Dataset Information

Choosing Wisely clinical decision support adherence and associated inpatient outcomes.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:To determine whether utilization of clinical decision support (CDS) is correlated with improved patient clinical and financial outcomes. STUDY DESIGN:Observational study of 26,424 patient encounters. In the treatment group, the provider adhered to all CDS recommendations. In the control group, the provider did not adhere to CDS recommendations. METHODS:An observational study of provider adherence to a CDS system was conducted using inpatient encounters spanning 3 years. Data comprised alert status (adherence), provider type (resident, attending), patient demographics, clinical outcomes, Medicare status, and diagnosis information. We assessed the associations between alert adherence and 4 outcome measures: encounter length of stay, odds of 30-day readmission, odds of complications of care, and total direct costs. The associations between alert adherence and the outcome measures were estimated using 4 generalized linear models that adjusted for potential confounders, such as illness severity and case complexity. RESULTS:The total encounter cost increased 7.3% (95% CI, 3.5%-11%) for nonadherent encounters versus adherent encounters. We found a 6.2% (95% CI, 3.0%-9.4%) increase in length of stay for nonadherent versus adherent encounters. The odds ratio for readmission within 30 days increased by 1.14 (95% CI, 0.998-1.31) for nonadherent versus adherent encounters. The odds ratio for complications increased by 1.29 (95% CI, 1.04-1.61) for nonadherent versus adherent encounters. CONCLUSIONS:Consistent improvements in measured outcomes were seen in the treatment group versus the control group. We recommend that provider organizations consider the introduction of real-time CDS to support adherence to evidence-based guidelines, but because we cannot determine the cause of the associations between CDS interventions and improved clinical and financial outcomes, further study is required.

SUBMITTER: Heekin AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6813785 | biostudies-other | 2018 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Choosing Wisely clinical decision support adherence and associated inpatient outcomes.

Heekin Andrew M AM Kontor John J Sax Harry C HC Keller Michelle S MS Wellington Anne A Weingarten Scott S

The American journal of managed care 20180801 8

<h4>Objectives</h4>To determine whether utilization of clinical decision support (CDS) is correlated with improved patient clinical and financial outcomes.<h4>Study design</h4>Observational study of 26,424 patient encounters. In the treatment group, the provider adhered to all CDS recommendations. In the control group, the provider did not adhere to CDS recommendations.<h4>Methods</h4>An observational study of provider adherence to a CDS system was conducted using inpatient encounters spanning 3 ...[more]

