Saul Blecker1, Jonathan S Austrian2, Leora I Horwitz3, Gilad Kuperman4, Donna Shelley5, Meg Ferrauiola6, Stuart D Katz7. 1. Department of Population Health, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States; Department of Medicine, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States; Center for Healthcare Innovation and Delivery Science, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, United States. Electronic address: Saul.blecker@nyumc.org. 2. Department of Medicine, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States; Medical Center Information Technology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, United States. 3. Department of Population Health, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States; Department of Medicine, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States; Center for Healthcare Innovation and Delivery Science, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, United States. 4. Memorial Sloane Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States. 5. Department of Population Health, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States; Department of Medicine, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States. 6. Medical Center Information Technology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, United States. 7. Department of Medicine, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence-based therapy for heart failure remains underutilized at hospital discharge, particularly for patients with heart failure who are hospitalized for another cause. We developed clinical decision support (CDS) to recommend an angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor during hospitalization to promote its continuation at discharge. The CDS was designed to be implemented in both interruptive and non-interruptive versions. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and implementation of interruptive and non-interruptive versions of a CDS to improve care for heart failure. METHODS: Hospitalizations of patients with reduced ejection fraction were pseudo-randomized to deliver interruptive or non-interruptive CDS alerts to providers based on even or odd medical record number. We compared discharge utilization of an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) for these two implementation approaches. We also assessed adoption and implementation fidelity of the CDS. RESULTS: Of 958 hospitalizations, interruptive alert hospitalizations had higher rates of discharge utilization of ACE inhibitors or ARBs than non-interruptive alert hospitalizations (79.6% vs. 74.2%, p = 0.05). Utilization was higher for interruptive alert versus non-interruptive alert hospitalizations which were principally for causes other than heart failure (79.8% vs. 73.4%; p = 0.05) but no difference was observed among hospitalizations with a principal heart failure diagnosis (85.9% vs.81.7%; p = 0.49). As compared to non-interruptive hospitalizations, interruptive alert hospitalizations were more likely to have had: an alert with any response (40.6% vs. 13.1%, p < 0.001), contraindications reported (33.1% vs 11.3%, p < 0.001), and an ACE inhibitor ordered within twelve hours of the alert (17.6% vs 10.3%, p < 0.01). The response rate for the interruptive alert was 1.7%, and a median (25th, 75th percentile) of 14 (5,32) alerts were triggered per hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: A CDS implemented as an interruptive alert was associated with improved quality of care for heart failure. Whether the potential benefits of CDS in improving cardiovascular care were worth the high burden of interruptive alerts deserves further consideration. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02858674.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Evidence-based therapy for heart failure remains underutilized at hospital discharge, particularly for patients with heart failure who are hospitalized for another cause. We developed clinical decision support (CDS) to recommend an angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor during hospitalization to promote its continuation at discharge. The CDS was designed to be implemented in both interruptive and non-interruptive versions. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and implementation of interruptive and non-interruptive versions of a CDS to improve care for heart failure. METHODS: Hospitalizations of patients with reduced ejection fraction were pseudo-randomized to deliver interruptive or non-interruptive CDS alerts to providers based on even or odd medical record number. We compared discharge utilization of an ACEinhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) for these two implementation approaches. We also assessed adoption and implementation fidelity of the CDS. RESULTS: Of 958 hospitalizations, interruptive alert hospitalizations had higher rates of discharge utilization of ACE inhibitors or ARBs than non-interruptive alert hospitalizations (79.6% vs. 74.2%, p = 0.05). Utilization was higher for interruptive alert versus non-interruptive alert hospitalizations which were principally for causes other than heart failure (79.8% vs. 73.4%; p = 0.05) but no difference was observed among hospitalizations with a principal heart failure diagnosis (85.9% vs.81.7%; p = 0.49). As compared to non-interruptive hospitalizations, interruptive alert hospitalizations were more likely to have had: an alert with any response (40.6% vs. 13.1%, p < 0.001), contraindications reported (33.1% vs 11.3%, p < 0.001), and an ACEinhibitor ordered within twelve hours of the alert (17.6% vs 10.3%, p < 0.01). The response rate for the interruptive alert was 1.7%, and a median (25th, 75th percentile) of 14 (5,32) alerts were triggered per hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: A CDS implemented as an interruptive alert was associated with improved quality of care for heart failure. Whether the potential benefits of CDS in improving cardiovascular care were worth the high burden of interruptive alerts deserves further consideration. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02858674.
Authors: Jeffrey M Riggio; Rachel Sorokin; Elizabeth D Moxey; Paul Mather; Stuart Gould; Gregory C Kane Journal: Acad Med Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Kirkwood F Adams; Gregg C Fonarow; Charles L Emerman; Thierry H LeJemtel; Maria Rosa Costanzo; William T Abraham; Robert L Berkowitz; Marie Galvao; Darlene P Horton Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: Qi Qian; Dennis M Manning; Narith Ou; Mark J Klarich; Dorinda J Leutink; Ann R Loth; Francisco Lopez-Jimenez Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Saul Blecker; Sunil K Agarwal; Patricia P Chang; Wayne D Rosamond; Donald E Casey; Anna Kucharska-Newton; Martha J Radford; Josef Coresh; Stuart Katz Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-09-25 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Anne-Marie J Scheepers-Hoeks; Rene J Grouls; Cees Neef; Eric W Ackerman; Erik H Korsten Journal: Artif Intell Med Date: 2013-06-06 Impact factor: 5.326
Authors: Laura R Loehr; Wayne D Rosamond; Patricia P Chang; Aaron R Folsom; Lloyd E Chambless Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2008-02-14 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: Stijn Van de Velde; Annemie Heselmans; Nicolas Delvaux; Linn Brandt; Luis Marco-Ruiz; David Spitaels; Hanne Cloetens; Tiina Kortteisto; Pavel Roshanov; Ilkka Kunnamo; Bert Aertgeerts; Per Olav Vandvik; Signe Flottorp Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2018-08-20 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Naweid Maten; Miranda E Kroehl; Danielle F Loeb; Shubha Bhat; Taylor Ota; Sarah J Billups; Lisa M Schilling; Simeon Heckman; Crystal Reingardt; Katy E Trinkley Journal: Ment Health Clin Date: 2021-09-24
Authors: Andrew J Knighton; Kathryn G Kuttler; Pallavi Ranade-Kharkar; Lauren Allen; Taylor Throne; Jason R Jacobs; Lori Carpenter; Carrie Winberg; Kyle Johnson; Neer Shrestha; Jeffrey P Ferraro; Doug Wolfe; Ithan D Peltan; Rajendu Srivastava; Colin K Grissom Journal: JAMIA Open Date: 2022-07-08
Authors: Larry A Allen; Grace Venechuk; Colleen K McIlvennan; Robert L Page; Christopher E Knoepke; Laura J Helmkamp; Prateeti Khazanie; Pamela N Peterson; Kenneth Pierce; Geoffrey Harger; Jocelyn S Thompson; Tristan J Dow; Lance Richards; Janice Huang; James R Strader; Katy E Trinkley; David P Kao; David J Magid; Peter M Buttrick; Daniel D Matlock Journal: Circulation Date: 2020-11-17 Impact factor: 29.690