Informational Nudge to Improve Heart Failure Prescribing (Nudge)
Preliminary Implementation of an Informational Nudge to Improve Heart Failure Prescribing
Study Overview
Status
Status
Conditions
Conditions
Intervention / Treatment
Intervention / Treatment
Detailed Description
Study Type
Study Type
Enrollment (Actual)
Enrollment
Phase
Phase
- Not Applicable
Contacts and Locations
Study Contact
Study Contact
- Name: Jenice Ria S Guzman, PhD MSN
- Phone Number: (520) 792-1450
- Email: JeniceRia.Guzman@va.gov
Study Locations
-
-
Arizona
-
Tucson, Arizona, United States, 85723-0001
- Southern Arizona VA Health Care System, Tucson, AZ
-
-
Participation Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Eligibility Criteria
Ages Eligible for Study
- Adult
- Older Adult
Accepts Healthy Volunteers
Description
Inclusion Criteria:
- Primary care and cardiology clinicians at Southern AZ VA Health Care System working in outpatient clinic setting
Exclusion Criteria:
- Clinicians who are in training status (resident, fellow) will be excluded.
Study Plan
How is the study designed?
Design Details
- Primary Purpose: Health Services Research
- Allocation: Randomized
- Interventional Model: Factorial Assignment
- Masking: Single
Number of Arms
Arms and Interventions
Participant Group / ArmParticipant Group / Arm |
Intervention / TreatmentIntervention / Treatment |
|---|---|
|
Active Comparator: Peer Comparison Report
Clinicians assigned to peer comparison, will receive messages by secure email every two weeks regarding their SGLT2i and MRA prescribing performance.
|
Clinicians will receive an email describing their recent SGLT2 and MRA prescribing performance relative to their peers.
|
|
Active Comparator: Alert
Clinicians in the alert arm will receive an alert two business days prior to a patient's upcoming appointment.
Clinicians will receive approximately two alerts per week.
|
Interruptive alert.
The prototype alert is in the form of a chart note with evidence-based practice guidelines that will actively display in the clinician's list of daily alerts (like an inbox) that must be cleared daily.
It is interruptive because can only be dismissed from the clinician's inbox list after signing the note
|
|
Active Comparator: Alert and Peer Comparison
The combined alert and peer comparison arm will receive both interventions.
|
Clinicians will receive an email describing their recent SGLT2 and MRA prescribing performance relative to their peers.
Interruptive alert.
The prototype alert is in the form of a chart note with evidence-based practice guidelines that will actively display in the clinician's list of daily alerts (like an inbox) that must be cleared daily.
It is interruptive because can only be dismissed from the clinician's inbox list after signing the note
|
|
No Intervention: Control
No alert or peer comparison
|
What is the study measuring?
Primary Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Effectiveness (MRA Prescriptions)
Time Frame: 30 days
|
The primary effectiveness outcome is the amount of SGLT2 or MRA prescriptions in eligible HF patients in the three intervention groups compared with the control group within 30 days of appointment.
Thirty days is a common time interval for HF outcomes assessment and allows for chart documentation, care coordination, laboratory testing, and medication prescribing that may occur days after a patient encounter.
The investigators will record all SGLT2 or MRA prescriptions, including those from non-targeted clinicians, given that nudge interventions, especially the informational alert, may impact other clinicians directly (e.g., view alert in EHR) or indirectly (e.g., referral from targeted clinician).
Data represent a cumulative number of prescriptions filled.
|
30 days
|
|
Effectiveness (SGLT2 Prescriptions)
Time Frame: 30 days
|
The primary effectiveness outcome is the amount of SGLT2 or MRA prescriptions in eligible HF patients in the three intervention groups compared with the control group within 30 days of appointment.
Thirty days is a common time interval for HF outcomes assessment and allows for chart documentation, care coordination, laboratory testing, and medication prescribing that may occur days after a patient encounter.
