19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effect of an Automated Patient Dashboard Using Active Choice and Peer Comparison Performance Feedback to Physicians on Statin Prescribing : The PRESCRIBE Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          Can an automated patient dashboard and nudges to physicians increase guideline-appropriate statin prescription rates among patients who were not previously receiving statin therapy?

          Findings

          In this cluster randomized clinical trial of 96 primary care physicians from 32 practice sites including 4774 patients, an automated patient dashboard using active choice framing and peer comparison feedback led to a modest but significant increase in guideline-appropriate statin prescribing rates compared with usual care.

          Meaning

          Nudges to physicians offer an effective, low-cost, and scalable approach to increase use of automated patient dashboards to improve guideline-concordant prescribing behaviors, but these approaches may need to be designed to better fit within clinician workflow or be combined with other approaches to further increase their impact.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Statins are not prescribed to approximately 50% of patients who could benefit from them.

          Objective

          To evaluate the effectiveness of an automated patient dashboard using active choice framing with and without peer comparison feedback on performance to nudge primary care physicians (PCPs) to increase guideline-concordant statin prescribing.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This 3-arm cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted from February 21, 2017, to April 21, 2017, at 32 practice sites in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Participants included 96 PCPs and 4774 patients not previously receiving statin therapy. Data were analyzed from April 25, 2017, to June 16, 2017.

          Interventions

          Primary care physicians in the 2 intervention arms were emailed a link to an automated online dashboard listing their patients who met national guidelines for statin therapy but had not been prescribed this medication. The dashboard included relevant patient information, and for each patient, PCPs were asked to make an active choice to prescribe atorvastatin, 20 mg, once daily, atorvastatin at another dose, or another statin or not prescribe a statin and select a reason. The dashboard was available for 2 months. In 1 intervention arm, the email to PCPs also included feedback on their statin prescribing rate compared with their peers. Primary care physicians in the usual care group received no interventions.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Statin prescription rates.

          Results

          Patients had a mean (SD) age of 62.4 (8.3) years and a mean (SD) 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk score of 13.6 (8.2); 2625 (55.0%) were male, 3040 (63.7%) were white, and 1318 (27.6%) were black. In the active choice arm, 16 of 32 PCPs (50.0%) accessed the patient dashboard, but only 2 of 32 (6.3%) signed statin prescription orders. In the active choice with peer comparison arm, 12 of 32 PCPs (37.5%) accessed the patient dashboard and 8 of 32 (25.0%) signed statin prescription orders. Statins were prescribed in 40 of 1566 patients (2.6%) in the usual care arm, 116 of 1743 (6.7%) in the active choice arm, and 117 of 1465 (8.0%) in the active choice with peer comparison arm. In the main adjusted model, compared with usual care, there was a significant increase in statin prescribing in the active choice with peer comparison arm (adjusted difference in percentage points, 5.8; 95% CI, 0.9-13.5; P = .008), but not in the active choice arm (adjusted difference in percentage points, 4.1; 95% CI, −0.8 to 13.1; P = .11).

          Conclusions and Relevance

          An automated patient dashboard using both active choice framing and peer comparison feedback led to a modest but significant increase in guideline-concordant statin prescribing rates.

          Trial Registration

          ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03021759

          Abstract

          This 3-arm cluster randomized clinical trial evaluates the effectiveness of an automated patient dashboard using active choice framing with and without peer comparison feedback on performance to nudge primary care physicians to increase guideline-concordant statin prescribing.

          Related collections

          Most cited references14

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          2013 ACC/AHA Guideline on the Treatment of Blood Cholesterol to Reduce Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Risk in Adults

          Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Statin Use for the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease in Adults: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

            Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States, accounting for 1 of every 3 deaths among adults.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Provision of social norm feedback to high prescribers of antibiotics in general practice: a pragmatic national randomised controlled trial

