I Hetlevik1, J Holmen, O Krüger. 1. National Institute of Public Health, Community Medicine Research Unit, Verdal, Norway.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the implementation of clinical guidelines for hypertension in general practice by use of a computer-based clinical decision support system (CDSS) and a specific implementation strategy. Evaluation of patient outcome. DESIGN: Randomised study with health centres as units. The intervention group had the CDSS installed and made ready for use, doctors and assistants were trained and received a user-manual, the doctors were offered telephone repetitions, a seminar in risk intervention and, at the same seminar, further demonstration of the CDSS. The doctors received baseline registrations with information of how they treated their own hypertensive patients, and use of the CDSS was checked repeatedly. SETTING:General practice in Sør- and Nord-Trøndelag counties in Norway, 380,000 inhabitants. PARTICIPANTS: Seventeen health centres with 24 doctors and 984 patients in the intervention group. Data from 879 patients used in the final analyses. Twelve health centres with 29 doctors and 1255 patients in the control group. Data from 1119 patients used in the final analyses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: After an intervention period of 18 months, group differences in level of systolic and diastolic blood pressure, serum cholesterol, body mass index, and risk score for myocardial infarction were calculated, as well as group differences in fractions of smokers. RESULTS: Significant group difference in favour of intervention group: diastolic blood pressure 1 mmHg (95% CI -1.89, -0.17). However, a significant baseline difference in systolic blood pressure in favour of control group of 2.7 mmHg (95% CI 1.0, 4.5) had been reduced to 1.2 mmHg (95% CI -0.6, 3.0) after intervention. CONCLUSION: Implementation of clinical guidelines in the treatment of hypertensive patients in general practice by means of a CDSS and several other procedures for implementation did not affect patient outcome in any clinically significant way.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the implementation of clinical guidelines for hypertension in general practice by use of a computer-based clinical decision support system (CDSS) and a specific implementation strategy. Evaluation of patient outcome. DESIGN: Randomised study with health centres as units. The intervention group had the CDSS installed and made ready for use, doctors and assistants were trained and received a user-manual, the doctors were offered telephone repetitions, a seminar in risk intervention and, at the same seminar, further demonstration of the CDSS. The doctors received baseline registrations with information of how they treated their own hypertensivepatients, and use of the CDSS was checked repeatedly. SETTING: General practice in Sør- and Nord-Trøndelag counties in Norway, 380,000 inhabitants. PARTICIPANTS: Seventeen health centres with 24 doctors and 984 patients in the intervention group. Data from 879 patients used in the final analyses. Twelve health centres with 29 doctors and 1255 patients in the control group. Data from 1119 patients used in the final analyses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: After an intervention period of 18 months, group differences in level of systolic and diastolic blood pressure, serum cholesterol, body mass index, and risk score for myocardial infarction were calculated, as well as group differences in fractions of smokers. RESULTS: Significant group difference in favour of intervention group: diastolic blood pressure 1 mmHg (95% CI -1.89, -0.17). However, a significant baseline difference in systolic blood pressure in favour of control group of 2.7 mmHg (95% CI 1.0, 4.5) had been reduced to 1.2 mmHg (95% CI -0.6, 3.0) after intervention. CONCLUSION: Implementation of clinical guidelines in the treatment of hypertensivepatients in general practice by means of a CDSS and several other procedures for implementation did not affect patient outcome in any clinically significant way.
Authors: Lorenzo Moja; Koren H Kwag; Theodore Lytras; Lorenzo Bertizzolo; Linn Brandt; Valentina Pecoraro; Giulio Rigon; Alberto Vaona; Francesca Ruggiero; Massimo Mangia; Alfonso Iorio; Ilkka Kunnamo; Stefanos Bonovas Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2014-10-16 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Gibril J Njie; Krista K Proia; Anilkrishna B Thota; Ramona K C Finnie; David P Hopkins; Starr M Banks; David B Callahan; Nicolaas P Pronk; Kimberly J Rask; Daniel T Lackland; Thomas E Kottke Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Gianfranco Damiani; Luigi Pinnarelli; Simona C Colosimo; Roberta Almiento; Lorella Sicuro; Rocco Galasso; Lorenzo Sommella; Walter Ricciardi Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2010-01-04 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: David P Peiris; Rohina Joshi; Ruth J Webster; Patrick Groenestein; Tim P Usherwood; Emma Heeley; Fiona M Turnbull; Alexandra Lipman; Anushka A Patel Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2009-12-17 Impact factor: 5.428