Literature DB >> 23045582

Unintended consequences of health information technology: evidence from veterans affairs colorectal cancer oncology watch intervention.

John Bian1, Charles L Bennett, Deborah A Fisher, Maria Ribeiro, Joseph Lipscomb.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: We evaluated the Colorectal Cancer (CRC) Oncology Watch intervention, a clinical reminder implemented in Veterans Integrated Service Network 7 (including eight hospitals) to improve CRC screening rates in 2008. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Veterans Affairs (VA) administrative data were used to construct four cross-sectional groups of veterans at average risk, age 50 to 64 years; one group was created for each of the following years: 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2010. We applied hospital fixed effects for estimation, using a difference-in-differences model in which the eight hospitals served as the intervention sites, and the other 121 hospitals served as controls, with 2006 to 2007 as the preintervention period and 2009 to 2010 as the postintervention period.
RESULTS: The sample included 4,352,082 veteran-years in the 4 years. The adherence rates were 37.6%, 31.6%, 34.4%, and 33.2% in the intervention sites in 2006, 2007, 2009, and 2010, respectively, and the corresponding rates in the controls were 31.0%, 30.3%, 32.3%, and 30.9%. Regression analysis showed that among those eligible for screening, the intervention was associated with a 2.2-percentage point decrease in likelihood of adherence (P < .001). Additional analyses showed that the intervention was associated with a 5.6-percentage point decrease in likelihood of screening colonoscopy among the adherent, but with increased total colonoscopies (all indicators) of 3.6 per 100 veterans age 50 to 64 years.
CONCLUSION: The intervention had little impact on CRC screening rates for the studied population. This absence of favorable impact may have been caused by an unintentional shift of limited VA colonoscopy capacity from average-risk screening to higher-risk screening and to CRC surveillance, or by physician fatigue resulting from the large number of clinical reminders implemented in the VA.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23045582      PMCID: PMC3488268          DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2011.39.7448

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Oncol        ISSN: 0732-183X            Impact factor:   44.544


  18 in total

1.  Colorectal cancer prevention 2000: screening recommendations of the American College of Gastroenterology. American College of Gastroenterology.

Authors:  D K Rex; D A Johnson; D A Lieberman; R W Burt; A Sonnenberg
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 10.864

Review 2.  Cost-effectiveness analyses of colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Michael Pignone; Somnath Saha; Tom Hoerger; Jeanne Mandelblatt
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-07-16       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Effect of the transformation of the Veterans Affairs Health Care System on the quality of care.

Authors:  Ashish K Jha; Jonathan B Perlin; Kenneth W Kizer; R Adams Dudley
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2003-05-29       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 4.  Systematic review: comparison of the quality of medical care in Veterans Affairs and non-Veterans Affairs settings.

Authors:  Amal N Trivedi; Sierra Matula; Isomi Miake-Lye; Peter A Glassman; Paul Shekelle; Steven Asch
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  High rates of adverse drug events in a highly computerized hospital.

Authors:  Jonathan R Nebeker; Jennifer M Hoffman; Charlene R Weir; Charles L Bennett; John F Hurdle
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2005-05-23

Review 6.  Screening for colorectal cancer in average-risk populations.

Authors:  David Lieberman
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 4.965

7.  Comparison of quality of care for patients in the Veterans Health Administration and patients in a national sample.

Authors:  Steven M Asch; Elizabeth A McGlynn; Mary M Hogan; Rodney A Hayward; Paul Shekelle; Lisa Rubenstein; Joan Keesey; John Adams; Eve A Kerr
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2004-12-21       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  Rethinking medical professionalism: the role of information technology and practice innovations.

Authors:  David Mechanic
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 4.911

Review 9.  The benefits of health information technology: a review of the recent literature shows predominantly positive results.

Authors:  Melinda Beeuwkes Buntin; Matthew F Burke; Michael C Hoaglin; David Blumenthal
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 6.301

Review 10.  Evaluating informatics applications--clinical decision support systems literature review.

Authors:  B Kaplan
Journal:  Int J Med Inform       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 4.046

View more
  6 in total

1.  Effects of the US Food and Drug Administration Boxed Warning of Erythropoietin-Stimulating Agents on Utilization and Adverse Outcome.

Authors:  John Bian; Brian Chen; Dawn L Hershman; Norman Marks; LeAnn Norris; Richard Schulz; Charles L Bennett
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2017-04-25       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 2.  Interventions and targets aimed at improving quality in inflammatory bowel disease ambulatory care.

Authors:  Adam V Weizman; Geoffrey C Nguyen
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-10-14       Impact factor: 5.742

3.  Assessing Colorectal Cancer Screening Adherence of Medicare Fee-for-Service Beneficiaries Age 76 to 95 Years.

Authors:  John Bian; Charles Bennett; Gregory Cooper; Alessandra D'Alfonso; Deborah Fisher; Joseph Lipscomb; Chao-Nan Qian
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2016-05-17       Impact factor: 3.840

4.  The effect of an electronic "hard-stop" alert on HIV testing rates in the emergency department.

Authors:  Rebecca Schnall; Jeremy D Sperling; Nan Liu; Robert A Green; Sunday Clark; David K Vawdrey
Journal:  Stud Health Technol Inform       Date:  2013

5.  Implementation challenges and successes of a population-based colorectal cancer screening program: a qualitative study of stakeholder perspectives.

Authors:  Elizabeth G Liles; Jennifer L Schneider; Adrianne C Feldstein; David M Mosen; Nancy Perrin; Ana Gabriela Rosales; David H Smith
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2015-03-29       Impact factor: 7.327

6.  Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents and quality of life: personal journeys of a cancer survivor, oncologist, and two cancer health services researchers.

Authors:  C L Bennett; J Bian
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2014-07-29       Impact factor: 7.640

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.