for cardiovascular disease included diabetes, atrial fibrillation, and hypertension. Risk was increased in males, patients of Asian ethnicity, those in more deprived areas, obese patients, and smokers. The final developed model had good predictive performance (external validation c-statistic 0.81, calibration slope 1.02). A model using a subset of key risk factors for cardiovascular disease gave nearly identical performance. QRISK3 underestimated cardiovascular risk.ConclusionPatients presenting with unattributed chest pain are at increased risk of cardiovascular events. It is feasible to accurately estimate individual risk using routinely recorded information in the primary care record, focusing on a small number of risk factors. Patients at highest risk could be targeted for preventative measures.
| S-EPMC10442054 | biostudies-literature