VA Integrated Medication Manager (IMM)
2016年5月17日 更新者：University of Utah
Veterans Affairs Integrated Medication Manager
The purpose of this study is to advance the science of healthcare informatics and to improve medication management through the development of a new approach to the electronic medical record called the Integrated Medication Manager (IMM).
研究概览
详细说明
In an attempt to address problems patient non-compliance with quality goals barriers to access and integration of health information that impede achievement of treatment goals, the VA is developing a new approach to the electronic medical record. The VA is moving away from the paper-chart metaphor and towards an integrated representation of the patient's status and care process across time. One of the first steps in the development phase has been to explicitly relate patient conditions, therapies, and goals in the domain of pharmacotherapy. This is called Integrated Medication Management and draws on Hollnagel's Contextual Control Model. Providers will be able to plan care and create orders directly in the context of these explicit relationships. This application will be implemented nationwide through a web interface embedded within the existing Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS), the graphical user interface to VA Information Systems (VistA).
Aim 1: Identify cognitive components of providers' therapeutic decision making in the field.
Aim 2. Refine and evaluate the Integrated Medication Manager using simulation studies.
- Aim 2.a. Refine interfaces and logic of the Integrated Medication Manager.
- Aim 2.b. Compare the performance of the Integrated Medication Manager and usual CPRS.
All hypotheses (below) test the use of IMM versus usual electronic medical record (EMR).
- Speed of decision-making will be faster.
- Accuracy of data interpretation (clinical assessment) will be higher.
- Appropriateness of therapeutic plans will be higher.
- Efficiency of gathering information will be higher.
- Common ground measures will be higher.
- Appropriateness of therapeutic plans will be higher when relevant data is outside the usual time horizon.
- Appropriateness of therapeutic plans will be higher when complex associations among patient therapies and goals exist.
- Appropriateness of therapeutic plans will be no lower when relevant data is not captured by the displays of the IMM.
- Appropriateness of therapeutic plans will be higher when highly salient data is not germane to the most important problem.
- Appropriateness of therapeutic plans will be higher when cognitive load is high due to interruptions.
研究类型
介入性
注册 (实际的)
58
阶段
- 不适用
联系人和位置
本节提供了进行研究的人员的详细联系信息，以及有关进行该研究的地点的信息。
学习地点
-
-
Utah
-
Salt Lake City、Utah、美国、84148
- VA SLC Health Care System
-
-
参与标准
研究人员寻找符合特定描述的人，称为资格标准。这些标准的一些例子是一个人的一般健康状况或先前的治疗。
资格标准
适合学习的年龄
18年 及以上 (成人、年长者)
接受健康志愿者
是的
有资格学习的性别
全部
描述
Inclusion Criteria:
- Practiced in primary care for at least two years
- Third year residents with two years of residency in internal medicine or family practice
- Do not have to be currently practicing
Exclusion Criteria:
- None
学习计划
本节提供研究计划的详细信息，包括研究的设计方式和研究的衡量标准。
研究是如何设计的？
设计细节
- 主要用途：卫生服务研究
- 分配：随机化
- 介入模型：并行分配
- 屏蔽：无（打开标签）
武器和干预
参与者组/臂 |
干预/治疗 |
|---|---|
|
实验性的：Integrated Medication Manager
Experienced providers that participated in the EHR simulations.
Half of the providers were assigned to use the new Integrated Medication Manager (intervention) during the simulation.
The other half were assigned the VA's CPRS to use (standard EHR).
Providers were randomly assigned which system to use.
|
A theory based electronic health record.
Half of the provider participants were assigned the IMM to use.
The other half were assigned the VA's CPRS EHR to use for the simulation.
Providers were randomly assigned to a EHR to use.
其他名称：
|
|
无干预：Standard EHR
Experienced providers that participated in the EHR simulations.
Half of the providers were assigned to use the new Integrated Medication Manager (intervention) during the simulation.
The other half were assigned the VA's CPRS to use (standard EHR).
Providers were randomly assigned which system to use.
|
研究衡量的是什么？
主要结果指标
结果测量 |
措施说明 |
大体时间 |
|---|---|---|
|
Amount of Time to Complete Assessment and Plan
大体时间：10 minutes
|
Each participant had 10 minutes maximum to review the patient case and write an Assessment and Plan.
|
10 minutes
|
|
Accuracy of Written Assessment and Plan in Terms of Control and Status
大体时间：10 minutes
|
Each participant had 10 minutes maximum to review the patient case and write an Assessment and Plan.
The primary outcome evaluated participants' recommendations for treatment of patient conditions.
Participants reviewed a total of 10 patient cases and received a score between 0 and 3 points for each issue within each patient case.
The final score for each participant was a proportion between 0 and 1.
The proportion represented the sum of all points assigned to the participant, divided by the total number of points possible.
Higher values on the scale represent greater accuracy of the written assessment and plan.
|
10 minutes
|
次要结果测量
结果测量 |
措施说明 |
大体时间 |
|---|---|---|
|
Identification of Planned Monitoring and Follow up Encounters in Assessment and Plan
大体时间：10 minutes
|
Each participant had 10 minutes maximum to review the patient case and write an Assessment and Plan. .
The secondary outcome evaluated participants' recommendation about future monitoring of patient conditions.
Participants reviewed a total of 10 patient cases and received a score of 0 or 1 point for each issue within each case.
The final score for each participant was a proportion between 0 and 1.
The proportion represented the sum of all points assigned to the participant, divided by the total number of points possible.
