Dataset Information

Effect of Clinical Decision Support at Community Health Centers on the Risk of Cardiovascular Disease: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Management of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in socioeconomically vulnerable patients is suboptimal; better risk factor control could improve CVD outcomes.

Objective

To evaluate the impact of a clinical decision support system (CDSS) targeting CVD risk in community health centers (CHCs).

Design, setting, and participants

This cluster randomized clinical trial included 70 CHC clinics randomized to an intervention group (42 clinics; 8 organizations) or a control group that received no intervention (28 clinics; 7 organizations) from September 20, 2018, to March 15, 2020. Randomization was by CHC organization accounting for organization size. Patients aged 40 to 75 years with (1) diabetes or atherosclerotic CVD and at least 1 uncontrolled major risk factor for CVD or (2) total reversible CVD risk of at least 10% were the population targeted by the CDSS intervention.

Interventions

A point-of-care CDSS displaying real-time CVD risk factor control data and personalized, prioritized evidence-based care recommendations.

Main outcomes and measures

One-year change in total CVD risk and reversible CVD risk (ie, the reduction in 10-year CVD risk that was considered achievable if 6 key risk factors reached evidence-based levels of control).

Results

Among the 18 578 eligible patients (9490 [51.1%] women; mean [SD] age, 58.7 [8.8] years), patients seen in control clinics (n = 7419) had higher mean (SD) baseline CVD risk (16.6% [12.8%]) than patients seen in intervention clinics (n = 11 159) (15.6% [12.3%]; P < .001); baseline reversible CVD risk was similarly higher among patients seen in control clinics. The CDSS was used at 19.8% of 91 988 eligible intervention clinic encounters. No population-level reduction in CVD risk was seen in patients in control or intervention clinics; mean reversible risk improved significantly more among patients in control (-0.1% [95% CI, -0.3% to -0.02%]) than intervention clinics (0.4% [95% CI, 0.3% to 0.5%]; P < .001). However, when the CDSS was used, both risk measures decreased more among patients with high baseline risk in intervention than control clinics; notably, mean reversible risk decreased by an absolute 4.4% (95% CI, -5.2% to -3.7%) among patients in intervention clinics compared with 2.7% (95% CI, -3.4% to -1.9%) among patients in control clinics (P = .001).

Conclusions and relevance

The CDSS had low use rates and failed to improve CVD risk in the overall population but appeared to have a benefit on CVD risk when it was consistently used for patients with high baseline risk treated in CHCs. Despite some limitations, these results provide preliminary evidence that this technology has the potential to improve clinical care in socioeconomically vulnerable patients with high CVD risk.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03001713.

SUBMITTER: Gold R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8817199 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAdults with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or bipolar disorder, collectively termed serious mental illness (SMI), have shortened life spans compared with people without SMI. The leading cause of death is cardiovascular (CV) disease.ObjectiveTo assess whether a clinical decision support (CDS) system aimed at primary care clinicians improves CV health for adult primary care patients with SMI.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cluster randomized clinical trial conducted from March 2, 2016, to September 19, 2018, restricted randomization assigned 76 primary care clinics in 3 Midwestern health care systems to receive or not receive a CDS system aimed at improving CV health among patients with SMI. Eligible clinics had at least 20 patients with SMI; clinicians and their adult patients with SMI with at least 1 modifiable CV risk factor not at the goal set by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines were included. Statistical analysis was conducted on an intention-to-treat basis from January 10, 2019, to December 29, 2021.InterventionThe CDS system assessed modifiable CV risk factors and provided personalized treatment recommendations to clinicians and patients.Main outcomes and measuresPatient-level change in total modifiable CV risk over 12 months, summed from individual modifiable risk factors (smoking, body mass index, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level, systolic blood pressure, and hemoglobin A1c level).ResultsA total of 80 clinics were randomized; 4 clinics were excluded for having fewer than 20 eligible patients, leaving 42 intervention clinics and 34 control clinics. A total of 8937 patients with SMI (4922 women [55.1%]; mean [SD] age, 48.4 [13.5] years) were enrolled. There was a 4% lower rate of increase in total modifiable CV risk among intervention patients relative to control patients (relative rate ratio [RR], 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94-0.98). The intervention favored patients who were 18 to 29 years of age (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81-0.98) or 50 to 59 years of age (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.90-0.96), Black (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88-0.98), or White (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94-0.98). Men (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94-0.99) and women (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.92-0.97), as well as patients with any SMI subtype (bipolar disorder: RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94-0.99; schizoaffective disorder: RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.98; schizophrenia: RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.85-0.99) also benefited from the intervention. Despite treatment effects favoring the intervention, there were no significant differences in individual modifiable risk factors.Conclusions and relevanceThis CDS intervention resulted in a rate of change in total modifiable CV risk that was 4% lower among intervention patients compared with control patients. Results were driven by the cumulative effects of incremental and mostly nonsignificant changes in individual modifiable risk factors. These findings emphasize the value of using CDS to prompt early primary care intervention for adults with SMI.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02451670.

