BACKGROUND: Medication errors are frequently related to failure to appropriately select medications or adjust for laboratory parameters. Differences between guideline recommendations and actual frequency of therapeutic laboratory monitoring are substantial. This study evaluated interventions to improve laboratory monitoring at initiation of medication therapy. METHODS: This cluster-randomized trial compared 3 interventions to usual care for 10 medications in 15 primary care clinics in a health maintenance organization with an electronic medical record system. Eligible patients, identified from electronic databases, had not received recommended laboratory monitoring within 5 days after new dispensing of a study medication. Interventions were an electronic medical record reminder to the prescribing health care professional, an automated voice message to the patient, and a pharmacy team outreach to the patient. Primary outcome was completion of all recommended baseline laboratory monitoring. RESULTS: A total of 961 patients participated in the study. At 25 days, 95 (48.5%) of 196 patients in the electronic medical record reminder group, 177 (66.3%) of 267 in the automated voice message group, 214 (82.0%) of 261 in the pharmacy team outreach group, and 53 (22.4%) of 237 in the usual care group had completed all recommended baseline laboratory monitoring (P<.001). After adjustments, the hazard ratios for completing laboratory monitoring compared with usual care were 2.5 (95% confidence interval, 1.8-3.5) for electronic medical record reminder, 4.1 (95% confidence interval, 3.0-5.6) for automated voice message, and 6.7 (95% confidence interval, 4.9-9.0) for pharmacy team outreach. CONCLUSIONS: All 3 interventions were effective in increasing laboratory monitoring when initiating new medications in primary care. Further work is necessary to determine if these interventions improve patient outcomes.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Medication errors are frequently related to failure to appropriately select medications or adjust for laboratory parameters. Differences between guideline recommendations and actual frequency of therapeutic laboratory monitoring are substantial. This study evaluated interventions to improve laboratory monitoring at initiation of medication therapy. METHODS: This cluster-randomized trial compared 3 interventions to usual care for 10 medications in 15 primary care clinics in a health maintenance organization with an electronic medical record system. Eligible patients, identified from electronic databases, had not received recommended laboratory monitoring within 5 days after new dispensing of a study medication. Interventions were an electronic medical record reminder to the prescribing health care professional, an automated voice message to the patient, and a pharmacy team outreach to the patient. Primary outcome was completion of all recommended baseline laboratory monitoring. RESULTS: A total of 961 patients participated in the study. At 25 days, 95 (48.5%) of 196 patients in the electronic medical record reminder group, 177 (66.3%) of 267 in the automated voice message group, 214 (82.0%) of 261 in the pharmacy team outreach group, and 53 (22.4%) of 237 in the usual care group had completed all recommended baseline laboratory monitoring (P<.001). After adjustments, the hazard ratios for completing laboratory monitoring compared with usual care were 2.5 (95% confidence interval, 1.8-3.5) for electronic medical record reminder, 4.1 (95% confidence interval, 3.0-5.6) for automated voice message, and 6.7 (95% confidence interval, 4.9-9.0) for pharmacy team outreach. CONCLUSIONS:All 3 interventions were effective in increasing laboratory monitoring when initiating new medications in primary care. Further work is necessary to determine if these interventions improve patient outcomes.
Authors: Renee E Coffman; Jeffrey P Bratberg; Schwanda K Flowers; Nanci L Murphy; Ruth E Nemire; Lowell J Anderson; William G Lang Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2011-12-15 Impact factor: 2.047
Authors: Mark C Hornbrook; Evelyn P Whitlock; Cynthia J Berg; William M Callaghan; Donald J Bachman; Rachel Gold; F Carol Bruce; Patricia M Dietz; Selvi B Williams Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Virginia L Hinrichsen; Benjamin Kruskal; Megan A O'Brien; Tracy A Lieu; Richard Platt Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2007-08-21 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Annette Moxey; Jane Robertson; David Newby; Isla Hains; Margaret Williamson; Sallie-Anne Pearson Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2010 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Kate E Koplan; Alan D Brush; Marvin S Packer; Fang Zhang; Margaret D Senese; Steven R Simon Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-07-31 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Matthew L Maciejewski; Xiaojuan Mi; Lesley H Curtis; Judy Ng; Samuel C Haffer; Bradley G Hammill Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2016-10-18
Authors: Shira H Fischer; Terry S Field; Shawn J Gagne; Kathleen M Mazor; Peggy Preusse; George Reed; Daniel Peterson; Jerry H Gurwitz; Jennifer Tjia Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2012-11-15 Impact factor: 5.128
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