A randomized trial of electronic clinical reminders to improve medication laboratory monitoring

Clinical Decision Support for Laboratory Testing

BACKGROUND

As technology enables new and increasingly complex laboratory tests, test utilization presents a growing challenge for healthcare systems. Clinical decision support (CDS) refers to digital tools that present providers with clinically relevant information and recommendations, which have been shown to improve test utilization. Nevertheless, individual CDS applications often fail, and implementation remains challenging.

CONTENT

We review common classes of CDS tools grounded in examples from the literature as well as our own institutional experience. In addition, we present a practical framework and specific recommendations for effective CDS implementation.

SUMMARY

CDS encompasses a rich set of tools that have the potential to drive significant improvements in laboratory testing, especially with respect to test utilization. Deploying CDS effectively requires thoughtful design and careful maintenance, and structured processes focused on quality improvement and change management play an important role in achieving these goals.

Efficiency over thoroughness in laboratory testing decision making in primary care: findings from a realist review

Background

Existing research demonstrates significant variation in test-ordering practice, and growth in the use of laboratory tests in primary care. Reviews of interventions designed to change test-ordering practice report heterogeneity in design and effectiveness. Improving understanding of clinicians’ decision making in relation to laboratory testing is an important means of understanding practice patterns and developing theory-informed interventions.

Aim

To develop explanations for the underlying causes of patterns of variation and increasing use of laboratory tests in primary care, and make recommendations for future research and intervention design.

Design & setting

Realist review of secondary data from primary care.

Method

Diverse evidence, including data from qualitative and quantitative studies, was gathered via systematic and iterative searching processes. Data were synthesised according to realist principles to develop explanations accounting for clinicians’ decision making in relation to laboratory tests.

Results

A total of 145 documents contributed data to the synthesis. Laboratory test ordering can fulfil many roles in primary care. Decisions about tests are incorporated into practice heuristics and tests are deployed as a tool to manage patient interactions. Ordering tests may be easier than not ordering tests in existing systems. Alongside high workloads and limited time to devote to decision making, there is a common perception that laboratory tests are relatively inconsequential interventions. Clinicians prioritise efficiency over thoroughness in decision making about laboratory tests.

Conclusion

Interventions to change test-ordering practice can be understood as aiming to preserve efficiency or encourage thoroughness in decision making. Intervention designs and evaluations should consider how testing decisions are made in real-world clinical practice.

Clinician preferences for computerised clinical decision support for medications in primary care: a focus group study

BACKGROUND

To improve user-centred design efforts and efficiency; there is a need to disseminate information on modern day clinician preferences for technologies such as computerised clinical decision support (CDS).

OBJECTIVE

To describe clinician perceptions regarding beneficial features of CDS for chronic medications in primary care.

METHODS

This study included focus groups and clinicians individually describing their ideal CDS. Three focus groups were conducted including prescribing clinicians from a variety of disciplines. Outcome measures included identification of favourable features and unintended consequences of CDS for chronic medication management in primary care. We transcribed recordings, performed thematic qualitative analysis and generated counts when possible.

RESULTS

There were 21 participants who identified four categories of beneficial CDS features during the group discussion: non-interruptive alerts, clinically relevant and customisable support, presentation of pertinent clinical information and optimises workflow. Non-interruptive alerts were broadly defined as passive alerts that a user chooses to review, whereas interruptive were active or disruptive alerts that interrupted workflow and one is forced to review before completing a task. The CDS features identified in the individual descriptions were consistent with the focus group discussion, with the exception of non-interruptive alerts. In the individual descriptions, 12 clinicians preferred interruptive CDS compared with seven clinicians describing non-interruptive CDS.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians identified CDS for chronic medications beneficial when they are clinically relevant and customisable, present pertinent clinical information (eg, labs, vitals) and improve their workflow. Although clinicians preferred passive, non-interruptive alerts, most acknowledged that these may not be widely seen and may be less effective. These features align with literature describing best practices in CDS design and emphasise those features clinicians prioritise, which should be considered when designing CDS for medication management in primary care. These findings highlight the disparity between the current state of CDS design and clinician-stated design features associated with beneficial CDS.

The Effect of Laboratory Test-Based Clinical Decision Support Tools on Medication Errors and Adverse Drug Events: A Laboratory Medicine Best Practices Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Laboratory and medication data in electronic health records create opportunities for clinical decision support (CDS) tools to improve medication dosing, laboratory monitoring, and detection of side effects. This systematic review evaluates the effectiveness of such tools in preventing medication-related harm.

METHODS

We followed the Laboratory Medicine Best Practice (LMBP) initiative's A-6 methodology. Searches of 6 bibliographic databases retrieved 8508 abstracts. Fifteen articles examined the effect of CDS tools on (a) appropriate dose or medication (n = 5), (b) laboratory monitoring (n = 4), (c) compliance with guidelines (n = 2), and (d) adverse drug events (n = 5). We conducted meta-analyses by using random-effects modeling.

RESULTS

We found moderate and consistent evidence that CDS tools applied at medication ordering or dispensing can increase prescriptions of appropriate medications or dosages [6 results, pooled risk ratio (RR), 1.48; 95% CI, 1.27-1.74]. CDS tools also improve receipt of recommended laboratory monitoring and appropriate treatment in response to abnormal test results (6 results, pooled RR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.05-1.87). The evidence that CDS tools reduced adverse drug events was inconsistent (5 results, pooled RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.46-1.03).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings support the practice of healthcare systems with the technological capability incorporating test-based CDS tools into their computerized physician ordering systems to (a) identify and flag prescription orders of inappropriate dose or medications at the time of ordering or dispensing and (b) alert providers to missing laboratory tests for medication monitoring or results that warrant a change in treatment. More research is needed to determine the ability of these tools to prevent adverse drug events.

The Effects of Computerized Clinical Decision Support Systems on Laboratory Test Ordering: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

- Inappropriate laboratory test ordering has been shown to be as high as 30%. This can have an important impact on quality of care and costs because of downstream consequences such as additional diagnostics, repeat testing, imaging, prescriptions, surgeries, or hospital stays.

OBJECTIVE

- To evaluate the effect of computerized clinical decision support systems on appropriateness of laboratory test ordering.