Project description:ImportanceAppendicitis is the most common pediatric surgical emergency. Efforts to improve efficiency and quality of care have increased reliance on computed tomography (CT) and ultrasonography (US) in children with suspected appendicitis.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of an electronic health record-linked clinical decision support intervention, AppyCDS, on diagnostic imaging, health care costs, and safety outcomes for patients with suspected appendicitis.Design, setting, and participantsIn this parallel, cluster randomized trial, 17 community-based general emergency departments (EDs) in California, Minnesota, and Wisconsin were randomized to the AppyCDS intervention group or usual care (UC) group. Patients were aged 5 to 20 years, presenting for an ED visit with right-sided or diffuse abdominal pain lasting 5 days or less. We excluded pregnant patients, those with a prior appendectomy, those with selected comorbidities, and those with traumatic injuries. The trial was conducted from October 2016 to July 2019.InterventionsAppyCDS prompted data entry at the point of care to estimate appendicitis risk using the pediatric appendicitis risk calculator (pARC). Based on pARC estimates, AppyCDS recommended next steps in care.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were CT, US, or any imaging (CT or US) during the index ED visit. Safety outcomes were perforations, negative appendectomies, and missed appendicitis. Costs were a secondary outcome. Ratio of ratios (RORs) for primary and safety outcomes and differences by group in cost were used to evaluate effectiveness of the clinical decision support tool.ResultsWe enrolled 3161 patients at intervention EDs and 2779 patients at UC EDs. The mean age of patients was 11.9 (4.6) years and 2614 (44.0%) were boys or young men. RORs for CT (0.94; 95% CI, 0.75-1.19), US (0.98; 95% CI, 0.84-1.14), and any imaging (0.96; 95% CI, 0.86-1.07) did not differ by study group. In an exploratory analysis conducted in 1 health system, AppyCDS was associated with a reduction in any imaging (ROR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73- 0.93) for patients with pARC score of 15% or less and a reduction in CT (ROR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.45-0.74) for patients with a pARC score of 16% to 50%. Perforations, negative appendectomies, and cases of missed appendicitis by study phase did not differ significantly by study group. Costs did not differ overall by study group.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, AppyCDS was not associated with overall reductions in diagnostic imaging; exploratory analysis revealed more appropriate use of imaging in patients with a low pARC score.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02633735.

Project description:ImportanceContextualizing care is a process of incorporating information about the life circumstances and behavior of individual patients, termed contextual factors, into their plan of care. In 4 steps, clinicians recognize clues (termed contextual red flags), clinicians ask about them (probe for context), patients disclose contextual factors, and clinicians adapt care accordingly. The process is associated with a desired outcome resolution of the presenting contextual red flag.ObjectiveTo determine whether contextualized clinical decision support (CDS) tools in the electronic health record (EHR) improve clinician contextual probing, attention to contextual factors in care planning, and the presentation of contextual red flags.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized clinical trial was performed at the primary care clinics of 2 academic medical centers with different EHR systems. Participants were adults 18 years or older consenting to audio record their visits and their physicians between September 6, 2018, and March 4, 2021. Patients were randomized to an intervention or a control group. Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis.InterventionsPatients completed a previsit questionnaire that elicited contextual red flags and factors and appeared in the clinician's note template in a contextual care box. The EHR also culled red flags from the medical record, included them in the contextual care box, used passive and interruptive alerts, and proposed relevant orders.Main outcomes and measuresProportion of contextual red flags noted at the index visit that resolved 6 months later (primary outcome), proportion of red flags probed (secondary outcome), and proportion of contextual factors addressed in the care plan by clinicians (secondary outcome), adjusted for study site and for multiple red flags and factors within a visit.ResultsFour hundred fifty-two patients (291 women [65.1%]; mean [SD] age, 55.6 [15.1] years) completed encounters with 39 clinicians (23 women [59.0%]). Contextual red flags were not more likely to resolve in the intervention vs control group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.96 [95% CI, 0.57-1.63]). However, the intervention increased both contextual probing (aOR, 2.12 [95% CI, 1.14-3.93]) and contextualization of the care plan (aOR, 2.67 [95% CI, 1.32-5.41]), controlling for whether a factor was identified by probing or otherwise. Across study groups, contextualized care plans were more likely than noncontextualized plans to result in improvement in the presenting red flag (aOR, 2.13 [95% CI, 1.38-3.28]).Conclusions and relevanceThis randomized clinical trial found that contextualized CDS did not improve patients' outcomes but did increase contextualization of their care, suggesting that use of this technology could ultimately help improve outcomes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03244033.