              Summary Background Unnecessary antibiotic prescribing contributes to antimicrobial resistance. In this trial, we aimed to reduce unnecessary prescriptions of antibiotics by general practitioners (GPs) in England. Methods In this randomised, 2 × 2 factorial trial, publicly available databases were used to identify GP practices whose prescribing rate for antibiotics was in the top 20% for their National Health Service (NHS) Local Area Team. Eligible practices were randomly assigned (1:1) into two groups by computer-generated allocation sequence, stratified by NHS Local Area Team. Participants, but not investigators, were blinded to group assignment. On Sept 29, 2014, every GP in the feedback intervention group was sent a letter from England's Chief Medical Officer and a leaflet on antibiotics for use with patients. The letter stated that the practice was prescribing antibiotics at a higher rate than 80% of practices in its NHS Local Area Team. GPs in the control group received no communication. The sample was re-randomised into two groups, and in December, 2014, GP practices were either sent patient-focused information that promoted reduced use of antibiotics or received no communication. The primary outcome measure was the rate of antibiotic items dispensed per 1000 weighted population, controlling for past prescribing. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN32349954, and has been completed. Findings Between Sept 8 and Sept 26, 2014, we recruited and assigned 1581 GP practices to feedback intervention (n=791) or control (n=790) groups. Letters were sent to 3227 GPs in the intervention group. Between October, 2014, and March, 2015, the rate of antibiotic items dispensed per 1000 population was 126·98 (95% CI 125·68–128·27) in the feedback intervention group and 131·25 (130·33–132·16) in the control group, a difference of 4·27 (3·3%; incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0·967 [95% CI 0·957–0·977]; p<0·0001), representing an estimated 73 406 fewer antibiotic items dispensed. In December, 2014, GP practices were re-assigned to patient-focused intervention (n=777) or control (n=804) groups. The patient-focused intervention did not significantly affect the primary outcome measure between December, 2014, and March, 2015 (antibiotic items dispensed per 1000 population: 135·00 [95% CI 133·77–136·22] in the patient-focused intervention group and 133·98 [133·06–134·90] in the control group; IRR for difference between groups 1·01, 95% CI 1·00–1·02; p=0·105). Interpretation Social norm feedback from a high-profile messenger can substantially reduce antibiotic prescribing at low cost and at national scale; this outcome makes it a worthwhile addition to antimicrobial stewardship programmes. Funding Public Health England.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                27 July 2018
                July 2018
                27 July 2018
                : 1
                : 3
                : e180818
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Penn Medicine Nudge Unit, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
                [2 ]Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
                [3 ]The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
                [4 ]Center for Health Incentives and Behavioral Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
                [5 ]Penn Medicine Center for Health Care Innovation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
                [6 ]Corporal Michael J. Crescenz Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
                [7 ]Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: April 24, 2018.
                Published: July 27, 2018. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0818
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2018 Patel MS et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Mitesh S. Patel, MD, MBA, MS, University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Civic Center Blvd, 14-176 South Pavilion, Philadelphia, PA 19104 ( mpatel@ 123456pennmedicine.upenn.edu ).
                Author Contributions: Dr Patel had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Patel, Kurtzman, Kannan, Day, Mahoney, Volpp, Asch.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Patel, Kurtzman, Kannan, Small, Morris, Honeywell, Leri, Rareshide, Asch.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Patel, Kurtzman.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
                Statistical analysis: Kurtzman, Kannan, Small, Rareshide.
                Obtained funding: Patel.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Patel, Kurtzman, Kannan, Honeywell, Leri, Day.
                Supervision: Patel, Volpp.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Patel reported personal fees from Catalyst Health LLC, Healthmine Services Inc, and Life.io outside the submitted work. Dr Volpp reported personal fees from VAL Health and CVS, and grants from CVS, Hawaii Medical Services Association, Oscar Heath Insurance, Humana, and Vitality/Discovery outside the submitted work. Dr Asch is a partner and part owner of VAL Health. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding Support: This study was supported by the University of Pennsylvania Health System through the Penn Medicine Nudge Unit.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Article
                zoi180061
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.0818
                6324300
                30646039
                2206a6f1-3218-474d-a6e4-1830606eb080
                Copyright 2018 Patel MS et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 20 February 2018
                : 22 April 2018
                : 24 April 2018
                Funding
                Funded by: University of Pennsylvania Health System
                Funded by: Penn Medicine Nudge Unit
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Cardiology

                Comments

                Comment on this article