DATA SOURCES

- We used MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, MEDLINE In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Clinicaltrials.gov, Cochrane Library, and Inspec through December 2015. Investigators independently screened articles to identify randomized trials that assessed a computerized clinical decision support system aimed at improving laboratory test ordering by providing patient-specific information, delivered in the form of an on-screen management option, reminder, or suggestion through a computerized physician order entry using a rule-based or algorithm-based system relying on an evidence-based knowledge resource. Investigators extracted data from 30 papers about study design, various study characteristics, study setting, various intervention characteristics, involvement of the software developers in the evaluation of the computerized clinical decision support system, outcome types, and various outcome characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

- Because of heterogeneity of systems and settings, pooled estimates of effect could not be made. Data showed that computerized clinical decision support systems had little or no effect on clinical outcomes but some effect on compliance. Computerized clinical decision support systems targeted at laboratory test ordering for multiple conditions appear to be more effective than those targeted at a single condition.

Analysis of clinical decision support system malfunctions: a case series and survey

OBJECTIVE

To illustrate ways in which clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) malfunction and identify patterns of such malfunctions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified and investigated several CDSS malfunctions at Brigham and Women's Hospital and present them as a case series. We also conducted a preliminary survey of Chief Medical Information Officers to assess the frequency of such malfunctions.

RESULTS

We identified four CDSS malfunctions at Brigham and Women's Hospital: (1) an alert for monitoring thyroid function in patients receiving amiodarone stopped working when an internal identifier for amiodarone was changed in another system; (2) an alert for lead screening for children stopped working when the rule was inadvertently edited; (3) a software upgrade of the electronic health record software caused numerous spurious alerts to fire; and (4) a malfunction in an external drug classification system caused an alert to inappropriately suggest antiplatelet drugs, such as aspirin, for patients already taking one. We found that 93% of the Chief Medical Information Officers who responded to our survey had experienced at least one CDSS malfunction, and two-thirds experienced malfunctions at least annually.

DISCUSSION

CDSS malfunctions are widespread and often persist for long periods. The failure of alerts to fire is particularly difficult to detect. A range of causes, including changes in codes and fields, software upgrades, inadvertent disabling or editing of rules, and malfunctions of external systems commonly contribute to CDSS malfunctions, and current approaches for preventing and detecting such malfunctions are inadequate.

CONCLUSION

CDSS malfunctions occur commonly and often go undetected. Better methods are needed to prevent and detect these malfunctions.

Factors associated with ordering laboratory monitoring of high-risk medications

BACKGROUND

Knowledge about factors associated with provider ordering of appropriate testing is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To determine physician factors associated with ordering recommended laboratory monitoring tests for high-risk medications.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of patients prescribed a high-risk medication requiring laboratory monitoring in a large multispecialty group practice between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2008. Analyses are based on administrative claims and electronic medical records. The outcome is a physician order for each recommended laboratory test for each prescribed medication. Key predictor variables are physician characteristics, including age, gender, specialty training, years since completing training, and prescribing volume. Additional variables are patient characteristics such as age, gender, comorbidity burden, whether the medication requiring monitoring is new or chronic, and drug-test characteristics such as inclusion in black box warnings. We used multivariable logistic regression, accounting for clustering of drugs within patients and patients within providers.

RESULTS

Physician orders for laboratory testing varied across drug-test pairs and ranged from 9% (Primidone-Phenobarbital level) to 97% (Azathioprine-CBC), with half of the drug-test pairs in the 85-91% ordered range. Test ordering was associated with higher provider prescribing volume for study drugs and specialist status (primary care providers were less likely to order tests than specialists). Patients with higher comorbidity burden and older patients were more likely to have appropriate tests ordered. Drug-test combinations with black box warnings were more likely to have tests ordered.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions to improve laboratory monitoring should focus on areas with the greatest potential for improvement: providers with lower frequencies of prescribing medications with monitoring recommendations and those prescribing these medications for healthier and younger patients; patients with less interaction with the health care system are at particular risk of not having tests ordered. Black box warnings were associated with higher ordering rates and may be a tool to increase appropriate test ordering.

Do we now know what inappropriate laboratory utilization is? An expanded systematic review of laboratory clinical audits

OBJECTIVES

Many nonpathologists and some pathologists consider utilization review essential to laboratory quality improvement, but (1) confusion surrounding the definition of "appropriate" laboratory utilization, (2) the reliance on manual chart review, and (3) a lack of leadership have contributed to its unstandardized implementation. How the solutions to these barriers have evolved since the 1950s is described.

METHODS

A systematic literature review is used.

RESULTS

Current literature largely defines inappropriate laboratory utilization as any test order in violation of a guideline produced by a government or professional society. Audits performed without manual chart review (ie, database query) have dramatically increased since the mid-1990s. Most utilization audits do not involve any author with a pathology or laboratory medicine affiliation.

CONCLUSIONS

Literature consensus defining "inappropriate" utilization combined with the adoption of database technology has removed key obstacles to utilization reviews. Leadership is needed to unify and benchmark laboratory utilization.

The effectiveness of computerized drug-lab alerts: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Inadequate lab monitoring of drugs is a potential cause of ADEs (adverse drug events) which is remediable.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of computerized drug-lab alerts to improve medication-related outcomes.

DATA SOURCES

Citations from the Computerized Clinical Decision Support System Systematic Review (CCDSSR) and MMIT (Medications Management through Health Information Technology) databases, which had searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from 1974 to March 27, 2013.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of clinician-targeted computerized drug lab alerts conducted in any healthcare setting. Two reviewers performed full text review to determine study eligibility.

DATA ABSTRACTION

A single reviewer abstracted data and evaluated validity of included studies using Cochrane handbook domains.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Thirty-six studies met the inclusion criteria (25 single drug studies with 22,504 participants, 14 targeting anticoagulation; 11 multi-drug studies with 56,769 participants). ADEs were reported as an outcome in only four trials, all targeting anticoagulants. Computerized drug-lab alerts did not reduce ADEs (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.79-1.00, p=0.05), length of hospital stay (SMD 0.00, 95%CI -0.93 to 0.93, p=0.055, 1 study), likelihood of hypoglycemia (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.31-5.37) or likelihood of bleeding, but were associated with increased likelihood of prescribing changes (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.21-2.47) or lab monitoring (OR 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.12-1.94) in accordance with the alert.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence that computerized drug-lab alerts are associated with important clinical benefits, but there is evidence of improvement in selected clinical surrogate outcomes (time in therapeutic range for vitamin K antagonists), and changes in process outcomes (lab monitoring and prescribing decisions).

A retrospective analysis of interruptive versus non-interruptive clinical decision support for identification of patients needing contact isolation

BACKGROUND

In determining whether clinical decision support (CDS) should be interruptive or non-interruptive, CDS designers need more guidance to balance the potential for interruptive CDS to overburden clinicians and the potential for non-interruptive CDS to be overlooked by clinicians.

OBJECTIVE

(1)To compare performance achieved by clinicians using interruptive CDS versus using similar, non-interruptive CDS. (2)To compare performance achieved using non-interruptive CDS among clinicians exposed to interruptive CDS versus clinicians not exposed to interruptive CDS.

METHODS

We studied 42 emergency medicine physicians working in a large hospital where an interruptive CDS to help identify patients requiring contact isolation was replaced by a similar, but non-interruptive CDS. The first primary outcome was the change in sensitivity in identifying these patients associated with the conversion from an interruptive to a non-interruptive CDS. The second primary outcome was the difference in sensitivities yielded by the non-interruptive CDS when used by providers who had and who had not been exposed to the interruptive CDS. The reference standard was an epidemiologist-designed, structured, objective assessment.

RESULTS

In identifying patients needing contact isolation, the interruptive CDS-physician dyad had sensitivity of 24% (95% CI: 17%-32%), versus sensitivity of 14% (95% CI: 9%-21%) for the non-interruptive CDS-physician dyad (p = 0.04). Users of the non-interruptive CDS with prior exposure to the interruptive CDS were more sensitive than those without exposure (14% [95% CI: 9%-21%] versus 7% [95% CI: 3%-13%], p = 0.05).

LIMITATIONS

As with all observational studies, we cannot confirm that our analysis controlled for every important difference between time periods and physician groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Interruptive CDS affected clinicians more than non-interruptive CDS. Designers of CDS might explicitly weigh the benefits of interruptive CDS versus its associated increased clinician burden. Further research should study longer term effects of clinician exposure to interruptive CDS, including whether it may improve clinician performance when using a similar, subsequent non-interruptive CDS.

Computerized advice on drug dosage to improve prescribing practice

BACKGROUND

Maintaining therapeutic concentrations of drugs with a narrow therapeutic window is a complex task. Several computer systems have been designed to help doctors determine optimum drug dosage. Significant improvements in health care could be achieved if computer advice improved health outcomes and could be implemented in routine practice in a cost-effective fashion. This is an updated version of an earlier Cochrane systematic review, first published in 2001 and updated in 2008.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether computerized advice on drug dosage has beneficial effects on patient outcomes compared with routine care (empiric dosing without computer assistance).

SEARCH METHODS

The following databases were searched from 1996 to January 2012: EPOC Group Specialized Register, Reference Manager; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Ovid; EMBASE, Ovid; and CINAHL, EbscoHost. A "top up" search was conducted for the period January 2012 to January 2013; these results were screened by the authors and potentially relevant studies are listed in Studies Awaiting Classification. The review authors also searched reference lists of relevant studies and related reviews.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series analyses of computerized advice on drug dosage. The participants were healthcare professionals responsible for patient care. The outcomes were any objectively measured change in the health of patients resulting from computerized advice (such as therapeutic drug control, clinical improvement, adverse reactions).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality. We grouped the results from the included studies by drug used and the effect aimed at for aminoglycoside antibiotics, amitriptyline, anaesthetics, insulin, anticoagulants, ovarian stimulation, anti-rejection drugs and theophylline. We combined the effect sizes to give an overall effect for each subgroup of studies, using a random-effects model. We further grouped studies by type of outcome when appropriate (i.e. no evidence of heterogeneity).

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-six comparisons (from 42 trials) were included (as compared with 26 comparisons in the last update) including a wide range of drugs in inpatient and outpatient settings. All were randomized controlled trials except two studies. Interventions usually targeted doctors, although some studies attempted to influence prescriptions by pharmacists and nurses. Drugs evaluated were anticoagulants, insulin, aminoglycoside antibiotics, theophylline, anti-rejection drugs, anaesthetic agents, antidepressants and gonadotropins. Although all studies used reliable outcome measures, their quality was generally low.This update found similar results to the previous update and managed to identify specific therapeutic areas where the computerized advice on drug dosage was beneficial compared with routine care:1. it increased target peak serum concentrations (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.79, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.13) and the proportion of people with plasma drug concentrations within the therapeutic range after two days (pooled risk ratio (RR) 4.44, 95% CI 1.94 to 10.13) for aminoglycoside antibiotics;2. it led to a physiological parameter more often within the desired range for oral anticoagulants (SMD for percentage of time spent in target international normalized ratio +0.19, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.33) and insulin (SMD for percentage of time in target glucose range: +1.27, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.98);3. it decreased the time to achieve stabilization for oral anticoagulants (SMD -0.56, 95% CI -1.07 to -0.04);4. it decreased the thromboembolism events (rate ratio 0.68, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.94) and tended to decrease bleeding events for anticoagulants although the difference was not significant (rate ratio 0.81, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.08). It tended to decrease unwanted effects for aminoglycoside antibiotics (nephrotoxicity: RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.06) and anti-rejection drugs (cytomegalovirus infections: RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.40);5. it tended to reduce the length of time spent in the hospital although the difference was not significant (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.02) and to achieve comparable or better cost-effectiveness ratios than usual care;6. there was no evidence of differences in mortality or other clinical adverse events for insulin (hypoglycaemia), anaesthetic agents, anti-rejection drugs and antidepressants.For all outcomes, statistical heterogeneity quantified by I(2) statistics was moderate to high.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review update suggests that computerized advice for drug dosage has some benefits: it increases the serum concentrations for aminoglycoside antibiotics and improves the proportion of people for which the plasma drug is within the therapeutic range for aminoglycoside antibiotics.It leads to a physiological parameter more often within the desired range for oral anticoagulants and insulin. It decreases the time to achieve stabilization for oral anticoagulants. It tends to decrease unwanted effects for aminoglycoside antibiotics and anti-rejection drugs, and it significantly decreases thromboembolism events for anticoagulants. It tends to reduce the length of hospital stay compared with routine care while comparable or better cost-effectiveness ratios were achieved.However, there was no evidence that decision support had an effect on mortality or other clinical adverse events for insulin (hypoglycaemia), anaesthetic agents, anti-rejection drugs and antidepressants. In addition, there was no evidence to suggest that some decision support technical features (such as its integration into a computer physician order entry system) or aspects of organization of care (such as the setting) could optimize the effect of computerized advice.Taking into account the high risk of bias of, and high heterogeneity between, studies, these results must be interpreted with caution.