PMID: 30130028

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDespite widespread use, there are few studies evaluating the consumer Choosing Wisely questions.MethodsWe evaluated the impact of the Choosing Wisely questions on consumers' decision-making outcomes. Adults living in Australia were presented with a hypothetical low-value care scenario. Using a 2×2×2 between-subjects factorial design, they were randomized to either the Choosing Wisely questions ("Questions"), a shared decision-making (SDM) preparation video ("Video"), both interventions, or control (no intervention). Primary outcomes were 1) self-efficacy to ask questions and be involved in decision-making and 2) intention to engage in SDM.ResultsA total of 1,439 participants (45.6% with "inadequate" health literacy) were eligible and included in the analysis. Intention to engage in SDM was higher in people randomized to the Video (mean difference [MD] = 0.24 [scale 0-6], 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.14, 0.35), Questions (MD = 0.12, 95% CI: 0.01, 0.22), and both interventions (MD = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.23-0.44, P < 0.001, d = 0.28) compared with control. Combining interventions had a greater impact than presenting the Questions alone (MD = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.11, 0.32; P < 0.001). Those who received the Video or both interventions reported lower intention to follow the low-value treatment plan without further questioning (all P < 0.05) and more positive attitudes toward SDM (all P < 0.05) compared with control. Intervention acceptability was high in all study arms (>80%), but proactive access was low (1.7%-20.8%). Compared with control, participants who received one or both interventions asked more questions that mapped to the Choosing Wisely questions (all P < .001). There were no main effects of either intervention on self-efficacy or knowledge.ConclusionsThe Choosing Wisely questions and a video to promote SDM may improve intention to engage in SDM and support patients in identifying questions that align with the Choosing Wisely campaign (with some additional benefits of the video intervention).Trial registrationANZCTR376477.HighlightsWe conducted a randomized controlled trial online with adults living in Australia to test the effectiveness of the consumer Choosing Wisely questions and a shared decision-making (SDM) preparation video.Both interventions improved intention to engage in SDM and supported participants to identify questions that align with the Choosing Wisely campaign.There were some additional benefits of the Video intervention in reducing willingness to accept low-value treatment for low-back pain without asking questions; however, neither intervention changed participants' self-efficacy to ask questions and be involved in decision-making nor affected perceptions of preparedness to engage in SDM or knowledge of rights to be involved in health care decision-making.The simple, low-cost nature of the interventions may make them appropriate for implementation within a suite of approaches to address low-value care at a population level.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study aimed to examine how patients perceive shared decision-making regarding CT scan referral and use of the five Choosing Wisely questions with their general practitioner (GP).DesignThis is a qualitative exploratory study using semistructured interviews.SettingThis study was conducted in a large metropolitan public healthcare organisation in urban Australia.ParticipantsFollowing purposive sampling, 20 patients and 2 carers participated. Patient participants aged 18 years or older were eligible if they were attending the healthcare organisation for a CT scan and referred by their GP. Carers/family were eligible to participate when they were in the role of an unpaid carer and were aged 18 years or older. Participants were required to speak English sufficiently to provide informed consent. Participants with cognitive impairment were excluded.FindingsEighteen interviews were conducted with the patient only. Two interviews were conducted with the patient and the patient's carer. Fourteen participants were female. Five themes resulted from the thematic analysis: (1) needing to know, (2) questioning doctors is not necessary, (3) discussing scans is not required, (4) uncertainty about questioning and (5) valuing the Choosing Wisely questions. Participants reported that they presented to their GP with a health problem that they needed to understand and address. Participants accepted their GPs decision to prescribe a CT scan to identify the nature of their problem. They reported ambivalence about engaging in shared decision-making with their doctor, although many participants reported valuing the Choosing Wisely questions.ConclusionsShared decision-making is an important principle underpinning Choosing Wisely. Practice implementation requires understanding patients' motivations to engage in shared decision-making with a focus on attitudes, beliefs, knowledge and emotions. Systems-level support and education for healthcare practitioners in effective communication is important. However, this needs to emphasise communication with patients who have varying degrees of motivation to engage in shared decision-making and Choosing Wisely.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The Choosing Wisely campaign has spread to many countries. Methods for developing recommendations are inconsistent. We describe our process of developing such recommendations from a comprehensive national set of clinical practice guidelines (Current Care, CC) and the results of a one-year Choosing Wisely Finland project. METHODS:Two of the authors drafted the quality and process criteria for all the Choosing Wisely Finland recommendations. The quality criteria were relevance, feasibility, evidence-based and strength. These were discussed in editors' meetings and subsequently revised. Two different processes for developing recommendations within national clinical practice guidelines were designed and piloted (processes A and B). Process A was based on a published guideline. The recommendations are drafted by an editor and revised and approved by the guideline development group. In process B the development of the recommendations is integrated with guideline production or update. Choosing Wisely recommendations were then drafted for half of the published CC Guidelines. An additional process (process C) was designed for producing independent recommendations outside a guideline. RESULTS:At least one Choosing Wisely recommendation could be identified from 39 out of 52 reviewed guidelines. Of the 106 recommendations drafted, 62 (58%) were accepted for publication. The main reasons for rejection were inability to give a strong recommendation (n?=?18, 41%) and insufficient relevance (n?=?14, 32%). Two thirds (n?=?41, 66%) of the published recommendations were based on high to moderate level of evidence, and 18% (n?=?11) on low or very low level of evidence, whereas for the rest, the quality of evidence was not critically appraised. CONCLUSIONS:Choosing Wisely recommendations can be produced systematically from existing clinical practice guidelines. The rigorous methods of evidence-based medicine ensure high-quality recommendations. We welcome the use of our processes and methods describes in this article by other guideline-producing organizations.

Project description:BackgroundChoosing Wisely Canada is an initiative to reduce overprescribing and overtesting. This study assessed adherence to 4 Choosing Wisely Canada recommendations for interventions commonly performed in primary care: (a) antibiotic prescriptions for infections that are probably viral in origin, (b) routine vitamin D tests in low-risk adults, (c) annual screening blood tests and (d) prescriptions of antipsychotic medication to treat symptoms of dementia.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of data from the electronic medical records of patients who had an encounter between 2014 and 2016 with a participating Manitoba Primary Care Research Network primary care provider in Manitoba, Canada. Patient encounter data were reviewed for prescribing and testing practices. Descriptive statistics and multivariable models assessed associations between patient and provider characteristics and rates of prescribing and testing.ResultsData for 164 195 patients from 230 providers were included in the study. Sixteen percent (n = 25 629) of patients had an encounter that involved potentially unnecessary diagnostic testing and treatment. A minority of providers contributed to above-average rates of prescribing and testing: 29% (n = 69) of providers prescribed antibiotics for a viral indication,11% (n = 24) prescribed an antipsychotic to a patient diagnosed with dementia, 9% (n = 24) ordered prostate-specific antigen tests and 14% (n = 34) ordered vitamin D tests at above-average rates, respectively. Patient and provider characteristics were associated with each of the prescribing and testing practices assessed.InterpretationThis study demonstrated that fewer than 30% of primary care providers contributed to interventions in direct contradiction to Choosing Wisely Canada recommendations. Improvement strategies specific to each prescription or testing recommendation should target specific providers to prevent patient harm and reduce unnecessary health care spending.

Dataset Information

Choosing Wisely clinical decision support adherence and associated inpatient outcomes.

Publications

Choosing Wisely clinical decision support adherence and associated inpatient outcomes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets