Dataset Information

Effect of point-of-care computer reminders on physician behaviour: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: The opportunity to improve care using computer reminders is one of the main incentives for implementing sophisticated clinical information systems. We conducted a systematic review to quantify the expected magnitude of improvements in processes of care from computer reminders delivered to clinicians during their routine activities.We searched the MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases (to July 2008) and scanned the bibliographies of retrieved articles. We included studies in our review if they used a randomized or quasi-randomized design to evaluate improvements in processes or outcomes of care from computer reminders delivered to physicians during routine electronic ordering or charting activities.Among the 28 trials (reporting 32 comparisons) included in our study, we found that computer reminders improved adherence to processes of care by a median of 4.2% (interquartile range [IQR] 0.8%-18.8%). Using the best outcome from each study, we found that the median improvement was 5.6% (IQR 2.0%-19.2%). A minority of studies reported larger effects; however, no study characteristic or reminder feature significantly predicted the magnitude of effect except in one institution, where a well-developed, "homegrown" clinical information system achieved larger improvements than in all other studies (median 16.8% [IQR 8.7%-26.0%] v. 3.0% [IQR 0.5%-11.5%]; p = 0.04). A trend toward larger improvements was seen for reminders that required users to enter a response (median 12.9% [IQR 2.7%-22.8%] v. 2.7% [IQR 0.6%-5.6%]; p = 0.09).Computer reminders produced much smaller improvements than those generally expected from the implementation of computerized order entry and electronic medical record systems. Further research is required to identify features of reminder systems consistently associated with clinically worthwhile improvements.

SUBMITTER: Shojania KG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2842864 | biostudies-other | 2010 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of point-of-care computer reminders on physician behaviour: a systematic review.

Shojania Kaveh G KG Jennings Alison A Mayhew Alain A Ramsay Craig C Eccles Martin M Grimshaw Jeremy J

CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne 20100308 5

<h4>Background</h4>The opportunity to improve care using computer reminders is one of the main incentives for implementing sophisticated clinical information systems. We conducted a systematic review to quantify the expected magnitude of improvements in processes of care from computer reminders delivered to clinicians during their routine activities.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched the MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL databases (to July 2008) and scanned the bibliographies of retrieved articles. We include ...[more]

PMID: 20212028

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The opportunity to improve care by delivering decision support to clinicians at the point of care represents one of the main incentives for implementing sophisticated clinical information systems. Previous reviews of computer reminder and decision support systems have reported mixed effects, possibly because they did not distinguish point of care computer reminders from e-mail alerts, computer-generated paper reminders, and other modes of delivering 'computer reminders'. OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the effects on processes and outcomes of care attributable to on-screen computer reminders delivered to clinicians at the point of care. SEARCH STRATEGY:We searched the Cochrane EPOC Group Trials register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL and CENTRAL to July 2008, and scanned bibliographies from key articles. SELECTION CRITERIA:Studies of a reminder delivered via a computer system routinely used by clinicians, with a randomised or quasi-randomised design and reporting at least one outcome involving a clinical endpoint or adherence to a recommended process of care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:Two authors independently screened studies for eligibility and abstracted data. For each study, we calculated the median improvement in adherence to target processes of care and also identified the outcome with the largest such improvement. We then calculated the median absolute improvement in process adherence across all studies using both the median outcome from each study and the best outcome. MAIN RESULTS:Twenty-eight studies (reporting a total of thirty-two comparisons) were included. Computer reminders achieved a median improvement in process adherence of 4.2% (interquartile range (IQR): 0.8% to 18.8%) across all reported process outcomes, 3.3% (IQR: 0.5% to 10.6%) for medication ordering, 3.8% (IQR: 0.5% to 6.6%) for vaccinations, and 3.8% (IQR: 0.4% to 16.3%) for test ordering. In a sensitivity analysis using the best outcome from each study, the median improvement was 5.6% (IQR: 2.0% to 19.2%) across all process measures and 6.2% (IQR: 3.0% to 28.0%) across measures of medication ordering. In the eight comparisons that reported dichotomous clinical endpoints, intervention patients experienced a median absolute improvement of 2.5% (IQR: 1.3% to 4.2%). Blood pressure was the most commonly reported clinical endpoint, with intervention patients experiencing a median reduction in their systolic blood pressure of 1.0 mmHg (IQR: 2.3 mmHg reduction to 2.0 mmHg increase). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:Point of care computer reminders generally achieve small to modest improvements in provider behaviour. A minority of interventions showed larger effects, but no specific reminder or contextual features were significantly associated with effect magnitude. Further research must identify design features and contextual factors consistently associated with larger improvements in provider behaviour if computer reminders are to succeed on more than a trial and error basis.

Project description:Computer reminders are increasingly being applied in efforts to improve quality and patient safety. However, research is still needed to establish the effectiveness of different kinds of reminders in various settings. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of computer reminders for improving adherence to a quality assessment scheme for point-of-care testing in general practice.The study was conducted as a randomized controlled crossover trial among general practices in the Capital Region of Denmark. The intervention consisted of sending computer reminders (ComRem) to practices not adhering to the guideline recommendations of split testing for hemoglobin and glucose. Practices were randomly allocated into two groups. During the first follow-up period, one of the groups received the ComRem intervention together with the general implementation activities (GIA), while the other group only received the GIA. For the second follow-up period, the intervention was switched between the two groups. Outcomes were measured as split test procedure adherence.A total of 142 practices were randomly allocated to the early intervention group and 144 practices to the late intervention group (the control group in the first follow-up period). In the first intervention period, the mean number of split tests performed in the group receiving ComRem group increased from 1.22 to 3.76 (out of eight possible tests) while the mean number of split tests increased from 1.11 to 2.35 in the group targeted by GIA only (p = 0.0059). After the crossover, a similar effect of reminders was observed. Furthermore, the developments in outcome measures over time showed a strong effect of computer reminders beyond the intervention periods.There was a significant effect of computer reminders on adherence to the quality assessment scheme for point-of-care testing. Thus, computer reminders seem to be useful for supporting the implementation of relatively simple procedures for quality and safety.ClinicalTrials.gov: http://NCT01152177.