From evidence to best practice in laboratory medicine

Laboratory tests offer value if they provide benefit to patients at acceptable costs. Laboratory testing is one of the most widely used diagnostic interventions supporting medical decisions, yet evidence demonstrating its value and impact on health outcomes is limited. This contributes to wide variations in test utilisation including underdiagnosis, overdiagnosis and misdiagnosis, which may impact the quality and the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of care and patient safety. Therefore implementing evidence into the care of patients is a moral and social imperative to laboratory professionals and all health care staff. This review investigates the reasons research does not get into practice, or only does with a very long delay. Apart from reviewing the common barriers to implementation, it also discusses the drivers of inappropriate test utilisation. By reviewing the theoretical and practical aspects of implementation science, recommendations are made for approaches that are thought to be most effective and that can be adopted to close the gap between evidence and practice, and to facilitate evidence-based laboratory medicine. Passive dissemination of the evidence and educational interventions are insufficient and do not offer sustainable solutions. A multifaceted and individualised implementation strategy, including individually tailored academic detailing, reminder systems, clinical decision support systems, feedback on performance, and participation of doctors and laboratory professionals in quality improvement activities addressing test selection and interpretation and in clinical audits, has greater potential for success. Examples of these initiatives at the laboratory and clinical interface are provided with links to valuable resources.

Use of electronic clinical reminders to increase preventive screenings in a primary care setting: blueprint from a successful process in Kodiak, Alaska

PURPOSE

The Kodiak Area Native Association (KANA) provides primary health care in Kodiak, Alaska and 6 outlying villages. KANA sought to actively improve key preventive screening rates for its patients.

METHODS

KANA adopted an electronic health record in 2008 and deployed national clinical reminders from the Indian Health Service for 5 key preventive screenings: tobacco use, alcohol use, depression, intimate partner violence, and a comprehensive cardiovascular exam. Clinical reminders were deployed in a 5-step process: (a) establish clinical demand, (b) pilot test reminder, (c) expand reminder to all providers, (d) measure outcomes and share results, and (e) delegate clinical reminder follow-up (primarily to nurses).

RESULTS

Data from 2007-2011 show screening rates for all 5 measures improved considerably, to levels significantly above the national average for Indian Health Service facilities.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical reminders have been a key part of a multistep process to improve screening for depression, tobacco cessation, intimate partner violence, alcohol use, and cardiovascular disease. If deployed correctly, reminders are valuable tools in identifying patients who are overdue for preventive health screenings.

Feasibility of point-of-care creatinine testing in community pharmacy to monitor drug therapy in ambulatory elderly patients

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

It is often necessary to adjust drug therapy if renal function is impaired in elderly patients taking drugs for diabetes and/or cardiovascular disease that are cleared by the kidneys. Although clinical guidelines recommend regular monitoring of renal function in these patients, in practice adherence to these recommendations varies from 28% to 75%. To determine whether drug dosing is appropriate, pharmacists need have up-to-date information about patients' renal function. In this study, the feasibility of point-of-care creatinine testing (POCCT) in a community pharmacy was evaluated as part of monitoring the drug therapy of ambulatory elderly patients.

METHODS

Elderly patients on maintenance therapy with renally excreted drugs for diabetes or cardiovascular disease were eligible for POCCT. After informed consent was obtained, POCCT was performed by trained personnel. A pharmacist assessed the clinical relevance of electronically generated drug alerts based on the patient's calculated renal function and the Dutch guidelines for adjusting drug dosage in patients with chronic kidney disease. If appropriate, the patient's general practitioner (GP) was consulted and adjustments to treatment were communicated to the patient. The feasibility of POCCT was evaluated by means of questionnaires completed by patients and healthcare professionals (GPs and pharmacists).

RESULTS

Of 338 potentially eligible patients, 149 (44%) whose renal function was not known were asked, by letter, to participate in the study. Of these individuals, 46 (31%) gave their informed consent and underwent POCCT. Response rates for completing the patient and professional questionnaires were 87% and 100%, respectively. More than half of the patients who underwent POCCT had mild-to-moderate renal impairment. On the basis of information provided by patients and healthcare professionals, POCCT would appear to be feasible in community pharmacies.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

POCCT improves the management of drug therapy by community pharmacists and is feasible in daily practice.

Patient completion of laboratory tests to monitor medication therapy: a mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the contribution of patient behavior to incomplete laboratory monitoring, and the reasons for patient non-completion of ordered laboratory tests remain unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To describe factors, including patient-reported reasons, associated with non-completion of ordered laboratory tests.

DESIGN

Mixed-Methods study including a quantitative assessment of the frequency of patient completion of ordered monitoring tests combined with qualitative, semi-structured, patient interviews.

PARTICIPANTS

Quantitative assessment included patients 18 years or older from a large multispecialty group practice, who were prescribed a medication requiring monitoring. Qualitative interviews included a subset of show and no-show patients prescribed a cardiovascular, anticonvulsant, or thyroid replacement medication.

MAIN MEASURES

Proportion of recommended monitoring tests for each medication not completed, factors associated with patient non-completion, and patient-reported reasons for non-completion.

KEY RESULTS

Of 27,802 patients who were prescribed one of 34 medications, patient non-completion of ordered tests varied (range: 0-24 %, by drug-test pair). Factors associated with higher odds of test non-completion included: younger patient age (< 40 years vs. ≥ 80 years, adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 1.52, 95 % confidence interval [95 % CI] 1.27-1.83); lower medication burden (one medication vs. more than one drug, AOR for non-completion 1.26, 95 % CI 1.15-1.37), and lower visit frequency (0-5 visits/year vs. ≥ 19 visits/year, AOR 1.41, 95 % CI 1.25 to 1.59). Drug-test pairs with black box warning status were associated with greater odds of non-completion, compared to drugs without a black box warning or other guideline for testing (AOR 1.91, 95 % CI 1.66-2.19). Qualitative interviews, with 16 no-show and seven show patients, identified forgetting as the main cause of non-completion of ordered tests.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient non-completion contributed to missed opportunities to monitor medications, and was associated with younger patient age, lower medication burden and black box warning status. Interventions to improve laboratory monitoring should target patients as well as physicians.

