Annemarei Ranta1, Susan Dovey2, Mark Weatherall2, Des O'Dea2, John Gommans2, Murray Tilyard2. 1. From the Department of Neurology (A.R.), MidCentral District Health Board, Palmerston North; the Department of Medicine (A.R., M.W., D.O.), University of Otago-Wellington; the Department of General Practice and Rural Health (S.D., M.T.), University of Otago, Dunedin School of Medicine; and the Department of Medicine (J.G.), Hawke's Bay District Health Board, Hastings, New Zealand. anna.ranta@otago.ac.nz. 2. From the Department of Neurology (A.R.), MidCentral District Health Board, Palmerston North; the Department of Medicine (A.R., M.W., D.O.), University of Otago-Wellington; the Department of General Practice and Rural Health (S.D., M.T.), University of Otago, Dunedin School of Medicine; and the Department of Medicine (J.G.), Hawke's Bay District Health Board, Hastings, New Zealand.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test if TIA/stroke electronic decision support in primary care improves management. METHODS: Multicenter, single-blind, parallel-group, cluster randomized, controlled trial comparing TIA/stroke electronic decision support guided management with usual care. Main outcomes were guideline adherence and 90-day stroke risk. Secondary outcomes were cerebrovascular/vascular/death/adverse events, cost, and user feedback. Main analysis was logistic regression with a normal random effect for clusters using a generalized linear mixed model. RESULTS:Twenty-nine clinics were randomized to intervention, 27 to control, recruiting 172 and 119 eligible patients. More intervention patients received guideline-adherent care (131/172; 76.2%) than control patients (49/119; 41.2%) (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 4.57; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.39-8.71; p < 0.001). Ninety-day stroke occurred in 2/172 (1.2%) intervention and 5/119 (4.2%) control patients (OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.05-1.41; p = 0.098). Ninety-day TIA or stroke occurrence was lower in the intervention group, 4/172 (2.3%) compared to 10/119 (8.5%) control (adjusted OR 0.26; 95% CI 0.70-0.97; p = 0.045). Fewer vascular events/deaths occurred in intervention, 6/172 (3.5%), than in control patients, 14/119 (11.9%) (adjusted OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.09-0.78; p = 0.016). Treatment cost ratio of 0.65 (95% CI 0.47-0.91; p = 0.013) favored the intervention without increased adverse events. Clinician feedback was positive. CONCLUSION: Primary care use of the TIA/stroke electronic decision support tool improves guideline adherence, safely reduces treatment cost, achieves positive user feedback, and may reduce cerebrovascular and vascular event risk following TIA/stroke. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that a primary care electronic decision support tool improves guideline adherence and might reduce 90-day stroke risk.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To test if TIA/stroke electronic decision support in primary care improves management. METHODS: Multicenter, single-blind, parallel-group, cluster randomized, controlled trial comparing TIA/stroke electronic decision support guided management with usual care. Main outcomes were guideline adherence and 90-day stroke risk. Secondary outcomes were cerebrovascular/vascular/death/adverse events, cost, and user feedback. Main analysis was logistic regression with a normal random effect for clusters using a generalized linear mixed model. RESULTS: Twenty-nine clinics were randomized to intervention, 27 to control, recruiting 172 and 119 eligible patients. More intervention patients received guideline-adherent care (131/172; 76.2%) than control patients (49/119; 41.2%) (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 4.57; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.39-8.71; p < 0.001). Ninety-day stroke occurred in 2/172 (1.2%) intervention and 5/119 (4.2%) control patients (OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.05-1.41; p = 0.098). Ninety-day TIA or stroke occurrence was lower in the intervention group, 4/172 (2.3%) compared to 10/119 (8.5%) control (adjusted OR 0.26; 95% CI 0.70-0.97; p = 0.045). Fewer vascular events/deaths occurred in intervention, 6/172 (3.5%), than in control patients, 14/119 (11.9%) (adjusted OR 0.27; 95% CI 0.09-0.78; p = 0.016). Treatment cost ratio of 0.65 (95% CI 0.47-0.91; p = 0.013) favored the intervention without increased adverse events. Clinician feedback was positive. CONCLUSION: Primary care use of the TIA/stroke electronic decision support tool improves guideline adherence, safely reduces treatment cost, achieves positive user feedback, and may reduce cerebrovascular and vascular event risk following TIA/stroke. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class II evidence that a primary care electronic decision support tool improves guideline adherence and might reduce 90-day stroke risk.
Authors: Dawn M Bravata; Laura J Myers; Greg Arling; Edward J Miech; Teresa Damush; Jason J Sico; Michael S Phipps; Alan J Zillich; Zhangsheng Yu; Mathew Reeves; Linda S Williams; Jason Johanning; Seemant Chaturvedi; Fitsum Baye; Susan Ofner; Curt Austin; Jared Ferguson; Glenn D Graham; Rachel Rhude; Chad S Kessler; Donald S Higgins; Eric Cheng Journal: JAMA Neurol Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 18.302
Authors: Teresa M Damush; Lauren S Penney; Edward J Miech; Nicholas A Rattray; Sean A Baird; Ariel J Cheatham; Charles Austin; Ali Sexson; Laura J Myers; Dawn M Bravata Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2021-05-12 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Ava L Liberman; Andrea R Lendaris; Natalie T Cheng; Nicole L Kaban; Sara K Rostanski; Charles Esenwa; Benjamin R Kummer; Daniel L Labovitz; Shyam Prabhakaran; Benjamin W Friedman Journal: Neurohospitalist Date: 2021-06-03
Authors: Bernadeta Bridgwood; Kate E Lager; Amit K Mistri; Kamlesh Khunti; Andrew D Wilson; Priya Modi Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-05-07
Authors: Bridie Angela Evans; Khalid Ali; Jenna Bulger; Gary A Ford; Matthew Jones; Chris Moore; Alison Porter; Alan David Pryce; Tom Quinn; Anne C Seagrove; Helen Snooks; Shirley Whitman; Nigel Rees Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-02-14 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Mark J Rapoport; Carla Zucchero Sarracini; Alex Kiss; Linda Lee; Anna Byszewski; Dallas P Seitz; Brenda Vrkljan; Frank Molnar; Nathan Herrmann; David F Tang-Wai; Christopher Frank; Blair Henry; Nicholas Pimlott; Mario Masellis; Gary Naglie Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2018-05-25 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Andy Lim; Shaloo Singhal; Philippa Lavallee; Pierre Amarenco; Peter M Rothwell; Gregory Albers; Mukul Sharma; Robert Brown; Annemarei Ranta; Mohana Maddula; Timothy Kleinig; Jesse Dawson; Mitchell S V Elkind; Maria Guarino; Shelagh B Coutts; Benjamin Clissold; Henry Ma; Thanh Phan Journal: J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis Date: 2020-08-18 Impact factor: 2.136
Authors: Liana S Cahill; Leeanne M Carey; Natasha A Lannin; Megan Turville; Cheryl L Neilson; Elizabeth A Lynch; Carol E McKinstry; Jia Xi Han; Denise O'Connor Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2020-10-15
Authors: Teresa M Damush; Edward J Miech; Jason J Sico; Michael S Phipps; Greg Arling; Jared Ferguson; Charles Austin; Laura Myers; Fitsum Baye; Cherie Luckhurst; Ava B Keating; Eileen Moran; Dawn M Bravata Journal: Neurology Date: 2017-11-08 Impact factor: 9.910