Article

Electronic health record feedback to improve antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infections.

Division of General Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA 02120, USA.
The American journal of managed care (Impact Factor: 2.17). 12/2010; 16(12 Suppl HIT):e311-9.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To examine whether the Acute Respiratory Infection (ARI) Quality Dashboard, an electronic health record (EHR)-based feedback system, changed antibiotic prescribing.
Cluster randomized, controlled trial.
We randomly assigned 27 primary care practices to receive the ARI Quality Dashboard or usual care. The primary outcome was the intent-to-intervene antibiotic prescribing rate for ARI visits. We also compared antibiotic prescribing between ARI Quality Dashboard users and nonusers.
During the 9-month intervention, there was no difference between intervention and control practices in antibiotic prescribing for all ARI visits (47% vs 47%; P = .87), antibiotic-appropriate ARI visits (65% vs 64%; P = .68), or non–antibiotic-appropriate ARI visits (38% vs 40%; P = .70). Among the 258 intervention clinicians, 72 (28%) used the ARI Quality Dashboard at least once. These clinicians had a lower overall ARI antibiotic prescribing rate (42% vs 50% for nonusers; P = .02). This difference was due to less antibiotic prescribing for non-antibiotic-appropriate ARIs (32% vs 43%; P = .004), including nonstreptococcal pharyngitis (31% vs 41%; P = .01) and nonspecific upper respiratory infections (19% vs 34%; P = .01).
The ARI Quality Dashboard was not associated with an overall change in antibiotic prescribing for ARIs, although when used, it was associated with improved antibiotic prescribing. EHR-based quality reporting, as part of "meaningful use," may not improve care in the absence of other changes to primary care practice.

0 Followers
 · 
153 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: For many surgeries and high-risk medical conditions, higher volume providers provide higher quality care. The impact of volume on more common medical conditions such as acute respiratory infections (ARIs) has not been examined. Using electronic health record data for adult ambulatory ARI visits, we divided primary care physicians into ARI volume quintiles. We fitted a linear regression model of antibiotic prescribing rates across quintiles to assess for a significant difference in trend. Higher ARI volume physicians had lower quality across a number of domains, including higher antibiotic prescribing rates, higher broad-spectrum antibiotic prescribing, and lower guideline concordance. Physicians with a higher volume of cases manage ARI very differently and are more likely to prescribe antibiotics. When they prescribe an antibiotic for a diagnosis for which an antibiotic may be indicated, they are less likely to prescribe guideline-concordant antibiotics. Given that high-volume physicians account for the bulk of ARI visits, efforts targeting this group are likely to yield important population effects in improving quality. © The Author(s) 2015.
    Inquiry: a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing 02/2015; 52. DOI:10.1177/0046958015571130 · 0.56 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Dissemination and adoption of clinical decision support (CDS) tools is a major initiative of the Affordable Care Act's Meaningful Use program. Adoption of CDS tools is multipronged with personal, organizational, and clinical settings factoring into the successful utilization rates. Specifically, the diffusion of innovation theory implies that 'early adopters' are more inclined to use CDS tools and younger physicians tend to be ranked in this category. This study examined the differences in adoption of CDS tools across providers' training level. From November 2010 to 2011, 168 residents and attendings from an academic medical institution were enrolled into a randomized controlled trial. The intervention arm had access to the CDS tool through the electronic health record (EHR) system during strep and pneumonia patient visits. The EHR system recorded details on how intervention arm interacted with the CDS tool including acceptance of the initial CDS alert, completion of risk-score calculators and the signing of medication order sets. Using the EHR data, the study performed bivariate tests and general estimating equation (GEE) modeling to examine the differences in adoption of the CDS tool across residents and attendings. The completion rates of the CDS calculator and medication order sets were higher amongst first year residents compared to all other training levels. Attendings were the less likely to accept the initial step of the CDS tool (29.3%) or complete the medication order sets (22.4%) that guided their prescription decisions, resulting in attendings ordering more antibiotics (37.1%) during an CDS encounter compared to residents. There is variation in adoption of CDS tools across training levels. Attendings tended to accept the tool less but ordered more medications. CDS tools should be tailored to clinicians' training levels.
    Applied Clinical Informatics 01/2014; 5(4):1015-25. DOI:10.4338/ACI-2014-05-RA-0048 · 0.39 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: To understand clinician adoption of CDS tools as this may provide important insights for the implementation and dissemination of future CDS tools. Materials and Methods: Clinicians (n=168) at a large academic center were randomized into intervention and control arms to assess the impact of strep and pneumonia CDS tools. Intervention arm data were analyzed to examine provider adoption and clinical workflow. Electronic health record data were collected on trigger location, the use of each component and whether an antibiotic, other medication or test was ordered. Frequencies were tabulated and regression analyses were used to determine the association of tool component use and physician orders. Results: The CDS tool was triggered 586 times over the study period. Diagnosis was the most frequent workflow trigger of the CDS tool (57%) as compared to chief complaint (30%) and diagnosis/antibiotic combinations (13%). Conversely, chief complaint was associated with the highest rate (83%) of triggers leading to an initiation of the CDS tool (opening the risk prediction calculator). Similar patterns were noted for initiation of the CDS bundled ordered set and completion of the entire CDS tool pathway. Completion of risk prediction and bundled order set components were associated with lower rates of antibiotic prescribing (OR 0.5; CI 0.2-1.2 and OR 0.5; CI 0.3-0.9, respectively). Discussion: Different CDS trigger points in the clinician user workflow lead to substantial variation in downstream use of the CDS tool components. These variations were important as they were associated with significant differences in antibiotic ordering. Conclusions: These results highlight the importance of workflow integration and flexibility for CDS success.
    Applied Clinical Informatics 01/2014; 5(3):824-35. DOI:10.4338/ACI-2014-04-RA-0043 · 0.39 Impact Factor