OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of an integrated patient-specific electronic clinical reminder system on diabetes and coronary artery disease (CAD) care and to assess physician attitudes toward this reminder system. DESIGN: We enrolled 194 primary care physicians caring for 4549 patients with diabetes and 2199 patients with CAD at 20 ambulatory clinics. Clinics were randomized so that physicians received either evidence-based electronic reminders within their patients' electronic medical record or usual care. There were five reminders for diabetes care and four reminders for CAD care. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was receipt of recommended care for diabetes and CAD. We created a summary outcome to assess the odds of increased compliance with overall diabetes care (based on five measures) and overall CAD care (based on four measures). We surveyed physicians to assess attitudes toward the reminder system. RESULTS:Baseline adherence rates to all quality measures were low. While electronic reminders increased the odds of recommended diabetes care (odds ratio [OR] 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.67) and CAD (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.01-1.55), the impact of individual reminders was variable. A total of three of nine reminders effectively increased rates of recommended care for diabetes or CAD. The majority of physicians (76%) thought that reminders improved quality of care. CONCLUSION: An integrated electronic reminder system resulted in variable improvement in care for diabetes and CAD. These improvements were often limited and quality gaps persist.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of an integrated patient-specific electronic clinical reminder system on diabetes and coronary artery disease (CAD) care and to assess physician attitudes toward this reminder system. DESIGN: We enrolled 194 primary care physicians caring for 4549 patients with diabetes and 2199 patients with CAD at 20 ambulatory clinics. Clinics were randomized so that physicians received either evidence-based electronic reminders within their patients' electronic medical record or usual care. There were five reminders for diabetes care and four reminders for CAD care. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was receipt of recommended care for diabetes and CAD. We created a summary outcome to assess the odds of increased compliance with overall diabetes care (based on five measures) and overall CAD care (based on four measures). We surveyed physicians to assess attitudes toward the reminder system. RESULTS: Baseline adherence rates to all quality measures were low. While electronic reminders increased the odds of recommended diabetes care (odds ratio [OR] 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.67) and CAD (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.01-1.55), the impact of individual reminders was variable. A total of three of nine reminders effectively increased rates of recommended care for diabetes or CAD. The majority of physicians (76%) thought that reminders improved quality of care. CONCLUSION: An integrated electronic reminder system resulted in variable improvement in care for diabetes and CAD. These improvements were often limited and quality gaps persist.
Authors: Elizabeth A McGlynn; Steven M Asch; John Adams; Joan Keesey; Jennifer Hicks; Alison DeCristofaro; Eve A Kerr Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-06-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Erin G Stone; Sally C Morton; Marlies E Hulscher; Margaret A Maglione; Elizabeth A Roth; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Brian S Mittman; Lisa V Rubenstein; Laurence Z Rubenstein; Paul G Shekelle Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2002-05-07 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: William M Tierney; J Marc Overhage; Michael D Murray; Lisa E Harris; Xiao-Hua Zhou; George J Eckert; Faye E Smith; Nancy Nienaber; Clement J McDonald; Fredric D Wolinsky Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: H J Murff; T K Gandhi; A K Karson; E A Mort; E G Poon; S J Wang; D G Fairchild; D W Bates Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Raymond J Gibbons; Jonathan Abrams; Kanu Chatterjee; Jennifer Daley; Prakash C Deedwania; John S Douglas; T Bruce Ferguson; Stephan D Fihn; Theodore D Fraker; Julius M Gardin; Robert A O'Rourke; Richard C Pasternak; Sankey V Williams; Raymond J Gibbons; Joseph S Alpert; Elliott M Antman; Loren F Hiratzka; Valentin Fuster; David P Faxon; Gabriel Gregoratos; Alice K Jacobs; Sidney C Smith Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-01-07 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Richard T Griffey; Helen G Lo; Elisabeth Burdick; Carol Keohane; David W Bates Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2011-11-03 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Yi Yvonne Zhou; Robert Unitan; Jian J Wang; Terhilda Garrido; Homer L Chin; Marianne C Turley; Linda Radler Journal: Popul Health Manag Date: 2010-07-26 Impact factor: 2.459
Authors: B J Edwards; A D Bunta; J Anderson; A Bobb; A Hahr; K J O'Leary; A Agulnek; L Andruszyn; K A Cameron; M May; N H Kazmers; N Dillon; D W Baker; M V Williams Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2012-01-25 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Thomas D Sequist; Theresa Cullen; Howard Hays; Maile M Taualii; Steven R Simon; David W Bates Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2007-01-09 Impact factor: 4.497