Managing laboratory test ordering through test frequency filtering

Modern computer systems allow limits to be set on the periods allowed for repetitive testing. We investigated a computerised system for managing potentially overtly frequent laboratory testing, calculating the financial savings obtained.

In consultation with hospital physicians, tests were selected for which ‘spare periods’ (periods during which tests are barred) might be set to control repetitive testing. The tests were selected and spare periods determined based on known analyte variations in health and disease, variety of tissues or cells giving rise to analytes, clinical conditions and rate of change determining analyte levels, frequency with which doctors need information about the analytes and the logistical needs of the clinic.

The operation and acceptance of the system was explored with 23 analytes. Frequency filtering was subsequently introduced for 44 tests, each with their own spare periods. The proportion of tests barred was 0.56%, the most frequent of these being for total cholesterol, uric acid and HDL-cholesterol. The financial savings were 0.33% of the costs of all testing, with HbA

Managing laboratory testing through computerised limits to prevent overtly frequent testing is feasible. The savings were relatively low, but sustaining the system takes little effort, giving little reason not to apply it. The findings will serve as a basis for improving the system and may guide others in introducing similar systems.

Changing clinical practice through patient specific reminders available at the time of the clinical encounter: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To synthesise current evidence for the influence on clinical behaviour of patient-specific electronically generated reminders available at the time of the clinical encounter.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Cochrane library of systematic reviews; Science Citation Index Expanded; Social Sciences Citation Index; ASSIA; EMBASE; CINAHL; DARE; HMIC were searched for relevant articles.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS

We included controlled trials of reminder interventions if the intervention was: directed at clinician behaviour; available during the clinical encounter; computer generated (including computer generated paper-based reminders); and generated by patient-specific (rather than condition specific or drug specific) data.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials published since 1970. A random effects model was used to derive a pooled odds ratio for adherence to recommended care or achievement of target outcome. Subgroups were examined based on area of care and study design. Odds ratios were derived for each sub-group. We examined the designs, settings and other features of reminders looking for factors associated with a consistent effect.

RESULTS

Altogether, 42 papers met the inclusion criteria. The studies were of variable quality and some were affected by unit of analysis errors due to a failure to account for clustering. An overall odds ratio of 1.79 [95% confidence interval 1.56, 2.05] in favour of reminders was derived. Heterogeneity was high and factors predicting effect size were difficult to identify.

LIMITATIONS

Methodological diversity added to statistical heterogeneity as an obstacle to meta-analysis. The quality of included studies was variable and in some reports procedural details were lacking.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS

The analysis suggests a moderate effect of electronically generated, individually tailored reminders on clinician behaviour during the clinical encounter. Future research should concentrate on identifying the features of reminder interventions most likely to result in the target behaviour.

The asthma ePrompt: a novel electronic solution for chronic disease management

OBJECTIVE

This study tested the ability of an electronic prompt to promote an asthma assessment during primary care visits.

METHODS

We performed a prospective study of all eligible adult patients with previously diagnosed asthma in three geographically distinct ambulatory family medicine clinics within a 4-month period. The usual clinic visit process was performed at two geographically distinct control sites (n = 75 and n = 55 patients, respectively). The intervention group site (n = 64) had an electronic flag embedded in the Patient Check-in Locator field which prompted the distribution of a self-administered Asthma Management Questionnaire (AMQ) in the waiting room. The primary outcome measure was a documented asthma severity assessment.

RESULTS

The front desk distributed the AMQ successfully in 100% of possible opportunities and the AMQ was completed by 84% of patients. Providers in the intervention group were significantly more likely than providers in the two non-intervention groups to document asthma severity in the medical record during a non-asthma ambulatory clinic visit (63.3% vs. 18.7% vs. 3.6%; p < .001).

CONCLUSION

The provision of standardized asthma information triggered by an electronic prompt at the time of check-in effectively initiates an asthma assessment during the primary care visits.

Biochemical monitoring of patients treated with antihypertensive therapy for adverse drug reactions: a systematic review

Biochemical monitoring of patients treated with antihypertensive therapy is recommended in order to identify potential adverse reactions to treatment. We aimed to review the literature investigating the nature of biochemical monitoring in adults treated in primary care with antihypertensive drugs. Specifically, we wished to establish (i) the proportion of patients with biochemical baseline testing prior to the initiation of antihypertensive therapy; (ii) the proportion of patients with biochemical monitoring after initiation of antihypertensive therapy; (iii) the patient characteristics associated with biochemical monitoring; (iv) the frequency of biochemical monitoring after the initiation of antihypertensive therapy; and (v) the relationship, if any, between biochemical monitoring and adverse patient outcomes. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Google Scholar from 1948 to 31 December 2010 using a combination of text words and search terms. Retrospective and prospective cohort studies, cross-sectional studies, randomized controlled trials or quasi-randomized controlled trials, and audits of current clinical practice were included. Clinical trials, case reports and case series were excluded. Studies were included if they provided data on the proportion of patients treated with antihypertensive therapy in primary care who had any biochemical monitoring before or after the initiation of therapy. In total, 15 studies were included in our review, which used a wide variety of definitions of monitoring prior to and after the initiation of antihypertensive therapy. From 17% to 81% of patients treated with antihypertensive drugs had a baseline biochemical test and from 20% to 79% had any follow-up monitoring. In only 7 of the 12 studies that examined follow-up monitoring did more than half of the patients have any monitoring. Overall, this systematic review provides evidence that monitoring as recommended by published guidelines is not commonly undertaken. Only two studies were identified that examined patients with both baseline testing and follow-up monitoring. Omission of one or the other limits the ability to analyse the effect of treatment on electrolyte concentrations or renal function. There is limited research on the patient factors associated with monitoring and further work is required to determine the impact of monitoring on adverse patient outcomes. Important barriers to effective monitoring exist and this review emphasizes that these have not yet been overcome.

The effectiveness of integrated health information technologies across the phases of medication management: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

The US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funded an evidence report to address seven questions on multiple aspects of the effectiveness of medication management information technology (MMIT) and its components (prescribing, order communication, dispensing, administering, and monitoring).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Medline and 11 other databases without language or date limitations to mid-2010. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing integrated MMIT were selected by two independent reviewers. Reviewers assessed study quality and extracted data. Senior staff checked accuracy.

