The effectiveness of computer reminders for improving quality assessment for point-of-care testing in general practice--a randomized controlled trial

Marius Brostrøm Kousgaard, Volkert Siersma, Susanne Reventlow, Ruth Ertmann, Peter Felding, Frans Boch Waldorff, Marius Brostrøm Kousgaard, Volkert Siersma, Susanne Reventlow, Ruth Ertmann, Peter Felding, Frans Boch Waldorff

Abstract

Background: Computer reminders are increasingly being applied in efforts to improve quality and patient safety. However, research is still needed to establish the effectiveness of different kinds of reminders in various settings. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of computer reminders for improving adherence to a quality assessment scheme for point-of-care testing in general practice.

Method: The study was conducted as a randomized controlled crossover trial among general practices in the Capital Region of Denmark. The intervention consisted of sending computer reminders (ComRem) to practices not adhering to the guideline recommendations of split testing for hemoglobin and glucose. Practices were randomly allocated into two groups. During the first follow-up period, one of the groups received the ComRem intervention together with the general implementation activities (GIA), while the other group only received the GIA. For the second follow-up period, the intervention was switched between the two groups. Outcomes were measured as split test procedure adherence.

Results: A total of 142 practices were randomly allocated to the early intervention group and 144 practices to the late intervention group (the control group in the first follow-up period). In the first intervention period, the mean number of split tests performed in the group receiving ComRem group increased from 1.22 to 3.76 (out of eight possible tests) while the mean number of split tests increased from 1.11 to 2.35 in the group targeted by GIA only (p = 0.0059). After the crossover, a similar effect of reminders was observed. Furthermore, the developments in outcome measures over time showed a strong effect of computer reminders beyond the intervention periods.

Conclusion: There was a significant effect of computer reminders on adherence to the quality assessment scheme for point-of-care testing. Thus, computer reminders seem to be useful for supporting the implementation of relatively simple procedures for quality and safety.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: http://NCT01152177.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Content of computer reminder.
Figure 2
Figure 2
CONSORT flowchart.

References

    1. Laurence CO, Gialamas A, Bubner T, Yelland L, Willson K, Ryan P, Beilby J. Patient satisfaction with point-of-care testing in general practice. Br J Gen Pract. 2010;60:e98–104. doi: 10.3399/bjgp10X483508.
    1. Gialamas A, St John A, Laurence CO, Bubner TK. Point-of-care testing for patients with diabetes, hyperlipidaemia or coagulation disorders in the general practice setting: a systematic review. Fam Pract. 2010;27:17–24. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmp084.
    1. Cals JW, Schot MJ, de Jong SA, Dinant GJ, Hopstaken RM. Point-of-Care C-Reactive Protein Testing and Antibiotic Prescribing for Respiratory Tract Infections: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Fam Pract. 2010;27:212–18. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmp088.
    1. Hobbs FR, Delaney BC, Fitzmaurice DA, Wilson S, Hyde CJ, Thorpe GH, Earl-Slater AS, Jowett S, Tobias RS. A review of near patient testing in primary care. Health Technol Assessment. 1997;1:I–Iv. 1-229.
    1. Thue G, Jevnaker M, Gulstad GA, Sandberg S. Quality assurance of laboratory work and clinical use of laboratory tests in general practice in Norway: A survey. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2011;29:171–75. doi: 10.3109/02813432.2011.585837.
    1. Tirimacco R, Glastonbury B, Laurence CO, Bubner TK, Shephard MD, Beilby JJ. Development of an accreditation program for Point of Care Testing (PoCT) in general practice. Aust Health Rev. 2011;35:230–34.
    1. Bjuhr M, Berne C, Larsson A. External Quality Assessment of HbA1c for Point of Care Testing. Upsala J Med Sci. 2006;111:201–208. doi: 10.3109/2000-1967-036.
    1. Dexheimer JW, Talbot TR, Sanders DL, Rosenbloom ST, Aronsky D. Prompting clinicians about preventive care measures: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008;15:311–320. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M2555.
    1. Garg AK. Automating communication: using technology to increase effectiveness and profitability. Dent Implantol Update. 2007;18:89–92.
    1. Kawamoto K, Lobach DF. Clinical decision support provided within physician order entry systems: a systematic review of features effective for changing clinician behavior. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2003. pp. 361–365.
    1. Shojania KG, Jennings A, Mayhew A, Ramsay CR, Eccles MP, Grimshaw J. The effects of on-screen, point of care computer reminders on processes and outcomes of care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;3 CD001096.
    1. Waldorff FB, Siersma V, Ertmann R, Kousgaard MB, Nielsen AS, Felding P, Mosbæk N, Hjortsø E, Reventlow S. The efficacy of computer reminders on external quality assessment for point-of-care testing in Danish general practice: Rationale and methodology for two randomised trials. Implement Sci. 2011;6:79. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-6-79.
    1. Danish College of General Practice. Quality standards and quality assessment system for frequently performed clinical biochemistry and clinical microbiological tests in general practice. [Kvalitetskrav og kvalitetsvurderingssystem for hyppigt udførte klinisk biokemiske og klinisk mikrobiologiske analyser i almen praksis. Copenhagen: ; 2002.
    1. Francke AL, Smit MC, de Veer AJ, Mistiaen P. Factors influencing the implementation of clinical guidelines for health care professionals: A systematic meta-review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2008;8:38. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-8-38.

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