Automated electronic reminders to facilitate primary cardiovascular disease prevention: Randomised controlled trial

Health Sciences Research Institute, University of Warwick, Coventry.
British Journal of General Practice (Impact Factor: 2.29). 04/2010; 60(573):e137-43. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp10X483904
Source: PubMed


Primary care databases contain cardiovascular disease risk factor data, but practical tools are required to improve identification of at-risk patients.
To test the effects of a system of electronic reminders (the 'e-Nudge') on cardiovascular events and the adequacy of data for cardiovascular risk estimation.
Randomised controlled trial.
Nineteen general practices in the West Midlands, UK.
The e-Nudge identifies four groups of patients aged over 50 years on the basis of estimated cardiovascular risk and adequacy of risk factor data in general practice computers. Screen messages highlight individuals at raised risk and prompt users to complete risk profiles where necessary. The proportion of the study population in the four groups was measured, as well as the rate of cardiovascular events in each arm after 2 years.
Over 38 000 patients' electronic records were randomised. The intervention led to an increase in the proportion of patients with sufficient data who were identifiably at risk, with a difference of 1.94% compared to the control group (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.38 to 2.50, P<0.001). A corresponding reduction occurred in the proportion potentially at risk but requiring further data for a risk estimation (difference = -3.68%, 95% CI = -4.53 to -2.84, P<0.001). No significant difference was observed in the incidence of cardiovascular events (rate ratio = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.85 to 1.10, P = 0.59).
Automated electronic reminders using routinely collected primary care data can improve the adequacy of cardiovascular risk factor information during everyday practice and increase the visibility of the at-risk population.

Download full-text


Available from: Tim A Holt,
  • Source
    • "The most frequent drug classes and clinical areas studied were anti-coagulants (5 studies) [42-44,49,56]; other cardio-vascular or heart disease management (n = 4) [40,46,48,54], and elderly patients (n = 4) [45,50-52]. Most of the RCTs were funded by non-industry grants or similar. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objective was to find evidence to substantiate assertions that electronic applications for medication management in ambulatory care (electronic prescribing, clinical decision support (CDSS), electronic health record, and computer generated paper prescriptions), while intended to reduce prescribing errors, can themselves result in errors that might harm patients or increase risks to patient safety. Because a scoping search for adverse events in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) yielded few relevant results, we systematically searched nine databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for systematic reviews and studies of a wide variety of designs that reported on implementation of the interventions. Studies that had safety and adverse events as outcomes, monitored for them, reported anecdotally adverse events or other events that might indicate a threat to patient safety were included. We found no systematic reviews that examined adverse events or patient harm caused by organizational interventions. Of the 4056 titles and abstracts screened, 176 full-text articles were assessed for inclusion. Sixty-one studies with appropriate interventions, settings and participants but without patient safety, adverse event outcomes or monitoring for risks were excluded, along with 77 other non-eligible studies. Eighteen randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 5 non-randomised controlled trials (non-R, CTs) and 15 observational studies were included. The most common electronic intervention studied was CDSS and the most frequent clinical area was cardio-vascular, including anti-coagulants. No RCTS or non-R,CTS reported adverse event. Adverse events reported in observational studies occurred less frequently after implementation of CDSS. One RCT and one observational study reported an increase in problematic prescriptions with electronic prescribing CONCLUSIONS: The safety implications of electronic medication management in ambulatory care have not been established with results from studies found in this systematic review. Only a minority of studies that investigated these interventions included threats to patients' safety as outcomes or monitored for adverse events. It is therefore not surprising that we found little evidence to substantiate fears of new risks to patient safety with their implementation. More research is needed to focus on the draw-backs and negative outcomes that implementation of these interventions might introduce.
    BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 12/2013; 13(1):133. DOI:10.1186/1472-6947-13-133 · 1.83 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "CDSS25 26 have been developed for a variety of decision problems including preventive services,27 28 therapeutic management,29 prevention of adverse events,30 diagnosis,31 32 risk estimation,33 and chronic disease management.34 CDSS have been found to improve health service delivery across diverse settings, but there is sparse evidence for their impact on clinical outcomes.35 "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives We previously developed and reported on a prototype clinical decision support system (CDSS) for cervical cancer screening. However, the system is complex as it is based on multiple guidelines and free-text processing. Therefore, the system is susceptible to failures. This report describes a formative evaluation of the system, which is a necessary step to ensure deployment readiness of the system. Materials and methods Care providers who are potential end-users of the CDSS were invited to provide their recommendations for a random set of patients that represented diverse decision scenarios. The recommendations of the care providers and those generated by the CDSS were compared. Mismatched recommendations were reviewed by two independent experts. Results A total of 25 users participated in this study and provided recommendations for 175 cases. The CDSS had an accuracy of 87% and 12 types of CDSS errors were identified, which were mainly due to deficiencies in the system's guideline rules. When the deficiencies were rectified, the CDSS generated optimal recommendations for all failure cases, except one with incomplete documentation. Discussion and conclusions The crowd-sourcing approach for construction of the reference set, coupled with the expert review of mismatched recommendations, facilitated an effective evaluation and enhancement of the system, by identifying decision scenarios that were missed by the system's developers. The described methodology will be useful for other researchers who seek rapidly to evaluate and enhance the deployment readiness of complex decision support systems.
    Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 04/2013; 20(4). DOI:10.1136/amiajnl-2013-001613 · 3.50 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "CDST can provide support to clinicians at various stages in the care process, from preventive care through diagnosis and treatment to monitoring and follow-up, but results with CDST implementation have been mixed. CDSTs have been found to improve measures of clinician performance in the diagnosis [2] [3], prevention and management [4] of a number of different health problems. CDST systems can improve clinical practice and prevent adverse drug events [5]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Computer Decision Support Tools (CDSTs) can support clinicians at various stages of the care process and improve healthcare, but implementation of these tools has been difficult. In this study we examine the need for, the use of, and barriers and facilitators to the use of a CDST from a human factor perspective. Results show that there is a need for CDSTs, and that physicians do use well-developed CDSTs. However, there are also barriers against the use, such usability issues and problems fitting them into the clinical workflow.
    Work 01/2012; 41(2):4474-4478. DOI:10.3233/WOR-2012-0747-4474 · 0.52 Impact Factor
Show more