Assessing the implementation of a clinical decision support tool in primary care for diabetes prevention: a qualitative interview study using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Science

Rebekah Pratt, Daniel M Saman, Clayton Allen, Benjamin Crabtree, Kris Ohnsorg, JoAnn M Sperl-Hillen, Melissa Harry, Hilary Henzler-Buckingham, Patrick J O'Connor, Jay Desai, Rebekah Pratt, Daniel M Saman, Clayton Allen, Benjamin Crabtree, Kris Ohnsorg, JoAnn M Sperl-Hillen, Melissa Harry, Hilary Henzler-Buckingham, Patrick J O'Connor, Jay Desai

Abstract

Background: In this paper we describe the use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to study implementation of a web-based, point-of-care, EHR-linked clinical decision support (CDS) tool designed to identify and provide care recommendations for adults with prediabetes (Pre-D CDS).

Methods: As part of a large NIH-funded clinic-randomized trial, we identified a convenience sample of interview participants from 22 primary care clinics in Minnesota, North Dakota, and Wisconsin that were randomly allocated to receive or not receive a web-based EHR-integrated prediabetes CDS intervention. Participants included 11 clinicians, 6 rooming staff, and 7 nurse or clinic managers recruited by study staff to participate in telephone interviews conducted by an expert in qualitative methods. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, and data analysis was conducted using a constructivist version of grounded theory.

Results: Implementing a prediabetes CDS tool into primary care clinics was useful and well received. The intervention was integrated with clinic workflows, supported primary care clinicians in clearly communicating prediabetes risk and management options with patients, and in identifying actionable care opportunities. The main barriers to CDS use were time and competing priorities. Finally, while the implementation process worked well, opportunities remain in engaging the care team more broadly in CDS use.

Conclusions: The use of CDS tools for engaging patients and providers in care improvement opportunities for prediabetes is a promising and potentially effective strategy in primary care settings. A workflow that incorporates the whole care team in the use of such tools may optimize the implementation of CDS tools like these in primary care settings. Trial registration Name of the registry: Clinicaltrial.gov.

Trial registration number: NCT02759055. Date of registration: 05/03/2016. URL of trial registry record: https://ichgcp.net/clinical-trials-registry/NCT02759055 Prospectively registered.

Keywords: Clinical decision support; Consolidated framework for implementation science; Prediabetes; Primary care; Qualitative.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have no competing interests.

© 2022. The Author(s).