RESULTS

Most of the 87 RCTs focused on clinical decision support and computerized provider order entry systems, were performed in hospitals and clinics, included primarily physicians and sometimes nurses but not other health professionals, and studied process changes related to prescribing and monitoring medication. Processes of care improved for prescribing and monitoring mostly in hospital settings, but the few studies measuring clinical outcomes showed small or no improvements. Studies were performed most frequently in the USA (n=63), Europe (n=16), and Canada (n=6).

DISCUSSION

Many studies had limited description of systems, installations, institutions, and targets of the intervention. Problems with methods and analyses were also found. Few studies addressed order communication, dispensing, or administering, non-physician prescribers or pharmacists and their MMIT tools, or patients and caregivers. Other study methods are also needed to completely understand the effects of MMIT.

CONCLUSIONS

Almost half of MMIT interventions improved the process of care, but few studies measured clinical outcomes. This large body of literature, although instructive, is not uniformly distributed across settings, people, medication phases, or outcomes.

Health information systems in small practices. Improving the delivery of clinical preventive services

BACKGROUND

Despite strong evidence that clinical preventive services (CPS) reduce morbidity and mortality, CPS performance has not improved in adult primary care. In addition to implementing electronic health records (EHRs), key factors for improving CPS include providing actionable information at the point of care, technical support staff, and quality-improvement assistance. These resources are not typically available in small practices.

PURPOSE

Estimate the impact on CPS delivery after a software upgrade to embed a clinical decision support system and practice-level quality-improvement support services.

METHODS

Practices were recruited from the Primary Care Information Project, a citywide initiative assisting practices adopt health information technology. Data were collected in 2009 and 2010, and analyses were conducted in 2010 and 2011. Across two time periods, receipt of CPS was calculated for 56 practices. Period 1 measured CPS delivery 2-37 months following implementation of an EHR. Period 2 measured CPS delivery within the first 6 months after an EHR software upgrade.

RESULTS

Substantial increases in the delivery of selected CPS were observed after the EHR software upgrades. Blood pressure control for patients with hypertension increased from 46.0% to 54.8%. Breast cancer screening, recorded BMI, and HbA1c testing for patients with diabetes also increased. More than half of the practices increased their patients' blood pressure control, recorded BMI, breast cancer screening, and HbA1c screening by ≥5 percentage points.

CONCLUSIONS

Delivery of CPS can increase in small primary care practices that implement an EHR that includes comprehensive quality-improvement support.

Computerized clinical decision support systems for therapeutic drug monitoring and dosing: a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review

Background

Some drugs have a narrow therapeutic range and require monitoring and dose adjustments to optimize their efficacy and safety. Computerized clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) may improve the net benefit of these drugs. The objective of this review was to determine if CCDSSs improve processes of care or patient outcomes for therapeutic drug monitoring and dosing.

Methods

We conducted a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review. Studies from our previous review were included, and new studies were sought until January 2010 in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews, and Inspec databases. Randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of a CCDSS on process of care or patient outcomes were selected by pairs of independent reviewers. A study was considered to have a positive effect (i.e., CCDSS showed improvement) if at least 50% of the relevant study outcomes were statistically significantly positive.

Results

Thirty-three randomized controlled trials were identified, assessing the effect of a CCDSS on management of vitamin K antagonists (14), insulin (6), theophylline/aminophylline (4), aminoglycosides (3), digoxin (2), lidocaine (1), or as part of a multifaceted approach (3). Cluster randomization was rarely used (18%) and CCDSSs were usually stand-alone systems (76%) primarily used by physicians (85%). Overall, 18 of 30 studies (60%) showed an improvement in the process of care and 4 of 19 (21%) an improvement in patient outcomes. All evaluable studies assessing insulin dosing for glycaemic control showed an improvement. In meta-analysis, CCDSSs for vitamin K antagonist dosing significantly improved time in therapeutic range.

Conclusions

CCDSSs have potential for improving process of care for therapeutic drug monitoring and dosing, specifically insulin and vitamin K antagonist dosing. However, studies were small and generally of modest quality, and effects on patient outcomes were uncertain, with no convincing benefit in the largest studies. At present, no firm recommendation for specific systems can be given. More potent CCDSSs need to be developed and should be evaluated by independent researchers using cluster randomization and primarily assess patient outcomes related to drug efficacy and safety.

Can computerized clinical decision support systems improve practitioners' diagnostic test ordering behavior? A decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review

Background

Underuse and overuse of diagnostic tests have important implications for health outcomes and costs. Decision support technology purports to optimize the use of diagnostic tests in clinical practice. The objective of this review was to assess whether computerized clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) are effective at improving ordering of tests for diagnosis, monitoring of disease, or monitoring of treatment. The outcome of interest was effect on the diagnostic test-ordering behavior of practitioners.

Methods

We conducted a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Ovid's EBM Reviews database, Inspec, and reference lists for eligible articles published up to January 2010. We included randomized controlled trials comparing the use of CCDSSs to usual practice or non-CCDSS controls in clinical care settings. Trials were eligible if at least one component of the CCDSS gave suggestions for ordering or performing a diagnostic procedure. We considered studies 'positive' if they showed a statistically significant improvement in at least 50% of test ordering outcomes.

Results

Thirty-five studies were identified, with significantly higher methodological quality in those published after the year 2000 (p = 0.002). Thirty-three trials reported evaluable data on diagnostic test ordering, and 55% (18/33) of CCDSSs improved testing behavior overall, including 83% (5/6) for diagnosis, 63% (5/8) for treatment monitoring, 35% (6/17) for disease monitoring, and 100% (3/3) for other purposes. Four of the systems explicitly attempted to reduce test ordering rates and all succeeded. Factors of particular interest to decision makers include costs, user satisfaction, and impact on workflow but were rarely investigated or reported.

Conclusions

Some CCDSSs can modify practitioner test-ordering behavior. To better inform development and implementation efforts, studies should describe in more detail potentially important factors such as system design, user interface, local context, implementation strategy, and evaluate impact on user satisfaction and workflow, costs, and unintended consequences.

