Timothy S Chang1, Ashwin Buchipudi2, Gregg C Fonarow3, Michael A Pfeffer4, Jennifer S Singer5, Eric M Cheng1. 1. Department of Neurology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States. 2. Information Services and Solutions, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States. 3. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States. 4. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States. 5. Department of Urology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2013, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) released a revised guideline on statin therapy initiation. The guideline included a 10-year risk calculation based on regression modeling, which made hand calculation infeasible. Compliance to the guideline has been suboptimal, as many patients were recommended but not prescribed statin therapy. Clinical decision support (CDS) tools may improve statin guideline compliance. Few statin guideline CDS tools evaluated clinical outcome. OBJECTIVES: We determined if use of a CDS tool, the statin macro, was associated with increased 2013 ACC/AHA statin guideline compliance at the level of statin prescription versus no statin prescription. We did not determine if each patient's statin prescription met ACC/AHA 2013 therapy intensity recommendations (high vs. moderate vs. low). METHODS: The authors developed a clinician-initiated, EHR-embedded statin macro command ("statin macro") that displayed the 2013 ACC/AHA statin guideline recommendation in the electronic health record documentation. We included patients who had a primary care visit during the study period (January 1-June 30, 2016), were eligible for statin therapy based on the ACC/AHA guideline prior to the study period, and were not prescribed statin therapy prior to the study period. We tested the association of macro usage and statin therapy prescription during the study period using relative risk and mixed effect logistic regression. RESULTS: Subjects included 11,877 patients seen in primary care, who were retrospectively recommended statin therapy at study initiation based on the ACC/AHA guideline, but who had not received statin therapy. During the study period, 125 clinicians used the statin macro command for 389 of the 11,877 patients (3.2%). Of the 389 patients for whom that statin macro was used, 108 patients (28%) had a statin prescribed during the study period. Of the 11,488 for whom the statin macro was not used, 1,360 (13%) patients received a clinician-prescribed statin (relative risk 2.3, p < 0.001). Controlling for patient covariates and clinicians, statin macro usage was significantly associated with statin therapy prescription (odds ratio 2.86, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Although the statin macro had low uptake, its use was associated with a greater rate of statin prescriptions (dosage not determined) for patients whom 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines required statin therapy. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
BACKGROUND: In 2013, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) released a revised guideline on statin therapy initiation. The guideline included a 10-year risk calculation based on regression modeling, which made hand calculation infeasible. Compliance to the guideline has been suboptimal, as many patients were recommended but not prescribed statin therapy. Clinical decision support (CDS) tools may improve statin guideline compliance. Few statin guideline CDS tools evaluated clinical outcome. OBJECTIVES: We determined if use of a CDS tool, the statin macro, was associated with increased 2013 ACC/AHA statin guideline compliance at the level of statin prescription versus no statin prescription. We did not determine if each patient's statin prescription met ACC/AHA 2013 therapy intensity recommendations (high vs. moderate vs. low). METHODS: The authors developed a clinician-initiated, EHR-embedded statin macro command ("statin macro") that displayed the 2013 ACC/AHA statin guideline recommendation in the electronic health record documentation. We included patients who had a primary care visit during the study period (January 1-June 30, 2016), were eligible for statin therapy based on the ACC/AHA guideline prior to the study period, and were not prescribed statin therapy prior to the study period. We tested the association of macro usage and statin therapy prescription during the study period using relative risk and mixed effect logistic regression. RESULTS: Subjects included 11,877 patients seen in primary care, who were retrospectively recommended statin therapy at study initiation based on the ACC/AHA guideline, but who had not received statin therapy. During the study period, 125 clinicians used the statin macro command for 389 of the 11,877 patients (3.2%). Of the 389 patients for whom that statin macro was used, 108 patients (28%) had a statin prescribed during the study period. Of the 11,488 for whom the statin macro was not used, 1,360 (13%) patients received a clinician-prescribed statin (relative risk 2.3, p < 0.001). Controlling for patient covariates and clinicians, statin macro usage was significantly associated with statin therapy prescription (odds ratio 2.86, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Although the statin macro had low uptake, its use was associated with a greater rate of statin prescriptions (dosage not determined) for patients whom 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines required statin therapy. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.
Authors: Thomas D Sequist; Tejal K Gandhi; Andrew S Karson; Julie M Fiskio; Donald Bugbee; Michael Sperling; E Francis Cook; E John Orav; David G Fairchild; David W Bates Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2005-03-31 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Pavel S Roshanov; Natasha Fernandes; Jeff M Wilczynski; Brian J Hemens; John J You; Steven M Handler; Robby Nieuwlaat; Nathan M Souza; Joseph Beyene; Harriette G C Van Spall; Amit X Garg; R Brian Haynes Journal: BMJ Date: 2013-02-14
Authors: Karen E Aspry; Roy Furman; Dean G Karalis; Terry A Jacobson; Audrey M Zhang; Gregory S Liptak; Jerome D Cohen Journal: J Clin Lipidol Date: 2013-10-12 Impact factor: 4.766
Authors: Susan D Housholder-Hughes; Melanie M Martin; Marilyn R McFarland; Constance J Creech; Michael J Shea Journal: Heart Lung Date: 2017-04-29 Impact factor: 2.210
Authors: Patrick J O'Connor; Joann M Sperl-Hillen; William A Rush; Paul E Johnson; Gerald H Amundson; Stephen E Asche; Heidi L Ekstrom; Todd P Gilmer Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2011 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Tiffani J Bright; Anthony Wong; Ravi Dhurjati; Erin Bristow; Lori Bastian; Remy R Coeytaux; Gregory Samsa; Vic Hasselblad; John W Williams; Michael D Musty; Liz Wing; Amy S Kendrick; Gillian D Sanders; David Lobach Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2012-07-03 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Michael P Friebe; Joseph R LeGrand; Bryan E Shepherd; Elizabeth A Breeden; Scott D Nelson Journal: Appl Clin Inform Date: 2020-12-30 Impact factor: 2.342
Authors: Isabelle P Sico; Amber Oberle; Sheila M Thomas; Thomas Barsanti; Lisa Egbuonu-Davis; Daniel T Kennedy; Leah L Zullig; Hayden B Bosworth Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2021-04-07 Impact factor: 2.711