Margaret V McDonald1, Penny H Feldman1, Yolanda Barrón-Vayá1, Timothy R Peng1, Sridevi Sridharan2, Liliana E Pezzin3. 1. Data Science and Strategic Analytic, VNS Outcomes Initiative, New York, NY, USA. 2. Center for Home Care Policy and Research, Visiting Nurse Service of New York, New York, NY, USA. 3. Department of Medicine and Health Policy Institute, Medical College of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
Abstract
RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To assess the outcomes of a clinical decision support (CDS) intervention designed for home care patients with high medication regimen complexity (MRC) and to examine correlates of CDS use. METHOD: The CDS consisted of a computerized algorithm that identified high MRC patients, electronic alerts and a care management module. Nurses were randomized upon identification of an eligible patient. Full intention to treat and intervention group-only analyses were completed. Regression-adjusted outcomes were hospitalization, emergency department use and reduction in MRC. RESULTS:Five hundred nurses were randomized with 7919 of their patients. Approximately 20% of the intervention group was hospitalized versus 21% in the control group; 16.5% versus 16.7% had an emergency department visit; and 6% in each group dropped below the high MRC threshold. No statistically significant differences were found in the intention to treat analysis. Eighty-two percent of intervention nurses used the CDS but for only 42% of their patients. Among intervention patients, CDS use (vs. non-use) was associated with reduced MRC and hospitalization. CDS use was associated with various clinician and patient characteristics. CONCLUSION: CDS use was limited, negating the impact of the intervention overall. Findings on correlates of CDS use and the relationship between CDS use and positive outcomes suggest that CDS use and outcomes could be enhanced by avoiding short patient lengths of stay, improving continuity of care, increasing reliance on salaried nurses and/or increasing per diem nurses' incentives to use CDS.
RCT Entities:
RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To assess the outcomes of a clinical decision support (CDS) intervention designed for home care patients with high medication regimen complexity (MRC) and to examine correlates of CDS use. METHOD: The CDS consisted of a computerized algorithm that identified high MRC patients, electronic alerts and a care management module. Nurses were randomized upon identification of an eligible patient. Full intention to treat and intervention group-only analyses were completed. Regression-adjusted outcomes were hospitalization, emergency department use and reduction in MRC. RESULTS: Five hundred nurses were randomized with 7919 of their patients. Approximately 20% of the intervention group was hospitalized versus 21% in the control group; 16.5% versus 16.7% had an emergency department visit; and 6% in each group dropped below the high MRC threshold. No statistically significant differences were found in the intention to treat analysis. Eighty-two percent of intervention nurses used the CDS but for only 42% of their patients. Among intervention patients, CDS use (vs. non-use) was associated with reduced MRC and hospitalization. CDS use was associated with various clinician and patient characteristics. CONCLUSION: CDS use was limited, negating the impact of the intervention overall. Findings on correlates of CDS use and the relationship between CDS use and positive outcomes suggest that CDS use and outcomes could be enhanced by avoiding short patient lengths of stay, improving continuity of care, increasing reliance on salaried nurses and/or increasing per diem nurses' incentives to use CDS.
Authors: Penny H Feldman; Christopher M Murtaugh; Liliana E Pezzin; Margaret V McDonald; Timothy R Peng Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 3.402
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: K Ann McKibbon; Cynthia Lokker; Steve M Handler; Lisa R Dolovich; Anne M Holbrook; Daria O'Reilly; Robyn Tamblyn; Brian J Hemens; Runki Basu; Sue Troyan; Pavel S Roshanov; Norman P Archer; Parminder Raina Journal: Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) Date: 2011-04
Authors: Robby Nieuwlaat; Stuart J Connolly; Jean A Mackay; Lorraine Weise-Kelly; Tamara Navarro; Nancy L Wilczynski; R Brian Haynes Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2011-08-03 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Viktoria S Wurmbach; Steffen J Schmidt; Anette Lampert; Eduard Frick; Michael Metzner; Simone Bernard; Petra A Thürmann; Stefan Wilm; Achim Mortsiefer; Attila Altiner; Lisa Sparenberg; Joachim Szecsenyi; Frank Peters-Klimm; Petra Kaufmann-Kolle; Walter E Haefeli; Hanna M Seidling Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2020-07-08 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: T Katrien J Groenhof; Folkert W Asselbergs; Rolf H H Groenwold; Diederick E Grobbee; Frank L J Visseren; Michiel L Bots Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2019-06-10 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Viktoria S Wurmbach; Steffen J Schmidt; Hanna M Seidling; Walter E Haefeli; Anette Lampert; Simone Bernard; Andreas D Meid; Eduard Frick; Michael Metzner; Stefan Wilm; Achim Mortsiefer; Bettina Bücker; Attila Altiner; Lisa Sparenberg; Joachim Szecsenyi; Frank Peters-Klimm; Petra Kaufmann-Kolle; Petra A Thürmann Journal: BMC Prim Care Date: 2022-06-28
Authors: Janet K Sluggett; Georgina A Hughes; Choon Ean Ooi; Esa Y H Chen; Megan Corlis; Michelle E Hogan; Tessa Caporale; Jan Van Emden; J Simon Bell Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-27 Impact factor: 3.390