P C Tang1, M P LaRosa, C Newcomb, S M Gorden. 1. Northwestern University, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, USA. tang@smi.stanford.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of computer-based reminders about influenza vaccination on the behavior of individual clinicians at each clinical opportunity. DESIGN: The authors conducted a prospective study of clinicians' influenza vaccination behavior over four years. Approximately one half of the clinicians in an internal medicine clinic used a computer-based patient record system (CPR users) that generated computer-based reminders. The other clinicians used traditional paper records (PR users). MEASUREMENTS: Each nonacute visit by a patient eligible for an influenza vaccination was considered an opportunity for intervention. Patients who had contraindications for vaccination were excluded. Compliance with the guideline was defined as documentation that a clinician ordered the vaccine, counseled the patient about the vaccine, offered the vaccine to a patient who declined it, or verified that the patient had received the vaccine elsewhere. The authors calculated the proportion of opportunities on which each clinician documented action in the CPR and PR user groups. RESULTS: The CPR and PR user groups had different baseline compliance rates (40.1 and 27.9 per cent, respectively; P<0.05). Both rates remained stable during a two-year baseline period (P = 0.34 and P = 0.47, respectively). The compliance rates in the CPR user group increased 78 per cent from baseline (P<0.001), whereas the rates for the PR user group did not change significantly (P = 0.18). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians who used a CPR with reminders had higher rates of documentation of compliance with influenza-vaccination guidelines than did those who used a paper record. Measurements of individual clinician behavior at the point of each clinical opportunity can provide precise evaluation of interventions that are designed to improve compliance with guidelines.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of computer-based reminders about influenza vaccination on the behavior of individual clinicians at each clinical opportunity. DESIGN: The authors conducted a prospective study of clinicians' influenza vaccination behavior over four years. Approximately one half of the clinicians in an internal medicine clinic used a computer-based patient record system (CPR users) that generated computer-based reminders. The other clinicians used traditional paper records (PR users). MEASUREMENTS: Each nonacute visit by a patient eligible for an influenza vaccination was considered an opportunity for intervention. Patients who had contraindications for vaccination were excluded. Compliance with the guideline was defined as documentation that a clinician ordered the vaccine, counseled the patient about the vaccine, offered the vaccine to a patient who declined it, or verified that the patient had received the vaccine elsewhere. The authors calculated the proportion of opportunities on which each clinician documented action in the CPR and PR user groups. RESULTS: The CPR and PR user groups had different baseline compliance rates (40.1 and 27.9 per cent, respectively; P<0.05). Both rates remained stable during a two-year baseline period (P = 0.34 and P = 0.47, respectively). The compliance rates in the CPR user group increased 78 per cent from baseline (P<0.001), whereas the rates for the PR user group did not change significantly (P = 0.18). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians who used a CPR with reminders had higher rates of documentation of compliance with influenza-vaccination guidelines than did those who used a paper record. Measurements of individual clinician behavior at the point of each clinical opportunity can provide precise evaluation of interventions that are designed to improve compliance with guidelines.
Authors: P G Szilagyi; L E Rodewald; S G Humiston; L Pollard; K Klossner; A M Jones; R Barth; K A Woodin Journal: Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med Date: 1996-11
Authors: C J McDonald; S L Hui; D M Smith; W M Tierney; S J Cohen; M Weinberger; G P McCabe Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1984-01 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Judith W Dexheimer; Thomas R Talbot; David L Sanders; S Trent Rosenbloom; Dominik Aronsky Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2008-02-28 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Jennifer R Webb; Joseph Feinglass; Gregory Makoul; Cheryl L Wilkes; Daniel P Dunham; David W Baker; Michael S Wolf Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2010 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: C Jason Wang; Richard S Marken; Robin C Meili; Julie B Straus; Adam B Landman; Douglas S Bell Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2005-01-31 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Michael A Rubin; Kim Bateman; Sharon Donnelly; Gregory J Stoddard; Kurt Stevenson; Reed M Gardner; Matthew H Samore Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2006-08-23 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Sallie-Anne Pearson; Annette Moxey; Jane Robertson; Isla Hains; Margaret Williamson; James Reeve; David Newby Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2009-08-28 Impact factor: 2.655