References

    1. Boyle JP, Thompson TJ, Gregg EW, Barker LE, Williamson DF. Projection of the year 2050 burden of diabetes in the US adult population: dynamic modeling of incidence, mortality, and prediabetes prevalence. Popul Health Metr. 2010;8:29-7954-8-29.
    1. Tabák AG, Herder C, Rathmann W, Brunner EJ, Kivimäki M. Prediabetes: a high-risk state for diabetes development. Lancet. 2012;379(9833):2279–2290. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60283-9.
    1. Bertram M, Lim S, Barendregt J, Vos T. Assessing the cost-effectiveness of drug and lifestyle intervention following opportunistic screening for pre-diabetes in primary care. Diabetologia. 2010;53(5):875–881. doi: 10.1007/s00125-010-1661-8.
    1. Li R, Qu S, Zhang P, Chattopadhyay S, Gregg EW, Albright A, et al. Economic evaluation of combined diet and physical activity promotion programs to prevent type 2 diabetes among persons at increased risk: a systematic review for the Community Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(6):452–460. doi: 10.7326/M15-0469.
    1. Sherman RP, Ganguli I. Primary care-based health coaching for the management of prediabetes. Am J Lifestyle Med. 2018;12(2):175–178. doi: 10.1177/1559827617702074.
    1. Mainous AG, Tanner RJ, Baker R. Prediabetes diagnosis and treatment in primary care. J Am Board Fam Med. 2016;29(2):283–285. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2016.02.150252.
    1. Carris NW, Magness RR, Labovitz AJ. Prevention of diabetes mellitus in patients with prediabetes. Am J Cardiol. 2019;123(3):507–512. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2018.10.032.
    1. Speaker SL, Rastogi R, Sussman TA, Hu B, Misra-Hebert AD, Rothberg MB. Treatment of patients with prediabetes in a primary care setting 2011–2018: an observational study. J Gen Intern Med. 2021;36(4):923–929. doi: 10.1007/s11606-020-06354-4.
    1. Mainous AG, Tanner RJ, Scuderi CB, Porter M, Carek PJ. Prediabetes screening and treatment in diabetes prevention: the impact of physician attitudes. J Am Board Fam Med. 2016;29(6):663–671. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2016.06.160138.
    1. Owei I, Umekwe N, Ceesay F, Dagogo-Jack S. Awareness of prediabetes status and subsequent health behavior, body weight, and blood glucose levels. J Am Board Fam Med. 2019;32(1):20–27. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2019.01.180242.
    1. Linmans JJ, Spigt MG, Deneer L, Lucas AE, de Bakker M, Gidding LG, et al. Effect of lifestyle intervention for people with diabetes or prediabetes in real-world primary care: propensity score analysis. BMC Fam Pract. 2011;12(1):1–8. doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-12-95.
    1. Roshanov PS, Fernandes N, Wilczynski JM, Hemens BJ, You JJ, Handler SM, et al. Features of effective computerised clinical decision support systems: meta-regression of 162 randomised trials. BMJ. 2013;346:f657. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f657.
    1. O'Connor PJ, Sperl-Hillen JM, Rush WA, Johnson PE, Amundson GH, Asche SE, et al. Impact of electronic health record clinical decision support on diabetes care: a randomized trial. Ann Fam Med. 2011;9(1):12–21. doi: 10.1370/afm.1196.
    1. Moja L, Kwag KH, Lytras T, Bertizzolo L, Brandt L, Pecoraro V, et al. Effectiveness of computerized decision support systems linked to electronic health records: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(12):e12–e22. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2014.302164.
    1. Chrimes D, Kitos NR, Kushniruk A, Mann DM. Usability testing of Avoiding Diabetes Thru Action Plan Targeting (ADAPT) decision support for integrating care-based counseling of pre-diabetes in an electronic health record. Int J Med Inf. 2014;83(9):636–647. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.05.002.
    1. Jeffery R, Iserman E, Haynes R. CDSS Systematic Review Team. Can computerized clinical decision support systems improve diabetes management? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetic Med. 2013;30(6):739–745. doi: 10.1111/dme.12087.
    1. Bright TJ, Wong A, Dhurjati R, Bristow E, Bastian L, Coeytaux RR, et al. Effect of clinical decision-support systems: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157(1):29–43. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-157-1-201207030-00450.
    1. Pannebakker MM, Mills K, Johnson M, Emery JD, Walter FM. Understanding implementation and usefulness of electronic clinical decision support (eCDS) for melanoma in English primary care: a qualitative investigation. BJGP Open. 2019;3(1):bjgpopen18X101635.
    1. Kawamoto K, Houlihan CA, Balas EA, Lobach DF. Improving clinical practice using clinical decision support systems: a systematic review of trials to identify features critical to success. BMJ. 2005;330(7494):765. doi: 10.1136/bmj.38398.500764.8F.
    1. Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models, and frameworks. Implementation Science 3.0: Springer; 2020. p. 53–79.
    1. Elwyn G, Scholl I, Tietbohl C, Mann M, Edwards AG, Clay C, et al. “Many miles to go…”: a systematic review of the implementation of patient decision support interventions into routine clinical practice. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(2):1–10.
    1. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4(1):1–15. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-50.
    1. Kirk MA, Kelley C, Yankey N, Birken SA, Abadie B, Damschroder L. A systematic review of the use of the consolidated framework for implementation research. Implement Sci. 2015;11(1):1–13. doi: 10.1186/s13012-016-0437-z.
    1. American Diabetes Association (2) Classification and diagnosis of diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2015;38(Suppl):S8–S16. doi: 10.2337/dc15-S005.
    1. Dehmer SP, Maciosek MV, Flottemesch TJ, LaFrance AB, Whitlock EP. Aspirin for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and colorectal cancer: a decision analysis for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(12):777–786. doi: 10.7326/M15-2129.
    1. Stone NJ, Robinson JG, Lichtenstein AH, Bairey Merz CN, Blum CB, Eckel RH, et al. 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the treatment of blood cholesterol to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014;63(25 Part B):2889–2934.
    1. Whelton PK, Carey RM, Aronow WS, Casey DE, Collins KJ, Dennison Himmelfarb C, et al. 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA guideline for the prevention, detection, evaluation, and management of high blood pressure in adults: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71(19):e127–e248. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.11.006.
    1. Goff DC, Lloyd-Jones DM, Bennett G, Coady S, D’agostino RB, Gibbons R, et al. 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the assessment of cardiovascular risk: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63(25 Part B):2935–2959.
    1. Ltd. QSRIP. NVivo qualitative data analysis Software. Version 10. QSR International Pty Ltd; 2012.
    1. Morse JM, Bowers B, Stern PN, Corbin J, Charmaz K, Clarke AE. Developing grounded theory: The second generation. : Routledge; 2016.
    1. Charmaz K. Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2006.
    1. Hosseinzadeh H, Verma I, Gopaldasani V. Patient activation and Type 2 diabetes mellitus self-management: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Aust J Prim Health. 2020.
    1. Njie GJ, Proia KK, Thota AB, Finnie RK, Hopkins DP, Banks SM, et al. Clinical decision support systems and prevention: a community guide cardiovascular disease systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2015;49(5):784–795. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2015.04.006.
    1. Groenhof TKJ, Asselbergs FW, Groenwold RH, Grobbee DE, Visseren FL, Bots ML. The effect of computerized decision support systems on cardiovascular risk factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2019;19(1):1–12. doi: 10.1186/s12911-019-0824-x.
    1. Sperl-Hillen JM, Crain AL, Margolis KL, Ekstrom HL, Appana D, Amundson G, et al. Clinical decision support directed to primary care patients and providers reduces cardiovascular risk: a randomized trial. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2018;25(9):1137–1146. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocy085.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa