Objectives: This study compares two methods of providing CVD risk score on the percentage of appropriate statin therapy for primary prevention of CVD in family medicine clinics, according to the American Heart Association guidelines. Methods: Participants were non-diabetic patients aged 40 to 75 with a recently ordered low-density lipoprotein (LDL) level, not on statin therapy and free of CVD. The first intervention is passive with a display of the score on the EMR in the vital signs section and lasted for three months. The second intervention is collaborative where the nurses calculate the risk score and displayed it to the physician along with therapy recommendations. Electronic health records were reviewed to randomly select medical charts of eligible patients. Results: 162 charts were randomly selected out of 547 eligible charts and included in the analysis, including 60 charts for the baseline group. Among moderate-risk patients, the percentage of appropriate statin initiation was 0% at baseline and after intervention 1; yet it increased to (33.3% [7.5-70.1, 95% CI]) after intervention 2. Among high risk patients, percentage of appropriate statin initiation was 9.1% [0.1-41.3, 95% CI], 11.1% [1.4, 34.7, 95% CI] and 28.6% [8.4, 58.1, 95% CI] during baseline, intervention 1 and intervention 2, respectively. Conclusion: The provision of the CVD risk score alone as clinical decision support is not enough to improve statin initiation for primary prevention. The nurse collaboration can improve guideline-concordant statin initiation.
Objectives: This study compares two methods of providing CVD risk score on the percentage of appropriate statin therapy for primary prevention of CVD in family medicine clinics, according to the American Heart Association guidelines. Methods:Participants were non-diabeticpatients aged 40 to 75 with a recently ordered low-density lipoprotein (LDL) level, not on statin therapy and free of CVD. The first intervention is passive with a display of the score on the EMR in the vital signs section and lasted for three months. The second intervention is collaborative where the nurses calculate the risk score and displayed it to the physician along with therapy recommendations. Electronic health records were reviewed to randomly select medical charts of eligible patients. Results: 162 charts were randomly selected out of 547 eligible charts and included in the analysis, including 60 charts for the baseline group. Among moderate-risk patients, the percentage of appropriate statin initiation was 0% at baseline and after intervention 1; yet it increased to (33.3% [7.5-70.1, 95% CI]) after intervention 2. Among high risk patients, percentage of appropriate statin initiation was 9.1% [0.1-41.3, 95% CI], 11.1% [1.4, 34.7, 95% CI] and 28.6% [8.4, 58.1, 95% CI] during baseline, intervention 1 and intervention 2, respectively. Conclusion: The provision of the CVD risk score alone as clinical decision support is not enough to improve statin initiation for primary prevention. The nurse collaboration can improve guideline-concordant statin initiation.