Paula White1, Kimberly Kenton. 1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Loyola University Chicago, Stritch School of Medicine, Maywood, IL 60153, USA. pwhite@lumc.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether electronic medical record (EMR)-based tools influence providers' compliance with guidelines for cervical cancer screening in adolescent (<21 y) patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three EMR-based tools to educate providers on cervical cancer screening guidelines were implemented midyear in 2010. Charts of adolescents with Pap and/or human papillomavirus results from January to December 2010 were reviewed. Physicians' demographic data were collected. Appropriateness of the index Pap and follow-up were determined using American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 380 Pap tests were completed on 374 adolescents. Fewer Pap tests were done after the EMR interventions (229 vs 151, p < .0005). The proportion of Pap tests ordered by primary care providers was significantly higher than obstetrician-gynecologists (Ob/Gyns) (70% vs 30%, p < .0005). The number of Pap tests done by Ob/Gyns decreased 60% after EMR interventions (from 82 to 33, p < .0005) and that done by primary care physicians decreased 20% (from 147 to 118, p = .08). Indicated Pap tests were more often ordered by Ob/Gyn than by primary care, especially after EMR changes (31.4% vs 7.6%, p < .0005). Reflex human papillomavirus testing (if atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance) was high (74%) and did not improve after the EMR changes (72% vs 76%). The rate of co-testing in adolescents decreased in the primary care department after the EMR changes (13% vs 6%, p = .049). CONCLUSIONS: Electronic medical record prompts improved compliance with cervical cytology guidelines for adolescents, suggesting that EMR may be an important tool to enhance compliance with changing recommendations.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether electronic medical record (EMR)-based tools influence providers' compliance with guidelines for cervical cancer screening in adolescent (<21 y) patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three EMR-based tools to educate providers on cervical cancer screening guidelines were implemented midyear in 2010. Charts of adolescents with Pap and/or human papillomavirus results from January to December 2010 were reviewed. Physicians' demographic data were collected. Appropriateness of the index Pap and follow-up were determined using American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology guidelines. RESULTS: A total of 380 Pap tests were completed on 374 adolescents. Fewer Pap tests were done after the EMR interventions (229 vs 151, p < .0005). The proportion of Pap tests ordered by primary care providers was significantly higher than obstetrician-gynecologists (Ob/Gyns) (70% vs 30%, p < .0005). The number of Pap tests done by Ob/Gyns decreased 60% after EMR interventions (from 82 to 33, p < .0005) and that done by primary care physicians decreased 20% (from 147 to 118, p = .08). Indicated Pap tests were more often ordered by Ob/Gyn than by primary care, especially after EMR changes (31.4% vs 7.6%, p < .0005). Reflex human papillomavirus testing (if atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance) was high (74%) and did not improve after the EMR changes (72% vs 76%). The rate of co-testing in adolescents decreased in the primary care department after the EMR changes (13% vs 6%, p = .049). CONCLUSIONS: Electronic medical record prompts improved compliance with cervical cytology guidelines for adolescents, suggesting that EMR may be an important tool to enhance compliance with changing recommendations.
Authors: Constance M Wiemann; Albert C Hergenroeder; Krystle A Bartley; Blanca Sanchez-Fournier; Marisa E Hilliard; Laura J Warren; Sarah C Graham Journal: J Pediatr Nurs Date: 2015-07-21 Impact factor: 2.145
Authors: Alex D Federman; Natalie Kil; Joseph Kannry; Evie Andreopolous; Wilma Toribio; Joanne Lyons; Mark Singer; Anthony Yartel; Bryce D Smith; David B Rein; Katherine Krauskopf Journal: Med Care Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Erin J Aiello Bowles; Hongyuan Gao; Susan Brandzel; Susan Carol Bradford; Diana S M Buist Journal: Prev Med Date: 2016-01-25 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Olga Moshkovich; Lydie Lebrun-Harris; Laura Makaroff; Preeta Chidambaran; Michelle Chung; Alek Sripipatana; Sue C Lin Journal: Adv Prev Med Date: 2015-01-21
Authors: Carla Vaucher; Emilie Bovet; Theresa Bengough; Vincent Pidoux; Michèle Grossen; Francesco Panese; Bernard Burnand Journal: Health Res Policy Syst Date: 2016-07-18
Authors: Baligh R Yehia; Ramin S Herati; John A Fleishman; Joel E Gallant; Allison L Agwu; Stephen A Berry; P Todd Korthuis; Richard D Moore; Joshua P Metlay; Kelly A Gebo Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-07-17 Impact factor: 3.240