Stephen D Persell1,2, Kunal N Karmali3, Danielle Lazar4, Elisha M Friesema1,2,5, Ji Young Lee1, Alfred Rademaker6, Darren Kaiser7, Milton Eder4,8, Dustin D French9, Tiffany Brown1, Michael S Wolf1. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. 2. Center for Primary Care Innovation, Institute for Public Health and Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. 3. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. 4. Access Community Health Network and the Access Center for Discovery and Learning, Chicago, Illinois. 5. Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. 6. Department of Preventive Medicine, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois. 7. Information Services, Northwestern Memorial Healthcare, Chicago, Illinois. 8. Center for Excellence in Primary Care, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Medical School, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. 9. Department of Ophthalmology and Center for Healthcare Studies, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois.
Abstract
Importance: Complex medication regimens pose self-management challenges, particularly among populations with low levels of health literacy. Objective: To test medication management tools delivered through a commercial electronic health record (EHR) with and without a nurse-led education intervention. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 3-group cluster randomized clinical trial was performed in community health centers in Chicago, Illinois. Participants included 794 patients with hypertension who self-reported using 3 or more medications concurrently (for any purpose). Data were collected from April 30, 2012, through February 29, 2016, and analyzed by intention to treat. Interventions: Clinics were randomly assigned to to groups: electronic health record-based medication management tools (medication review sheets at visit check-in, lay medication information sheets printed after visits; EHR-alone group), EHR-based tools plus nurse-led medication management support (EHR plus education group), or usual care. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes at 12 months included systolic blood pressure (primary outcome), medication reconciliation, knowledge of drug indications, understanding of medication instructions and dosing, and self-reported medication adherence. Medication outcomes were assessed for all hypertension prescriptions, all prescriptions to treat chronic disease, and all medications. Results: Among the 794 participants (68.6% women; mean [SD] age, 52.7 [9.6] years), systolic blood pressure at 12 months was greater in the EHR-alone group compared with the usual care group by 3.6 mm Hg (95% CI, 0.3 to 6.9 mm Hg). Systolic blood pressure in the EHR plus education group was not significantly lower compared with the usual care group (difference, -2.0 mm Hg; 95% CI, -5.2 to 1.3 mm Hg) but was lower compared with the EHR-alone group (-5.6 mm Hg; 95% CI, -8.8 to -2.4 mm Hg). At 12 months, hypertension medication reconciliation was improved in the EHR-alone group (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1 to 2.9) and the EHR plus education group (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 2.0; 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.3) compared with usual care. Understanding of medication instructions and dosing was greater in the EHR plus education group than the usual care group for hypertension medications (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.1 to 4.8) and all medications combined (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.0 to 2.8). Compared with usual care, the EHR tools alone and EHR plus education interventions did not improve hypertension medication adherence (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.6-1.4 for both) or knowledge of chronic drug indications (OR for EHR tools alone, 1.0 [95% CI, 0.6 to 1.5] and OR for EHR plus education, 1.1 [95% CI, 0.7-1.7]). Conclusions and Relevance: The study found that EHR tools in isolation improved medication reconciliation but worsened blood pressure. Combining these tools with nurse-led support suggested improved understanding of medication instructions and dosing but did not lower blood pressure compared with usual care. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01578577.
RCT Entities:
Importance: Complex medication regimens pose self-management challenges, particularly among populations with low levels of health literacy. Objective: To test medication management tools delivered through a commercial electronic health record (EHR) with and without a nurse-led education intervention. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 3-group cluster randomized clinical trial was performed in community health centers in Chicago, Illinois. Participants included 794 patients with hypertension who self-reported using 3 or more medications concurrently (for any purpose). Data were collected from April 30, 2012, through February 29, 2016, and analyzed by intention to treat. Interventions: Clinics were randomly assigned to to groups: electronic health record-based medication management tools (medication review sheets at visit check-in, lay medication information sheets printed after visits; EHR-alone group), EHR-based tools plus nurse-led medication management support (EHR plus education group), or usual care. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes at 12 months included systolic blood pressure (primary outcome), medication reconciliation, knowledge of drug indications, understanding of medication instructions and dosing, and self-reported medication adherence. Medication outcomes were assessed for all hypertension prescriptions, all prescriptions to treat chronic disease, and all medications. Results: Among the 794 participants (68.6% women; mean [SD] age, 52.7 [9.6] years), systolic blood pressure at 12 months was greater in the EHR-alone group compared with the usual care group by 3.6 mm Hg (95% CI, 0.3 to 6.9 mm Hg). Systolic blood pressure in the EHR plus education group was not significantly lower compared with the usual care group (difference, -2.0 mm Hg; 95% CI, -5.2 to 1.3 mm Hg) but was lower compared with the EHR-alone group (-5.6 mm Hg; 95% CI, -8.8 to -2.4 mm Hg). At 12 months, hypertension medication reconciliation was improved in the EHR-alone group (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.8; 95% CI, 1.1 to 2.9) and the EHR plus education group (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 2.0; 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.3) compared with usual care. Understanding of medication instructions and dosing was greater in the EHR plus education group than the usual care group for hypertension medications (OR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.1 to 4.8) and all medications combined (OR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.0 to 2.8). Compared with usual care, the EHR tools alone and EHR plus education interventions did not improve hypertension medication adherence (OR, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.6-1.4 for both) or knowledge of chronic drug indications (OR for EHR tools alone, 1.0 [95% CI, 0.6 to 1.5] and OR for EHR plus education, 1.1 [95% CI, 0.7-1.7]). Conclusions and Relevance: The study found that EHR tools in isolation improved medication reconciliation but worsened blood pressure. Combining these tools with nurse-led support suggested improved understanding of medication instructions and dosing but did not lower blood pressure compared with usual care. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01578577.
Authors: Katherine T Mills; Katherine M Obst; Wei Shen; Sandra Molina; Hui-Jie Zhang; Hua He; Lisa A Cooper; Jiang He Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2017-12-26 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Jennifer R Webb; Joseph Feinglass; Gregory Makoul; Cheryl L Wilkes; Daniel P Dunham; David W Baker; Michael S Wolf Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2010 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Meera Viswanathan; Leila C Kahwati; Carol E Golin; Susan J Blalock; Emmanuel Coker-Schwimmer; Rachael Posey; Kathleen N Lohr Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Terry C Davis; Michael S Wolf; Pat F Bass; Jason A Thompson; Hugh H Tilson; Marolee Neuberger; Ruth M Parker Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2006-11-29 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Katherine R Waite; Michael Paasche-Orlow; Lance S Rintamaki; Terry C Davis; Michael S Wolf Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-06-19 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Krista K Proia; Anilkrishna B Thota; Gibril J Njie; Ramona K C Finnie; David P Hopkins; Qaiser Mukhtar; Nicolaas P Pronk; Donald Zeigler; Thomas E Kottke; Kimberly J Rask; Daniel T Lackland; Joy F Brooks; Lynne T Braun; Tonya Cooksey Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2014-06-02 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Stephen D Persell; Chandra Y Osborn; Robert Richard; Silvia Skripkauskas; Michael S Wolf Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2007-09-05 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Katherine L Tucker; James P Sheppard; Richard Stevens; Hayden B Bosworth; Alfred Bove; Emma P Bray; Kenneth Earle; Johnson George; Marshall Godwin; Beverly B Green; Paul Hebert; F D Richard Hobbs; Ilkka Kantola; Sally M Kerry; Alfonso Leiva; David J Magid; Jonathan Mant; Karen L Margolis; Brian McKinstry; Mary Ann McLaughlin; Stefano Omboni; Olugbenga Ogedegbe; Gianfranco Parati; Nashat Qamar; Bahman P Tabaei; Juha Varis; Willem J Verberk; Bonnie J Wakefield; Richard J McManus Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2017-09-19 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Stephen D Persell; Kunal N Karmali; Ji Young Lee; Danielle Lazar; Tiffany Brown; Elisha M Friesema; Michael S Wolf Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2020-01-15 Impact factor: 2.711
Authors: Tala Al-Rousan; M Amalia Pesantes; Sufia Dadabhai; Namratha R Kandula; Mark D Huffman; J Jaime Miranda; Rafael Vidal-Perez; Anastase Dzudie; Cheryl A M Anderson Journal: Glob Health Epidemiol Genom Date: 2020-07-20