OBJECTIVES: To determine the impact on routine glycated hemoglobin (A1C) laboratory test completion of incorporating an autopend laboratory order functionality into clinical decision support, which (1) routed provider alerts to a separate electronic folder, (2) automatically populated preauthorization forms, and (3) linked the timing and content of electronic patient health maintenance topic (HMT) reminders to the provider authorization. STUDY DESIGN: Observational pre-post study from November 2011 (1 year before autopend) through June 2014 (1.5 years after). METHODS: The study included HMT reminders concerning an A1C test for patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes (N = 15,630 HMT reminders; 8792 patients) in a large multispecialty ambulatory healthcare system. A Cox proportional hazard model, adjusted for patient and provider demographics, estimated the likelihood of laboratory test completion based on 3 HMT reminder characteristics: preautopend versus postautopend period, read versus unread, and the patient's time to reading. RESULTS: In the postautopend period, the median time for patients to read reminders decreased (1 vs 3 days; P <.001) and the median time to complete laboratory tests decreased (40 vs 48 days; P <.001). Comparing preautopend HMT reminders with a similar time to reading, the likelihood of A1C laboratory test completion increased after autopend by between 21.1% (hazard ratio [HR], 1.211; P = .050), when time to reading was 57 days, and 33.9% (HR, 1.339; P = .003), when time to reading was 0 days. This result included 68% of the reminders. There was no statistical difference in A1C laboratory test completion for unread reminders in the preautopend versus postautopend period. CONCLUSIONS: Automated patient-centered decision support can improve guideline-concordant monitoring of A1C among patients with diabetes, particularly among patients who read reminders in a timely fashion.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the impact on routine glycated hemoglobin (A1C) laboratory test completion of incorporating an autopend laboratory order functionality into clinical decision support, which (1) routed provider alerts to a separate electronic folder, (2) automatically populated preauthorization forms, and (3) linked the timing and content of electronic patient health maintenance topic (HMT) reminders to the provider authorization. STUDY DESIGN: Observational pre-post study from November 2011 (1 year before autopend) through June 2014 (1.5 years after). METHODS: The study included HMT reminders concerning an A1C test for patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes (N = 15,630 HMT reminders; 8792 patients) in a large multispecialty ambulatory healthcare system. A Cox proportional hazard model, adjusted for patient and provider demographics, estimated the likelihood of laboratory test completion based on 3 HMT reminder characteristics: preautopend versus postautopend period, read versus unread, and the patient's time to reading. RESULTS: In the postautopend period, the median time for patients to read reminders decreased (1 vs 3 days; P <.001) and the median time to complete laboratory tests decreased (40 vs 48 days; P <.001). Comparing preautopend HMT reminders with a similar time to reading, the likelihood of A1C laboratory test completion increased after autopend by between 21.1% (hazard ratio [HR], 1.211; P = .050), when time to reading was 57 days, and 33.9% (HR, 1.339; P = .003), when time to reading was 0 days. This result included 68% of the reminders. There was no statistical difference in A1C laboratory test completion for unread reminders in the preautopend versus postautopend period. CONCLUSIONS: Automated patient-centered decision support can improve guideline-concordant monitoring of A1C among patients with diabetes, particularly among patients who read reminders in a timely fashion.
Authors: Aaron S Kesselheim; Kathrin Cresswell; Shobha Phansalkar; David W Bates; Aziz Sheikh Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Andrea C Tricco; Noah M Ivers; Jeremy M Grimshaw; David Moher; Lucy Turner; James Galipeau; Ilana Halperin; Brigitte Vachon; Tim Ramsay; Braden Manns; Marcello Tonelli; Kaveh Shojania Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-06-09 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: David C Ziemer; Joyce P Doyle; Catherine S Barnes; William T Branch; Curtiss B Cook; Imad M El-Kebbi; Daniel L Gallina; Paul Kolm; Mary K Rhee; Lawrence S Phillips Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2006-03-13
Authors: Kaveh G Shojania; Alison Jennings; Alain Mayhew; Craig R Ramsay; Martin P Eccles; Jeremy Grimshaw Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2009-07-08
Authors: Tait D Shanafelt; Lotte N Dyrbye; Christine Sinsky; Omar Hasan; Daniel Satele; Jeff Sloan; Colin P West Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2016-06-27 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Kevin W McConeghy; Michael Cinque; Elizabeth M White; Richard A Feifer; Carolyn Blackman; Vincent Mor; Stefan Gravenstein; Andrew R Zullo Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2021-10-25 Impact factor: 7.538
Authors: Sukyung Chung; Meghan C Martinez; Dominick L Frosch; Veena G Jones; Albert S Chan Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-06-10 Impact factor: 5.428