Computerized clinical decision support systems for drug prescribing and management: a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review

Background

Computerized clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) for drug therapy management are designed to promote safe and effective medication use. Evidence documenting the effectiveness of CCDSSs for improving drug therapy is necessary for informed adoption decisions. The objective of this review was to systematically review randomized controlled trials assessing the effects of CCDSSs for drug therapy management on process of care and patient outcomes. We also sought to identify system and study characteristics that predicted benefit.

Methods

We conducted a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review. We updated our earlier reviews (1998, 2005) by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, Inspec, and other databases, and consulting reference lists through January 2010. Authors of 82% of included studies confirmed or supplemented extracted data. We included only randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effect on process of care or patient outcomes of a CCDSS for drug therapy management compared to care provided without a CCDSS. A study was considered to have a positive effect (i.e., CCDSS showed improvement) if at least 50% of the relevant study outcomes were statistically significantly positive.

Results

Sixty-five studies met our inclusion criteria, including 41 new studies since our previous review. Methodological quality was generally high and unchanged with time. CCDSSs improved process of care performance in 37 of the 59 studies assessing this type of outcome (64%, 57% of all studies). Twenty-nine trials assessed patient outcomes, of which six trials (21%, 9% of all trials) reported improvements.

Conclusions

CCDSSs inconsistently improved process of care measures and seldomly improved patient outcomes. Lack of clear patient benefit and lack of data on harms and costs preclude a recommendation to adopt CCDSSs for drug therapy management.

Improving medication safety in primary care using electronic health records

OBJECTIVES

Electronic health record (EHR) systems offer promising tools to assist clinicians and staff with improving medication safety, yet many of the decision support components within these information systems are not well used. The aim of this study was to identify the strategies planned by primary care practices participating in a 2-year medication safety quality improvement intervention within the Practice Partner Research Network.

METHODS

A theoretical model for primary care practice improvement was used to foster team-based approaches to prioritizing performance, system redesign, better use of EHR tools, and patient activation. The intervention included network meetings, site visits and performance reports. Improvement plans were qualitatively evaluated from field notes and organized to present a comprehensive approach to improving medication safety in primary care using EHRs.

RESULTS

A total of 32 distinct plans and 11 common strategies were developed by practices to improve adherence with prescribing and monitoring indicators. Common plans included enhancing medication reconciliation to improve the accuracy of medication lists, using Practice Partner Research Network reports to identify patients meeting criteria for preventable medication errors, and customizing and applying EHR decision support tools for medication dosing, drug-disease interactions, and monitoring.

CONCLUSIONS

Medication safety might be improved by implementing specific strategies within the primary care setting. Further evaluation is needed to provide an evidence base for improvement.

Impact of health information technology interventions to improve medication laboratory monitoring for ambulatory patients: a systematic review

Medication errors are a major source of morbidity and mortality. Inadequate laboratory monitoring of high-risk medications after initial prescription is a medical error that contributes to preventable adverse drug events. Health information technology (HIT)-based clinical decision support may improve patient safety by improving the laboratory monitoring of high-risk medications, but the effectiveness of such interventions is unclear. Therefore, the authors conducted a systematic review to identify studies that evaluate the independent effect of HIT interventions on improving laboratory monitoring for high-risk medications in the ambulatory setting using a Medline search from January 1, 1980 through January 1, 2009 and a manual review of relevant bibliographies. All anticoagulation monitoring studies were excluded. Eight articles met the inclusion criteria, including six randomized controlled trials and two pre-post intervention studies. Six of the studies were conducted in two large, integrated healthcare delivery systems in the USA. Overall, five of the eight studies reported statistically significant, but small, improvements in laboratory monitoring; only half of the randomized controlled trials reported statistically significant improvements. Studies that found no improvement were more likely to have used analytic strategies that addressed clustering and confounding. Whether HIT improves laboratory monitoring of certain high-risk medications for ambulatory patients remains unclear, and further research is needed to clarify this important question.

The role of standardized data and terminological systems in computerized clinical decision support systems: literature review and survey

INTRODUCTION

Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) should be seamlessly integrated with existing clinical information systems to enable automatic provision of advice at the time and place where decisions are made. It has been suggested that a lack of agreed data standards frequently hampers this integration. We performed a literature review to investigate whether CDSSs used standardized (i.e. coded or numerical) data and which terminological systems have been used to code data. We also investigated whether a lack of standardized data was considered an impediment for CDSS implementation.

METHODS

Articles reporting an evaluation of a CDSS that provided a computerized advice based on patient-specific data items were identified based on a former literature review on CDSS and on CDSS studies identified in AMIA's 'Year in Review'. Authors of these articles were contacted to check and complete the extracted data. A questionnaire among the authors of included studies was used to determine the obstacles in CDSS implementation.

RESULTS

We identified 77 articles published between 1995 and 2008. Twenty-two percent of the evaluated CDSSs used only numerical data. Fifty one percent of the CDSSs that used coded data applied an international terminology. The most frequently used international terminology were the ICD (International Classification of Diseases), used in 68% of the cases and LOINC (Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes) in 12% of the cases. More than half of the authors experienced barriers in CDSS implementation. In most cases these barriers were related to the lack of electronically available standardized data required to invoke or activate the CDSS.

CONCLUSION

Many CDSSs applied different terminological systems to code data. This diversity hampers the possibility of sharing and reasoning with data within different systems. The results of the survey confirm the hypothesis that data standardization is a critical success factor for CDSS development.

Electronic notifications about drug substitutes can change physician prescription habits: a cross-sectional observational study

BACKGROUND

A health maintenance organization (HMO) provides physicians with electronic notifications regarding HMO-recommended drug substitutes.

OBJECTIVE

Investigating factors affecting physicians' compliance and evaluating associated cost savings.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional observational study of all physicians in the HMO's clinics from June 2005 to February 2006.

SETTING

Recording physician ID, initial drug choice, final drug choice, elapsed time between initial and final choices, and pharmacological details.

PARTICIPANTS

Out of 2120 physicians, 647 physicians met the inclusion criteria. They prescribed 1.21 million prescriptions.

INTERVENTION

Transparently recording physicians' response to HMO-recommended drug substitutes within a drug-prescription sub-system of an electronic medical record.

MEASUREMENTS

Compliance pattern, factors affecting compliance, and cost savings associated with compliance.

RESULTS

Thirty percent of prescriptions did not comply with substitute recommendations. Compliance was most strongly affected by the substitute type, whether generic or therapeutic. Physician workload and age were found second and third in effect magnitude. Compliance was found to be non-automatic, selective and deliberate, suggesting that maintaining quality of care guides physicians in the prescription process. At least 4% of costs for prescribed drugs were saved as a result of compliance with substitute recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians selectively complied with electronic recommendations to substitute less costly for more costly drugs. Compliance was neither automatic nor thoughtless and entailed cost containment with possibly marginal compromise on quality of care or none at all, as compliance mostly involved substituting generic for patent drugs. We strongly feel that the results can be generalized to other HMOs as well.

Doctors' perceptions of laboratory monitoring in office practice

BACKGROUND

Laboratory monitoring has been increasingly recognized as an important area for improving patient safety in ambulatory care. Little is known about doctors' attitudes towards laboratory monitoring and potential ways to improve it.

METHODS

Six focus groups and one individual interview with 20 primary care doctors and nine specialists from three Massachusetts communities.

RESULTS

Participants viewed laboratory monitoring as a critical, time-consuming task integral to their practice of medicine. Most believed they commit few laboratory monitoring errors and were surprised at the error rates reported in the literature. They listed various barriers to monitoring, including not knowing which doctor was responsible for ensuring the completion of laboratory monitoring, uncertainty regarding the necessity of monitoring, lack of alerts/reminders and patient non-adherence with recommended monitoring. The primary facilitator of monitoring was ordering laboratory tests while the patient is in the office. Primary care doctors felt more strongly than specialists that computerized alerts could improve laboratory monitoring. Participants wanted to individualize alerts for their practices and warned that alerts must not interrupt work flow or require too many clicks.

CONCLUSIONS

Doctors in community practice recognized the potential of computerized alerts to enhance their monitoring protocols for some medications. They viewed patient non-adherence as a barrier to optimal monitoring. Interventions to improve laboratory monitoring should address doctor workflow issues, in addition to patients' awareness of the importance of fulfilling recommended therapeutic monitoring to prevent adverse drug events.

Using health information technology to improve drug monitoring: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To conduct a systematic review of current evidence regarding the use of health information technology (HIT) interventions to improve drug monitoring in ambulatory care.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, and other computerized databases from 1 January 1998 to 30 June 2008 using the key words "drug monitoring," "medical records systems, computerized," "ambulatory care," and "outpatients." We manually reviewed reference lists of articles identified through computer searches and asked experts in the field to review our search strategy and results for completeness.

RESULTS

Seven relevant studies were identified. Four of these studies assessed real-time interventions that used alerts to physicians at the time of medication ordering to ensure adequate monitoring, only one of which showed an improvement in monitoring. Of three studies using HIT outside the physician encounter, two suggested some improvement in monitoring rates. Methodological limitations were apparent in all studies identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Few studies have assessed the effectiveness of HIT interventions to improve drug monitoring, and among them, there is no clear consensus regarding the most consistently effective approaches to reducing drug monitoring errors. There is a clear need for well designed randomized trials to evaluate possible interventions to reduce drug monitoring errors. Such studies should incorporate health outcomes and detailed cost analyses to further characterize the feasibility of successful interventions.

The effects of on-screen, point of care computer reminders on processes and outcomes of care

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.

Consensus guidelines for oral dosing of primarily renally cleared medications in older adults

OBJECTIVES

To establish consensus oral dosing guidelines for primarily renally cleared medications prescribed for older adults.

DESIGN

Literature search followed by a two-round modified Delphi survey.

SETTING

A nationally representative survey of experts in geriatric clinical pharmacy.

PARTICIPANTS

Eleven geriatric clinical pharmacists.

MEASUREMENTS

After a comprehensive literature search and review by an investigative group of six physicians (2 general internal medicine, 2 nephrology, 2 geriatrics), 43 dosing recommendations for 30 medications at various levels of renal function were created. The expert panel rated its agreement with each of these 43 dosing recommendations using a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree). Recommendation-specific means and 95% confidence intervals were estimated. Consensus was defined as a lower 95% confidence limit of greater than 4.0 for the recommendation-specific mean score.

RESULTS

The response rate was 81.8% (9/11) for the first round. All respondents who completed the first round also completed the second round. The expert panel reached consensus on 26 recommendations involving 18 (60%) medications. For 10 medications (chlorpropamide, colchicine, cotrimoxazole, glyburide, meperidine, nitrofurantoin, probenecid, propoxyphene, spironolactone, and triamterene), the consensus recommendation was not to use the medication in older adults below a specified level of renal function (e.g., creatinine clearance <30 mL/min). For the remaining eight medications (acyclovir, amantadine, ciprofloxacin, gabapentin, memantine, ranitidine, rimantadine, and valacyclovir), specific recommendations for dose reduction or interval extension were made.

CONCLUSION

An expert panel of geriatric clinical pharmacists was able to reach consensus agreement on a number of oral medications that are primarily renally cleared.

Impact of non-interruptive medication laboratory monitoring alerts in ambulatory care

OBJECTIVE

Interruptive alerts within electronic applications can cause "alert fatigue" if they fire too frequently or are clinically reasonable only some of the time. We assessed the impact of non-interruptive, real-time medication laboratory alerts on provider lab test ordering.

DESIGN

We enrolled 22 outpatient practices into a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Clinics either used the existing system or received on-screen recommendations for baseline laboratory tests when prescribing new medications. Since the warnings were non-interruptive, providers did not have to act upon or acknowledge the notification to complete a medication request.

MEASUREMENTS

Data were collected each time providers performed suggested laboratory testing within 14 days of a new prescription order. Findings were adjusted for patient and provider characteristics as well as patient clustering within clinics.

RESULTS

Among 12 clinics with 191 providers in the control group and 10 clinics with 175 providers in the intervention group, there were 3673 total events where baseline lab tests would have been advised: 1988 events in the control group and 1685 in the intervention group. In the control group, baseline labs were requested for 771 (39%) of the medications. In the intervention group, baseline labs were ordered by clinicians in 689 (41%) of the cases. Overall, no significant association existed between the intervention and the rate of ordering appropriate baseline laboratory tests.

CONCLUSION

We found that non-interruptive medication laboratory monitoring alerts were not effective in improving receipt of recommended baseline laboratory test monitoring for medications. Further work is necessary to optimize compliance with non-critical recommendations.