Project description:Assessing left ventricular systolic function (LVSF) by echocardiography assists in the diagnosis and management of a diverse range of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). We evaluated the agreement between ED-based clinician sonographers and apriori-defined expert sonographers. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. We searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane, ClinicalTrials.gov, TRIP and Google Scholar for eligible studies from inception to February 2021. Risk of bias was evaluated using Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool. The level of agreement between clinician and expert sonographers was measured using kappa, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio statistics using random-effects models. Twelve studies were included (1131 patients, 1229 scans and 159 clinician sonographers). Significant heterogeneity was identified in patient selection, methods of assessment of LVSF, reference standards and statistical methods for assessing agreement. The overall quality of studies was low, with most being small, single centre convenience samples. A meta-analysis including seven studies (786 scans) where visual estimation method was used by clinician sonographers demonstrated simple Kappa of 0.68 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.57-0.79], and sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio of 89% (95% CI, 80-94%), 85% (95% CI, 80-89%), 5.98 (95% CI, 4.13-8.68) and 0.13 (95% CI, 0.06-0.24), respectively, between clinician sonographer and expert sonographer for normal/abnormal LVSF. The weighted kappa for five studies (429 scans) was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.61-0.80) for normal/reduced/severely reduced LVSF. There is substantial agreement between ED-based clinician sonographers and expert sonographers for assessing LVSF using visual estimation and ranking it as normal/reduced, or normal/reduced/severely reduced, in patients presenting to ED.

Project description:BackgroundPrimary care provision is important in the delivery of health care but many countries face primary care workforce challenges. Increasing demand, enlarged workloads, and current and anticipated physician shortages in many countries have led to the introduction of mid-level professionals, such as Physician Assistants (PAs).ObjectiveThis systematic review aimed to appraise the evidence of the contribution of PAs within primary care, defined for this study as general practice, relevant to the UK or similar systems.MethodsMedline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, BNI, SSCI and SCOPUS databases were searched from 1950 to 2010.Eligibility criteriaPAs with a recognised PA qualification, general practice/family medicine included and the findings relevant to it presented separately and an English language journal publication. Two reviewers independently identified relevant publications, assessed quality using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tools and extracted findings. Findings were classified and synthesised narratively as factors related to structure, process or outcome of care.Results2167 publications were identified, of which 49 met our inclusion criteria, with 46 from the United States of America (USA). Structure: approximately half of PAs are reported to work in primary care in the USA with good support and a willingness to employ amongst doctors.Processthe majority of PAs' workload is the management of patients with acute presentations. PAs tend to see younger patients and a different caseload to doctors, and require supervision. Studies of costs provide mixed results.Outcomesacceptability to patients and potential patients is consistently found to be high, and studies of appropriateness report positively. Overall the evidence was appraised as of weak to moderate quality, with little comparative data presented and little change in research questions over time.Limitationsidentification of a broad range of studies examining 'contribution' made meta analysis or meta synthesis untenable.ConclusionsThe research evidence of the contribution of PAs to primary care was mixed and limited. However, the continued growth in employment of PAs in American primary care suggests that this professional group is judged to be of value by increasing numbers of employers. Further specific studies are needed to fill in the gaps in our knowledge about the effectiveness of PAs' contribution to the international primary care workforce.

Project description:ObjectiveTo appraise and synthesise research on the impact of physician assistants/associates (PA) in secondary care, specifically acute internal medicine, care of the elderly, emergency medicine, trauma and orthopaedics, and mental health.DesignSystematic review.SettingElectronic databases (Medline, Embase, ASSIA, CINAHL, SCOPUS, PsycINFO, Social Policy and Practice, EconLit and Cochrane), reference lists and related articles.Included articlesPeer-reviewed articles of any study design, published in English, 1995-2017.InterventionsBlinded parallel processes were used to screen abstracts and full text, data extractions and quality assessments against published guidelines. A narrative synthesis was undertaken.Outcome measuresImpact on: patients' experiences and outcomes, service organisation, working practices, other professional groups and costs.Results5472 references were identified and 161 read in full; 16 were included-emergency medicine (7), trauma and orthopaedics (6), acute internal medicine (2), mental health (1) and care of the elderly (0). All studies were observational, with variable methodological quality. In emergency medicine and in trauma and orthopaedics, when PAs are added to teams, reduced waiting and process times, lower charges, equivalent readmission rate and good acceptability to staff and patients are reported. Analgesia prescribing, operative complications and mortality outcomes were variable. In internal medicine outcomes of care provided by PAs and doctors were equivalent.ConclusionsPAs have been deployed to increase the capacity of a team, enabling gains in waiting time, throughput, continuity and medical cover. When PAs were compared with medical staff, reassuringly there was little or no negative effect on health outcomes or cost. The difficulty of attributing cause and effect in complex systems where work is organised in teams is highlighted. Further rigorous evaluation is required to address the complexity of the PA role, reporting on more than one setting, and including comparison between PAs and roles for which they are substituting.Prospero registration numberCRD42016032895.

Dataset Information

Effect of point-of-care computer reminders on physician behaviour: a systematic review.

Publications

Effect of point-of-care computer reminders on physician behaviour: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets