Dataset Information

Evaluating the Concordance of Clinician Antiretroviral Prescribing Practices and HIV-ASSIST, an Online Clinical Decision Support Tool.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Individualized selection of antiretroviral (ARV) therapy is complex, considering drug resistance, comorbidities, drug-drug interactions, and other factors. HIV-ASSIST (www.hivassist.com) is a free, online tool that provides ARV decision support. HIV-ASSIST synthesizes patient and virus-specific attributes to rank ARV combinations based upon a composite objective of achieving viral suppression and maximizing tolerability.

Objective

To evaluate concordance of HIV-ASSIST recommendations with ARV selections of experienced HIV clinicians.

Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Patients

New and established patients at the Johns Hopkins Bartlett HIV Clinic and San Francisco Veterans Affairs HIV Clinic completing clinic visits were included. Chart reviews were conducted of the most recent clinic visit to generate HIV-ASSIST recommendations, which were compared to prescribed regimens.

Main measures

For each provider-prescribed regimen, we assessed its corresponding HIV-ASSIST "weighted score" (scale of 0 to 10 +, scores of < 2.0 are preferred), rank within HIV-ASSIST's ordered listing of ARV regimens, and concordance with the top five HIV-ASSIST ranked outputs.

Key results

Among 106 patients (16% female), 23 (22%) were ARV-naïve. HIV-ASSIST outputs for ARV-naïve patients were 100% concordant with prescribed regimens (median rank 1 [IQR 1-3], median weighted score 1.1 [IQR 1-1.2]). For 18 (17%) ARV-experienced patients with ongoing viremia, HIV-ASSIST outputs were 89% concordant with prescribed regimens (median rank 2 [IQR 1-3], median weighted score 1 [IQR 1-1.2]). For 65 (61.3%) patients that were suppressed on a current ARV regimen, HIV-ASSIST recommendations were concordant 88% of the time (median rank 1 [IQR 1-1], median weighted score 1.1 [IQR 1-1.6]). In 18% of cases, HIV-ASSIST weighted score suggested that the prescribed regimen would be considered "less preferred" (score > 2.0) than other available alternatives.

Conclusion

HIV-ASSIST is an educational decision support tool that provides ARV recommendations concordant with experienced HIV providers from two major academic centers for a diverse set of patient scenarios.

SUBMITTER: Ramirez JA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7210320 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundReal-time clinical decision support (CDS) integrated into clinicians' workflow has the potential to profoundly affect the cost, quality, and safety of health care delivery. Recent reports have identified a surprisingly low acceptance rate for different types of CDS. We hypothesized that factors affecting CDS system acceptance could be categorized as relating to differences in patients, physicians, CDS-type, or environmental characteristics.MethodsWe conducted a survey of all adult primary care physicians (PCPs, n = 225) within our group model Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) to identify factors that affect their acceptance of CDS. We defined clinical decision support broadly as "clinical information" that is either provided to you or accessible by you, from the clinical workstation (e.g., enhanced flow sheet displays, health maintenance reminders, alternative medication suggestions, order sets, alerts, and access to any internet-based information resources).Results110 surveys were returned (49%). There were no differences in the age, gender, or years of service between those who returned the survey and the entire adult PCP population. Overall, clinicians stated that the CDS provided "helps them take better care of their patients" (3.6 on scale of 1:Never-5:Always), "is worth the time it takes" (3.5), and "reminds them of something they've forgotten" (3.2). There was no difference in the perceived acceptance rate of alerts based on their type (i.e., cost, safety, health maintenance). When asked about specific patient characteristics that would make the clinicians "more", "equally" or "less" likely to accept alerts: 41% stated that they were more (8% stated "less") likely to accept alerts on elderly patients (> 65 yrs); 38% were more (14% stated less) likely to accept alerts on patients with more than 5 current medications; and 38% were more (20% stated less) likely to accept alerts on patients with more than 5 chronic clinical conditions. Interestingly, 80% said they were less likely to accept alerts when they were behind schedule and 84% of clinicians admitted to being at least 20 minutes behind schedule "some", "most", or "all of the time".ConclusionEven though a majority of our clinical decision support suggestions are not explicitly followed, clinicians feel they are of benefit and would be even more beneficial if they had more time available to address them.