OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a computerized scheduling model that employs nonlinear optimization to recommend optimal follow-up intervals for patients taking warfarin. DESIGN: Randomized trial. SETTING: 5 anticoagulation clinics. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: 620 patients expected to receivewarfarin for > or = 6 weeks. INTERVENTIONS: Computer-generated recommendations for scheduling the next visit were presented to or withheld from practitioners. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The main outcome measures were the follow-up interval scheduled by the provider, the interval at which the patient actually returned to clinic, and the quality of anticoagulation control (computed as the absolute difference between the measured and target prothrombin times [PTRs] or international normalized ratios [INRs]). Follow-up intervals scheduled for the patients whose practitioners received computer-generated recommendations were significantly longer than those for control patients (mean, 4.4 vs 3.5 weeks, p < 0.001), despite the fact that the practitioners modified the suggested return interval by > 1 week on 40% of the visits. The interval at which the intervention group actually returned to clinic was also longer (mean, 4.4 vs 4.1 weeks, p < 0.05), even though the control patients tended to return at longer intervals than were scheduled by their practitioners. Control of anticoagulation was nearly the same among experimental and control patients. Life-threatening complications occurred in the care of three experimental patients and one control patient, while other serious complications occurred in the care of 16 experimental patients and 17 control patients. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations based on nonlinear optimization prompted clinicians to schedule less frequent follow-up for patients taking warfarin, with no deterioration in anticoagulation control. This approach to scheduling can potentially reduce utilization while maintaining quality of care for patients who require long-term monitoring.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a computerized scheduling model that employs nonlinear optimization to recommend optimal follow-up intervals for patients taking warfarin. DESIGN: Randomized trial. SETTING: 5 anticoagulation clinics. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: 620 patients expected to receive warfarin for > or = 6 weeks. INTERVENTIONS: Computer-generated recommendations for scheduling the next visit were presented to or withheld from practitioners. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The main outcome measures were the follow-up interval scheduled by the provider, the interval at which the patient actually returned to clinic, and the quality of anticoagulation control (computed as the absolute difference between the measured and target prothrombin times [PTRs] or international normalized ratios [INRs]). Follow-up intervals scheduled for the patients whose practitioners received computer-generated recommendations were significantly longer than those for control patients (mean, 4.4 vs 3.5 weeks, p < 0.001), despite the fact that the practitioners modified the suggested return interval by > 1 week on 40% of the visits. The interval at which the intervention group actually returned to clinic was also longer (mean, 4.4 vs 4.1 weeks, p < 0.05), even though the control patients tended to return at longer intervals than were scheduled by their practitioners. Control of anticoagulation was nearly the same among experimental and control patients. Life-threatening complications occurred in the care of three experimental patients and one control patient, while other serious complications occurred in the care of 16 experimental patients and 17 control patients. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations based on nonlinear optimization prompted clinicians to schedule less frequent follow-up for patients taking warfarin, with no deterioration in anticoagulation control. This approach to scheduling can potentially reduce utilization while maintaining quality of care for patients who require long-term monitoring.
Authors: Anne Holbrook; Sam Schulman; Daniel M Witt; Per Olav Vandvik; Jason Fish; Michael J Kovacs; Peter J Svensson; David L Veenstra; Mark Crowther; Gordon H Guyatt Journal: Chest Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Christopher A Harle; Nate C Apathy; Robert L Cook; Elizabeth C Danielson; Julie DiIulio; Sarah M Downs; Robert W Hurley; Burke W Mamlin; Laura G Militello; Shilo Anders Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2018-12-05
Authors: D M Becker; L K DeMong; P Kaplan; R Hutchinson; C M Callahan; S D Fihn; R H White Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 1994-09 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Marilisa Franceschi; Carlo Scarcelli; Valeria Niro; Davide Seripa; Anna Maria Pazienza; Giovanni Pepe; Anna Maria Colusso; Luigi Pacilli; Alberto Pilotto Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2008 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Sallie-Anne Pearson; Annette Moxey; Jane Robertson; Isla Hains; Margaret Williamson; James Reeve; David Newby Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2009-08-28 Impact factor: 2.655