BACKGROUND: The electronic health record (EHR) of the general physician (GP) is an important tool that can be used to assess and improve the quality of healthcare. However, there are some problems when (re) using the data gathered in the EHR for quality assessments. One problem is the lack of data completeness in the EHR. Audit and feedback (A&F) is a well-known quality intervention that can improve the quality of healthcare. We hypothesize that an automated A&F intervention can be adapted to improve the data completeness of the EHR of the GP, more specifically, the number of correctly registered diagnoses of type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease. METHODS: This study is a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial with an intervention at the level of GP practice. The intervention consists of an audit and extended electronically delivered feedback with multiple components that will be delivered 4 times electronically to general practices over 12 months. The data will be analyzed on an aggregated level (per GP practice). The primary outcome is the percentage of correctly registered diagnoses of type 2 diabetes. The key secondary outcome is the registration of chronic kidney disease. Exploratory secondary outcomes are the registration of heart failure, biometric data and lifestyle habits, and the evolution of 4 different EHR-extractable quality indicators. DISCUSSION: This cluster randomized controlled trial intends to primarily improve the registration of type 2 diabetes in the EHR of the GP and to secondarily improve the registration of chronic kidney disease. In addition, the registration of heart failure, lifestyle parameters, and biometric data in the EHR of the GP are explored together with 4 EHR-extractable quality indicators. By doing so, this study aims to improve the data completeness of the EHR, paving the way for future quality assessments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04388228 . Registered on May 14, 2020.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The electronic health record (EHR) of the general physician (GP) is an important tool that can be used to assess and improve the quality of healthcare. However, there are some problems when (re) using the data gathered in the EHR for quality assessments. One problem is the lack of data completeness in the EHR. Audit and feedback (A&F) is a well-known quality intervention that can improve the quality of healthcare. We hypothesize that an automated A&F intervention can be adapted to improve the data completeness of the EHR of the GP, more specifically, the number of correctly registered diagnoses of type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease. METHODS: This study is a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial with an intervention at the level of GP practice. The intervention consists of an audit and extended electronically delivered feedback with multiple components that will be delivered 4 times electronically to general practices over 12 months. The data will be analyzed on an aggregated level (per GP practice). The primary outcome is the percentage of correctly registered diagnoses of type 2 diabetes. The key secondary outcome is the registration of chronic kidney disease. Exploratory secondary outcomes are the registration of heart failure, biometric data and lifestyle habits, and the evolution of 4 different EHR-extractable quality indicators. DISCUSSION: This cluster randomized controlled trial intends to primarily improve the registration of type 2 diabetes in the EHR of the GP and to secondarily improve the registration of chronic kidney disease. In addition, the registration of heart failure, lifestyle parameters, and biometric data in the EHR of the GP are explored together with 4 EHR-extractable quality indicators. By doing so, this study aims to improve the data completeness of the EHR, paving the way for future quality assessments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04388228 . Registered on May 14, 2020.
Authors: Sjoukje van der Bij; Nasra Khan; Petra Ten Veen; Dinny H de Bakker; Robert A Verheij Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2016-06-06 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Michel P Hermans; Carlos Brotons; Moses Elisaf; Georges Michel; Erik Muls; Frank Nobels Journal: Eur J Prev Cardiol Date: 2012-05-17 Impact factor: 7.804
Authors: Jenna M Norton; Kaltun Ali; Claudine T Jurkovitz; Krzysztof Kiryluk; Meyeon Park; Kensaku Kawamoto; Ning Shang; Sankar D Navaneethan; Andrew S Narva; Paul Drawz Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2019-08-12 Impact factor: 8.237
Authors: Vincent A Van Gelder; Nynke D Scherpbier-De Haan; Wim J C De Grauw; Gerald M M Vervoort; Chris Van Weel; Marion C J Biermans; Jozé C C Braspenning; Jack F M Wetzels Journal: Scand J Prim Health Care Date: 2016-02-06 Impact factor: 2.581
Authors: Jeanne M Madden; Matthew D Lakoma; Donna Rusinak; Christine Y Lu; Stephen B Soumerai Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2016-04-14 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Steve Van den Bulck; Jonas Crèvecoeur; Bert Aertgeerts; Nicolas Delvaux; Thomas Neyens; Gijs Van Pottelbergh; Patrick Coursier; Bert Vaes Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-07-06 Impact factor: 3.752