The investigators will record all SGLT2 or MRA prescriptions, including those from non-targeted clinicians, given that nudge interventions, especially the informational alert, may impact other clinicians directly (e.g., view alert in EHR) or indirectly (e.g., referral from targeted clinician).
Data represent a cumulative number of prescriptions filled.
|
30 days
|
Secondary Outcome Measures
Secondary Outcome Measures
Outcome Measure |
Measure Description |
Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
|
Reach-Clinician
Time Frame: 6 months
|
Reach will be measured at the clinician level as the number of unique clinicians who received an informational alert or peer comparison report.
The control group did not receive any alert.
|
6 months
|
|
Incidence of Treatment Emergent Adverse Events
Time Frame: 30 days
|
The investigators will measure safety as the number of patients who were deemed by the participant (clinician) to discontinued prescribed medicine due to suspected adverse effects within 30 days of the nudge interventions.
|
30 days
|
|
Implementation-Acceptability
Time Frame: 6 months
|
Implementation will be assessed by clinician-directed survey of Acceptability of intervention Measure.
The REDCap survey was on the Likert Scale: minimum 1 and maximum 5.
With 5 being the highest.
Acceptability was determine by the number of participants who were neutral or positive with their responses according the the Likert Scale.
The anonymous surveys were sent to all in the three groups and did not collect any identifying information.
|
6 months
|
|
Reach-Patient
Time Frame: 6 months
|
At the patient level, Reach will be measured as the number of unique patients for whom the participants received informational alerts
|
6 months
|
|
Reach-Comparison of Strategies
Time Frame: 6 months
|
The investigators will measure the proportion of alerts relative to the total number of eligible patients with HF; this denominator will allow for comparisons of representativeness of the alert strategy.
|
6 months
|
|
Implementation-Appropriateness
Time Frame: 6 months
|
Appropriateness will be assessed by clinician direct survey of Intervention Appropriateness Measure.
Likert scale: minimum 1 and maximum 5.
With 5 being the highest.
The number of respondents who were neutral and positive were counted.
The anonymous surveys were sent to all in the three groups and did not collect any identifying information.
|
6 months
|
|
Implementation-Feasibility
Time Frame: 6 months
|
Feasibility will be assessed by clinician direct survey of Feasibility of Intervention Measure.
Likert scale: minimum 1 and maximum 5.
With 5 being the highest.
The survey participants responded used the Likert scale to determine if the intervention would be feasible.
All responses neutral or positive were counted.
The anonymous surveys were sent to all in the three groups and did not collect any identifying information.
|
6 months
|
Collaborators and Investigators
Sponsor
Sponsor
Collaborators
Collaborators
Investigators
Investigators
- Principal Investigator: Sandesh Dev, MD, Southern Arizona VA Health Care System, Tucson, AZ
Study record dates
Study Major Dates
Study Start (Actual)
Study Start
Primary Completion (Actual)
Primary Completion
Study Completion (Actual)
Study Completion
Study Registration Dates
First Submitted
First Submitted
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Submitted That Met QC Criteria
First Posted (Actual)
First Posted
Study Record Updates
Last Update Posted (Actual)
Last Update Posted
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria
Last Verified
Last Verified
More Information
Terms related to this study
Keywords
Additional Relevant MeSH Terms
Other Study ID Numbers
Other Study ID Numbers
- PPO 22-091
Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)
Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?
IPD Plan Description
There is a plan to make IPD and related data dictionaries available.
A Limited Dataset (LDS) will be created and shared pursuant to a Data Use Agreement (DUA) appropriately limiting use of the dataset and prohibiting the recipient from identifying or re-identifying (or taking steps to identify or re-identify) any individual whose data are included in the dataset.
IPD Sharing Supporting Information Type
- STUDY_PROTOCOL
- SAP
- ICF
- ANALYTIC_CODE
Drug and device information, study documents
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product
Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product
product manufactured in and exported from the U.S.
This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.