Higher values on the scale represent a greater proportion of appropriate monitoring recommendations made.
|
10 minutes
|
合作者和调查者
在这里您可以找到参与这项研究的人员和组织。
调查人员
- 首席研究员：Jonathan Nebeker, MD, MS、University of Utah
出版物和有用的链接
负责输入研究信息的人员自愿提供这些出版物。这些可能与研究有关。
一般刊物
- Phillips LS, Branch WT, Cook CB, Doyle JP, El-Kebbi IM, Gallina DL, Miller CD, Ziemer DC, Barnes CS. Clinical inertia. Ann Intern Med. 2001 Nov 6;135(9):825-34. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-135-9-200111060-00012.
- Crosson JC, Stroebel C, Scott JG, Stello B, Crabtree BF. Implementing an electronic medical record in a family medicine practice: communication, decision making, and conflict. Ann Fam Med. 2005 Jul-Aug;3(4):307-11. doi: 10.1370/afm.326.
- Tinetti ME, Bogardus ST Jr, Agostini JV. Potential pitfalls of disease-specific guidelines for patients with multiple conditions. N Engl J Med. 2004 Dec 30;351(27):2870-4. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsb042458. No abstract available.
- Asch SM, McGlynn EA, Hogan MM, Hayward RA, Shekelle P, Rubenstein L, Keesey J, Adams J, Kerr EA. Comparison of quality of care for patients in the Veterans Health Administration and patients in a national sample. Ann Intern Med. 2004 Dec 21;141(12):938-45. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-141-12-200412210-00010.
- Garg AX, Adhikari NK, McDonald H, Rosas-Arellano MP, Devereaux PJ, Beyene J, Sam J, Haynes RB. Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA. 2005 Mar 9;293(10):1223-38. doi: 10.1001/jama.293.10.1223.
- Perlin JB, Pogach LM. Improving the outcomes of metabolic conditions: managing momentum to overcome clinical inertia. Ann Intern Med. 2006 Apr 4;144(7):525-7. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-144-7-200604040-00012. No abstract available.
- Morris AH. Developing and implementing computerized protocols for standardization of clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med. 2000 Mar 7;132(5):373-83. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-132-5-200003070-00007.
- Fox J, Alabassi A, Black E, Hurt C, Rose T. Modelling clinical goals: a corpus of examples and a tentative ontology. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2004;101:31-45.
- Xiao Y, Hunter WA, Mackenzie CF, Jefferies NJ, Horst RL. Task complexity in emergency medical care and its implications for team coordination. LOTAS Group. Level One Trauma Anesthesia Simulation. Hum Factors. 1996 Dec;38(4):636-45. doi: 10.1518/001872096778827206.
- Nebeker JR, Hurdle JF, Bair BD. Future history: medical informatics in geriatrics. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2003 Sep;58(9):M820-5. doi: 10.1093/gerona/58.9.m820.
- Hayward RA, Asch SM, Hogan MM, Hofer TP, Kerr EA. Sins of omission: getting too little medical care may be the greatest threat to patient safety. J Gen Intern Med. 2005 Aug;20(8):686-91. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.0152.x.
- Shekelle PG. Invited commentary: Implementation of health information technology: an important but challenging field of inquiry. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2006 Oct;19(4):313. doi: 10.1080/08998280.2006.11928190. No abstract available.
- Weir CR, Nebeker JJ, Hicken BL, Campo R, Drews F, Lebar B. A cognitive task analysis of information management strategies in a computerized provider order entry environment. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007 Jan-Feb;14(1):65-75. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M2231. Epub 2006 Oct 26.
- Berg CA, Strough JN, Calderone KS, Sansone C, Weir C. The role of problem definitions in understanding age and context effects on strategies for solving everyday problems. Psychol Aging. 1998 Mar;13(1):29-44. doi: 10.1037//0882-7974.13.1.29.
- Weir CR. Linking information needs with evaluation: the role of task identification. Proc AMIA Symp. 1998:310-4.
- Taatz H. [The problem of the time factor in orthodontic treatment]. Stomatol DDR. 1976 Feb;26(2):102-5. No abstract available. German.
- Campbell M, Grimshaw J, Steen N. Sample size calculations for cluster randomised trials. Changing Professional Practice in Europe Group (EU BIOMED II Concerted Action). J Health Serv Res Policy. 2000 Jan;5(1):12-6. doi: 10.1177/135581960000500105.
- Miller RH, Sim I. Physicians' use of electronic medical records: barriers and solutions. Health Aff (Millwood). 2004 Mar-Apr;23(2):116-26. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.23.2.116.
- Bradley EH, Bogardus ST Jr, Tinetti ME, Inouye SK. Goal-setting in clinical medicine. Soc Sci Med. 1999 Jul;49(2):267-78. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(99)00107-0.
研究记录日期
这些日期跟踪向 ClinicalTrials.gov 提交研究记录和摘要结果的进度。研究记录和报告的结果由国家医学图书馆 (NLM) 审查，以确保它们在发布到公共网站之前符合特定的质量控制标准。
研究主要日期
学习开始
2007年10月1日
初级完成 (实际的)
2011年3月1日
研究完成 (实际的)
2011年3月1日
研究注册日期
首次提交
2013年1月22日
首先提交符合 QC 标准的
2013年2月5日
首次发布 (估计)
2013年2月8日
研究记录更新
最后更新发布 (估计)
2016年6月23日
上次提交的符合 QC 标准的更新
2016年5月17日
最后验证
2016年5月1日
更多信息
此信息直接从 clinicaltrials.gov 网站检索，没有任何更改。如果您有任何更改、删除或更新研究详细信息的请求，请联系 register@clinicaltrials.gov. clinicaltrials.gov 上实施更改，我们的网站上也会自动更新.