Cluster-Randomized Trial Comparing Ambulatory Decision Support Tools to Improve Heart Failure Care

BACKGROUND

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) are underprescribed for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to compare effectiveness of 2 automated, electronic health record-embedded tools vs usual care on MRA prescribing in eligible patients with HFrEF.

METHODS

BETTER CARE-HF (Building Electronic Tools to Enhance and Reinforce Cardiovascular Recommendations for Heart Failure) was a 3-arm, pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial comparing the effectiveness of an alert during individual patient encounters vs a message about multiple patients between encounters vs usual care on MRA prescribing. This study included adult patients with HFrEF, no active MRA prescription, no contraindication to MRAs, and an outpatient cardiologist in a large health system. Patients were cluster-randomized by cardiologist (60 per arm).

RESULTS

The study included 2,211 patients (alert: 755, message: 812, usual care [control]: 644), with average age 72.2 years, average ejection fraction 33%, who were predominantly male (71.4%) and White (68.9%). New MRA prescribing occurred in 29.6% of patients in the alert arm, 15.6% in the message arm, and 11.7% in the control arm. The alert more than doubled MRA prescribing compared to usual care (relative risk: 2.53; 95% CI: 1.77-3.62; P < 0.0001) and improved MRA prescribing compared to the message (relative risk: 1.67; 95% CI: 1.21-2.29; P = 0.002). The number of patients with alert needed to result in an additional MRA prescription was 5.6.

CONCLUSIONS

An automated, patient-specific, electronic health record-embedded alert increased MRA prescribing compared to both a message and usual care. These findings highlight the potential for electronic health record-embedded tools to substantially increase prescription of life-saving therapies for HFrEF. (Building Electronic Tools to Enhance and Reinforce Cardiovascular Recommendations-Heart Failure [BETTER CARE-HF]; NCT05275920).

Design and pilot implementation for the BETTER CARE-HF trial: A pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial comparing two targeted approaches to ambulatory clinical decision support for cardiologists

BACKGROUND

Beart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. However, shortfalls in prescribing of proven therapies, particularly mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist (MRA) therapy, account for several thousand preventable deaths per year nationwide. Electronic clinical decision support (CDS) is a potential low-cost and scalable solution to improve prescribing of therapies. However, the optimal timing and format of CDS tools is unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We developed two targeted CDS tools to inform cardiologists of gaps in MRA therapy for patients with HFrEF and without contraindication to MRA therapy: (1) an alert that notifies cardiologists at the time of patient visit, and (2) an automated electronic message that allows for review between visits. We designed these tools using an established CDS framework and findings from semistructured interviews with cardiologists. We then pilot tested both CDS tools (n = 596 patients) and further enhanced them based on additional semistructured interviews (n = 11 cardiologists). The message was modified to reduce the number of patients listed, include future visits, and list date of next visit. The alert was modified to improve noticeability, reduce extraneous information on guidelines, and include key information on contraindications.

CONCLUSIONS

The BETTER CARE-HF (Building Electronic Tools to Enhance and Reinforce CArdiovascular REcommendations for Heart Failure) trial aims to compare the effectiveness of the alert vs. the automated message vs. usual care on the primary outcome of MRA prescribing. To our knowledge, no study has directly compared the efficacy of these two different types of electronic CDS interventions. If effective, our findings can be rapidly disseminated to improve morbidity and mortality for patients with HFrEF, and can also inform the development of future CDS interventions for other disease states. (Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT05275920).

Giving Your Electronic Health Record a Checkup After COVID-19: A Practical Framework for Reviewing Clinical Decision Support in Light of the Telemedicine Expansion

BACKGROUND

The transformation of health care during COVID-19, with the rapid expansion of telemedicine visits, presents new challenges to chronic care and preventive health providers. Clinical decision support (CDS) is critically important to chronic care providers, and CDS malfunction is common during times of change. It is essential to regularly reassess an organization's ambulatory CDS program to maintain care quality. This is especially true after an immense change, like the COVID-19 telemedicine expansion.

OBJECTIVE

Our objective is to reassess the ambulatory CDS program at a large academic medical center in light of telemedicine's expansion in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Our clinical informatics team devised a practical framework for an intrapandemic ambulatory CDS assessment focused on the impact of the telemedicine expansion. This assessment began with a quantitative analysis comparing CDS alert performance in the context of in-person and telemedicine visits. Board-certified physician informaticists then completed a formal workflow review of alerts with inferior performance in telemedicine visits. Informaticists then reported on themes and optimization opportunities through the existing CDS governance structure.

RESULTS

Our assessment revealed that 10 of our top 40 alerts by volume were not firing as expected in telemedicine visits. In 3 of the top 5 alerts, providers were significantly less likely to take action in telemedicine when compared to office visits. Cumulatively, alerts in telemedicine encounters had an action taken rate of 5.3% (3257/64,938) compared to 8.3% (19,427/233,636) for office visits. Observations from a clinical informaticist workflow review included the following: (1) Telemedicine visits have different workflows than office visits. Some alerts developed for the office were not appearing at the optimal time in the telemedicine workflow. (2) Missing clinical data is a common reason for the decreased alert firing seen in telemedicine visits. (3) Remote patient monitoring and patient-reported clinical data entered through the portal could replace data collection usually completed in the office by a medical assistant or registered nurse.

CONCLUSIONS

In a large academic medical center at the pandemic epicenter, an intrapandemic ambulatory CDS assessment revealed clinically significant CDS malfunctions that highlight the importance of reassessing ambulatory CDS performance after the telemedicine expansion.