Search

Objectives: The objective of this paper was to describe primary care prescribers' perspectives on electronic prescribing drug alerts at the point of prescribing.Design: We used a mixed-method study which included clinician surveys (web-based and paper) and focus groups with prescribers and staff.Participants: Prescribers (n = 157) working in one of 64 practices using 1 of 6 e-prescribing technologies in 6 US states completed the quantitative survey and 276 prescribers and staff participated in focus groups.Measurements: The study measures self-reported frequency of overriding of drug alerts; open-ended responses to: "What do you think of the drug alerts your software generates for you?"Results: More than 40% of prescribers indicated they override drug-drug interactions most of the time or always (range by e-prescribing system, 25% to 50%). Participants indicated that the software and the interaction alerts were beneficial to patient safety and valued seeing drug-drug interactions for medications prescribed by others. However, they noted that alerts are too sensitive and often unnecessary. Participant suggestions included: (1) run drug alerts on an active medication list and (2) allow prescribers to set the threshold for severity of alerts.Conclusions: Primary care prescribers recognize the patient safety value of drug prescribing alerts embedded within electronic prescribing software. Improvements to increase specificity and reduce alert overload are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Results of 2 trials of postmenopausal hormone therapy (HT) challenged established practice patterns; 1 was not associated with changes in HT use, whereas the other was associated with substantial decline. Differential coverage by lay newspapers may have contributed to the differential impact.Objective: To examine newspaper coverage of HT before and after the publication of the Heart and Estrogen Replacement Study (HERS) in August 1998, and the main findings of the estrogen plus progestin therapy arm of the Women's Health Initiative (EPT-WHI) in July 2002.Design: Longitudinal review of newspaper articles, 1998 to 2003 (n=663).Setting: Twenty local and 6 regional/national newspapers.Measurements: Number and content of articles about HT.Results: The average number of articles about HT published during the month of the publication of the EPT-WHI was at least 8-fold greater than the number of articles published on the topic during any prior period. While the majority of articles in all periods presented information about the potential benefits of HT, information about harms became more common than information about benefits during the 2 months before the publication of the EPT-WHI, when the trial participants were notified of the early termination of the study. The presentation of specific health harms was more common after the publication of the EPT-WHI than after the publication of HERS. Few articles in any period used visual aids.Conclusions: The publication of the EPT-WHI was associated with a change in both the volume and content of newspaper coverage about HT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To examine the association between non-adherence to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and time to return to work (RTW) for patients with workplace injuries.Data Sources/study Setting: Secondary analysis of medical billing and disability data for 148,199 for shoulder and back injuries from a workers' compensation insurer.Study Design: Cox proportional hazard regression is used to estimate the association between time to RTW and receipt of guideline-discordant care. We test the robustness of our findings to an omitted confounding variable.Data Collection: Collected by the insurer from the time an injury was reported, through recovery or last follow-up.Principal Findings: Receiving guideline-discordant care was associated with slower RTW for only some guidelines. Early receipt of care, and getting less than the recommended amount of care, were correlated with faster RTW. Excessive physical therapy, bracing, and injections were associated with slower RTW.Conclusions: There is not a consistent relationship between performance on CPGs and RTW. The association between performance on CPG and RTW is difficult to measure in observational data, because analysts cannot control for omitted variables that affect a patient's treatment and outcomes. CPGs supported by observational studies or randomized trials may have a more certain relationship to health outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory (NIH Collaboratory) seeks to produce generalizable knowledge about the conduct of pragmatic research in health systems. This analysis applied the PRECIS-2 pragmatic trial criteria to five NIH Collaboratory pragmatic trials to better understand 1) the pragmatic aspects of the design and implementation of treatments delivered in real world settings and 2) the usability of the PRECIS-2 criteria for assessing pragmatic features across studies and across time.Methods/design: Using the PRECIS-2 criteria, five pragmatic trials were each rated by eight raters. For each trial, we reviewed the original grant application and a required progress report written at the end of a 1-year planning period that included changes to the protocol or implementation approach. We calculated median scores and interrater reliability for each PRECIS domain and for the overall trial at both time points, as well as the differences in scores between the two time points. We also reviewed the rater comments associated with the scores.Results: All five trials were rated to be more pragmatic than explanatory, with comments indicating that raters generally perceived them to closely mirror routine clinical care across multiple domains. The PRECIS-2 domains for which the trials were, on average, rated as most pragmatic on the 1 to 5 scale at the conclusion of the planning period included primary analysis (mean = 4.7 (range = 4.5 to 4.9)), recruitment (4.3 (3.6 to 4.8)), eligibility (4.1 (3.4 to 4.8)), setting (4.1 (4.0 to 4.4)), follow-up (4.1 (3.4 to 4.9)), and primary outcome (4.1 (3.5 to 4.9)). On average, the less pragmatic domains were organization (3.3 (2.6 to 4.4)), flexibility of intervention delivery (3.5 (2.1-4.5)), and flexibility of intervention adherence (3.8 (2.8-4.5)). Interrater agreement was modest but statistically significant for four trials (Gwet's AC1 statistic range 0.23 to 0.40) and the intraclass correlation coefficient ranged from 0.05 to 0.31. Rating challenges included assigning a single score for domains that may relate to both patients and care settings (that is, eligibility or recruitment) and determining to what extent aspects of complex research interventions differ from usual care.Conclusions: These five trials in diverse healthcare settings were rated as highly pragmatic using the PRECIS-2 criteria. Applying the tool generated insightful discussion about real-world design decisions but also highlighted challenges using the tool. PRECIS-2 raters would benefit from additional guidance about how to rate the interwoven patient and practice-level considerations that arise in pragmatic trials.Trial Registrations: Clinicaltrials.gov trial registrations: NCT02019225 , NCT01742065 , NCT02015455 , NCT02113592 , NCT02063867 . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study aimed to develop and provide a psychometric and feasibility pilot evaluation of the Heart Failure (HF) Symptom Tracker (HFaST), a new patient-reported tool designed to facilitate communication between patients and health care providers (HCPs) in routine clinical care. The HFaST enables patients to identify worsening HF symptoms, with a long-term goal of preventing hospitalizations or emergency room visits. Methods: The HFaST was developed drawing on evidence from the literature, qualitatively with cognitive interviews (12 patient/caregiver and 8 HCPs), and evaluated quantitatively (psychometric, feasibility assessment). The HFaST was administered for 7 consecutive days to 100 individuals diagnosed with HF during a multisite, non-interventional US pilot study. Health care providers then completed a survey assessing the feasibility and importance of the HFaST in clinical practice. Qualitative development included a literature review and cognitive interviews with patients, caregivers, and HCPs. The psychometric properties of the HFaST were evaluated using classical test theory methods. Descriptive statistics provided insight into HCPs' perceptions of the feasibility of using the HFaST in clinical practice. Results: A preliminary set of 40 items was developed for the symptom tracker and iteratively reduced to 10 items based on the qualitative phase. Test-retest reliability (weighted kappa 0.71–0.97), discriminating validity, and construct validity of the HFaST were acceptable. HCPs rated the HFaST as a good (70%) or excellent (30%) means of tracking HF symptoms. Six HFaST items were ultimately retained, covering concepts of fatigue, shortness of breath (3 items), swelling, and rapid weight gain. Conclusions: The 6-item HFaST is an easy-to-use tool designed to raise patients' awareness of HF symptoms and facilitate communication with HCPs. Future research should evaluate HFaST implementation in clinical practice and effectiveness as an intervention to potentially prevent hospitalizations and emergency room visits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]