Project description:ImportanceInformation is needed about optimal strategies to improve evidence-based treatment of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in primary care.ObjectiveTo determine whether a multimodal intervention delays annualized loss of estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) in stages 3 and 4 CKD.Design, setting, and participantsThis pragmatic cluster randomized clinical trial enrolled 42 primary care practices located in nonhospital settings with electronic health record systems. Practices were recruited through the American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network. The study was conducted January 2013 through January 2016.InterventionsPractices were randomized at the organization level to either the clinical decision support (CDS) plus practice facilitation (PF) group (n = 25) or CDS group (n = 17) using covariate constrained randomization. Both groups received point-of-care CDS to prompt screening, diagnosis, and treatment of CKD; the intervention group also received PF based on the 9-point TRANSLATE model (target, use point-of-care reminder systems, get administrative buy-in, network information systems using registries, site coordination, local physician champion, audit and feedback, team approach, and education).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome measure was eGFR over time. Secondary outcome measures were systolic blood pressure over time, change in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) over time, avoidance of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications, use of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin-renin blocker medication, early recognition and diagnosis of CKD, blood pressure control, and smoking cessation.ResultsIn this cluster randomized trial of 30 primary care practices comprising 6699 patients, there were 1685 patients in the control group (10 practices) and 5014 patients in the intervention group (20 practices). The final sample of practices differed from the original set of randomized practices owing to dropout. Patients in the practices were similar at baseline for age (mean [SD], 71.3 [9.6] years), sex (2716 male [40.5%]), and eGFR. There was a significant difference in eGFR slopes for patients in the intervention vs control group practices. The mean (SE) annualized loss of eGFR was 0.95 (0.19) in the control group in propensity-adjusted longitudinal analyses and 0.01 (0.12) in the intervention group (mean [SE] difference in slopes, 0.93 [0.23]; P < .001). Among patients with HbA1c measures, slopes differed significantly for patients in intervention vs control practices, with a mean (SE) annualized increase of 0.14 (0.03) in HbA1c for patients in control practices and a mean (SE) decline of 0.009 (0.02) for patients in intervention practices. There was a significant difference in HbA1c slopes for patients in the intervention compared with control group practices (control vs intervention, -0.14; P < .001), but no difference in the other secondary outcomes.Conclusions and relevanceA multimodal intervention in primary care, based on the TRANSLATE model, slowed annualized loss of eGFR. This study had several important strengths, weaknesses, and lessons learned regarding the implementation of pragmatic interventions in primary care to improve CKD outcomes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01767883.

Project description:ImportanceSchool-based interventions offer an opportunity for health promotion in adolescence.ObjectiveTo assess the effect of 2 multicomponent educational health promotion strategies of differing duration and intensity on adolescents' cardiovascular health (CVH).Design, setting, and participantsThe SI! Program for Secondary Schools is a 4-year cluster randomized clinical intervention trial conducted in 24 secondary schools from Barcelona and Madrid, Spain, from September 7, 2017, to July 31, 2021. Eligible participants were adolescents enrolled in the first grade of secondary school.InterventionsSchools and their participants were randomized to receive a health promotion intervention (SI! Program) over 4 school years (long-term intervention [LTI], 8 schools, 412 adolescents) or 2 school years (short-term intervention [STI], 8 schools, 504 adolescents) or to receive the standard curriculum (control, 8 schools, 441 adolescents).Main outcome and measuresThe primary end point was the between-group difference at 2 and 4 years in the change from baseline of the overall CVH score, as defined by the American Heart Association (range, 0-14 points, with a higher score indicating a healthier CVH profile). Intervention effects were tested with multilevel mixed-effects models. A complete-case intention-to-treat analysis was performed as the primary analysis.ResultsOf the randomized students, the study enrolled 1326 adolescents (684 [51.6%] boys, mean [SD] age, 12.5 [0.4] years at recruitment) with a study completion rate of 86.0%. Baseline overall CVH scores were 10.3 points in the LTI group, 10.6 points in the STI group, and 10.5 points in the control group. After 2 years, at halfway through the LTI and at the end of the STI, the difference in the CVH score change was 0.44 points (95% CI, 0.01-0.87; P = .04) between the LTI group and the control group and 0.18 points (95% CI, -0.25 to 0.61; P = .39) between the STI group and the control group. At 4 years, differences for the LTI and STI groups vs control were 0.12 points (LTI: 95% CI, -0.19 to 0.43; P = .42) and 0.13 points (STI: 95% CI, -0.17 to 0.44; P = .38). No adverse events were reported.Conclusions and relevanceOverall, the tested school-based health promotion strategies in this randomized clinical trial had a neutral effect on the CVH of the adolescents. Although there was evidence of a marginal beneficial effect at a point halfway through implementation in the LTI group, such a benefit was not noted at 4 years. Further research is warranted into the efficacy of school-based health promotion programs.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03504059.