Dataset Information

Nudging physicians and patients with autopend clinical decision support to improve diabetes management.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To determine the impact on routine glycated hemoglobin (A1C) laboratory test completion of incorporating an autopend laboratory order functionality into clinical decision support, which (1) routed provider alerts to a separate electronic folder, (2) automatically populated preauthorization forms, and (3) linked the timing and content of electronic patient health maintenance topic (HMT) reminders to the provider authorization.

Study design

Observational pre-post study from November 2011 (1 year before autopend) through June 2014 (1.5 years after).

Methods

The study included HMT reminders concerning an A1C test for patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes (N = 15,630 HMT reminders; 8792 patients) in a large multispecialty ambulatory healthcare system. A Cox proportional hazard model, adjusted for patient and provider demographics, estimated the likelihood of laboratory test completion based on 3 HMT reminder characteristics: preautopend versus postautopend period, read versus unread, and the patient's time to reading.

Results

In the postautopend period, the median time for patients to read reminders decreased (1 vs 3 days; P <.001) and the median time to complete laboratory tests decreased (40 vs 48 days; P <.001). Comparing preautopend HMT reminders with a similar time to reading, the likelihood of A1C laboratory test completion increased after autopend by between 21.1% (hazard ratio [HR], 1.211; P = .050), when time to reading was 57 days, and 33.9% (HR, 1.339; P = .003), when time to reading was 0 days. This result included 68% of the reminders. There was no statistical difference in A1C laboratory test completion for unread reminders in the preautopend versus postautopend period.

Conclusions

Automated patient-centered decision support can improve guideline-concordant monitoring of A1C among patients with diabetes, particularly among patients who read reminders in a timely fashion.

SUBMITTER: Panattoni L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9245447 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ContextClinical guidelines are available to enhance symptom management during cancer treatment but often are not used in the practice setting. Clinical decision support can facilitate the implementation and adherence to clinical guidelines. and improve the quality of cancer care.ObjectivesClinical decision support offers an innovative approach to integrate guideline-based symptom management into oncology care. This study evaluated the effect of clinical decision support-based recommendations on clinical management of symptoms and health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) among outpatients with lung cancer.MethodsTwenty providers and 179 patients were allotted in group randomization to attention control (AC) or Symptom Assessment and Management Intervention (SAMI) arms. SAMI entailed patient-report of symptoms and delivery of recommendations to manage pain, fatigue, dyspnea, depression, and anxiety; AC entailed symptom reporting prior to the visit. Outcomes were collected at baseline, two, four and six-months. Adherence to recommendations was assessed through masked chart review. HR-QOL was measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung questionnaire. Descriptive statistics with linear and logistic regression accounting for the clustering structure of the design and a modified chi-square test were used for analyses.ResultsMedian age of patients was 63 years, 58% female, 88% white, and 32% ≤high school education. Significant differences in clinical management were evident in SAMI vs. AC for all target symptoms that passed threshold. Patients in SAMI were more likely to receive sustained-release opioids for constant pain, adjuvant medications for neuropathic pain, opioids for dyspnea, stimulants for fatigue and mental health referrals for anxiety. However, there were no statistically significant differences in HR-QOL at any time point.ConclusionSAMI improved clinical management for all target symptoms but did not improve patient outcomes. A larger study is warranted to evaluate effectiveness.

Project description:BackgroundThe clinical decision-making process in pressure ulcer management is complex, and its quality depends on both the nurse's experience and the availability of scientific knowledge. This process should follow evidence-based practices incorporating health information technologies to assist health care professionals, such as the use of clinical decision support systems. These systems, in addition to increasing the quality of care provided, can reduce errors and costs in health care. However, the widespread use of clinical decision support systems still has limited evidence, indicating the need to identify and evaluate its effects on nursing clinical practice.ObjectiveThe goal of the review was to identify the effects of nurses using clinical decision support systems on clinical decision making for pressure ulcer management.MethodsThe systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) recommendations. The search was conducted in April 2019 on 5 electronic databases: MEDLINE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Cochrane, and CINAHL, without publication date or study design restrictions. Articles that addressed the use of computerized clinical decision support systems in pressure ulcer care applied in clinical practice were included. The reference lists of eligible articles were searched manually. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies.ResultsThe search strategy resulted in 998 articles, 16 of which were included. The year of publication ranged from 1995 to 2017, with 45% of studies conducted in the United States. Most addressed the use of clinical decision support systems by nurses in pressure ulcers prevention in inpatient units. All studies described knowledge-based systems that assessed the effects on clinical decision making, clinical effects secondary to clinical decision support system use, or factors that influenced the use or intention to use clinical decision support systems by health professionals and the success of their implementation in nursing practice.ConclusionsThe evidence in the available literature about the effects of clinical decision support systems (used by nurses) on decision making for pressure ulcer prevention and treatment is still insufficient. No significant effects were found on nurses' knowledge following the integration of clinical decision support systems into the workflow, with assessments made for a brief period of up to 6 months. Clinical effects, such as outcomes in the incidence and prevalence of pressure ulcers, remain limited in the studies, and most found clinically but nonstatistically significant results in decreasing pressure ulcers. It is necessary to carry out studies that prioritize better adoption and interaction of nurses with clinical decision support systems, as well as studies with a representative sample of health care professionals, randomized study designs, and application of assessment instruments appropriate to the professional and institutional profile. In addition, long-term follow-up is necessary to assess the effects of clinical decision support systems that can demonstrate a more real, measurable, and significant effect on clinical decision making.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42019127663; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=127663.

Project description:BackgroundEvidence-based therapy for heart failure remains underutilized at hospital discharge, particularly for patients with heart failure who are hospitalized for another cause. We developed clinical decision support (CDS) to recommend an angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor during hospitalization to promote its continuation at discharge. The CDS was designed to be implemented in both interruptive and non-interruptive versions.ObjectivesTo compare the effectiveness and implementation of interruptive and non-interruptive versions of a CDS to improve care for heart failure.MethodsHospitalizations of patients with reduced ejection fraction were pseudo-randomized to deliver interruptive or non-interruptive CDS alerts to providers based on even or odd medical record number. We compared discharge utilization of an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) for these two implementation approaches. We also assessed adoption and implementation fidelity of the CDS.ResultsOf 958 hospitalizations, interruptive alert hospitalizations had higher rates of discharge utilization of ACE inhibitors or ARBs than non-interruptive alert hospitalizations (79.6% vs. 74.2%, p = 0.05). Utilization was higher for interruptive alert versus non-interruptive alert hospitalizations which were principally for causes other than heart failure (79.8% vs. 73.4%; p = 0.05) but no difference was observed among hospitalizations with a principal heart failure diagnosis (85.9% vs.81.7%; p = 0.49). As compared to non-interruptive hospitalizations, interruptive alert hospitalizations were more likely to have had: an alert with any response (40.6% vs. 13.1%, p < 0.001), contraindications reported (33.1% vs 11.3%, p < 0.001), and an ACE inhibitor ordered within twelve hours of the alert (17.6% vs 10.3%, p < 0.01). The response rate for the interruptive alert was 1.7%, and a median (25th, 75th percentile) of 14 (5,32) alerts were triggered per hospitalization.ConclusionsA CDS implemented as an interruptive alert was associated with improved quality of care for heart failure. Whether the potential benefits of CDS in improving cardiovascular care were worth the high burden of interruptive alerts deserves further consideration. CLINICALTRIALS.Gov identifierNCT02858674.