解决治疗惯性:基于电子健康记录的糖尿病强化工具的开发和实施。

Q3 Medicine
Diabetes Spectrum Pub Date : 2023-01-01 Epub Date: 2022-09-14 DOI:10.2337/ds22-0031
Kevin M Pantalone, Swapnil Rajpathak, Xinge Ji, Jian Jin, Tracey Weiss, Janine Bauman, Tomas Radivoyevitch, Michael W Kattan, Robert S Zimmerman, Anita D Misra-Hebert
{"title":"解决治疗惯性:基于电子健康记录的糖尿病强化工具的开发和实施。","authors":"Kevin M Pantalone, Swapnil Rajpathak, Xinge Ji, Jian Jin, Tracey Weiss, Janine Bauman, Tomas Radivoyevitch, Michael W Kattan, Robert S Zimmerman, Anita D Misra-Hebert","doi":"10.2337/ds22-0031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess whether an electronic health record (EHR)-based diabetes intensification tool can improve the rate of A1C goal attainment among patients with type 2 diabetes and an A1C ≥8%.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An EHR-based tool was developed and sequentially implemented in a large, integrated health system using a four-phase, stepped-wedge design (single pilot site [phase 1] and then three practice site clusters [phases 2-4]; 3 months/phase), with full implementation during phase 4. A1C outcomes, tool usage, and treatment intensification metrics were compared retrospectively at implementation (IMP) sites versus nonimplementation (non-IMP) sites with sites matched on patient population characteristics using overlap propensity score weighting.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, tool utilization was low among patient encounters at IMP sites (1,122 of 11,549 [9.7%]). During phases 1-3, the proportions of patients achieving the A1C goal (<8%) were not significantly improved between IMP and non-IMP sites at 6 months (range 42.9-46.5%) or 12 months (range 46.5-53.1%). In phase 3, fewer patients at IMP sites versus non-IMP sites achieved the goal at 12 months (46.7 vs. 52.3%, <i>P</i> = 0.02). In phases 1-3, mean changes in A1C from baseline to 6 and 12 months (range -0.88 to -1.08%) were not significantly different between IMP and non-IMP sites. Times to intensification were similar between IMP and non-IMP sites.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Utilization of a diabetes intensification tool was low and did not influence rates of A1C goal attainment or time to treatment intensification. The low level of tool adoption is itself an important finding highlighting the problem of therapeutic inertia in clinical practice. Testing additional strategies to better incorporate, increase acceptance of, and improve proficiency with EHR-based intensification tools is warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":39737,"journal":{"name":"Diabetes Spectrum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10182961/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Addressing Therapeutic Inertia: Development and Implementation of an Electronic Health Record-Based Diabetes Intensification Tool.\",\"authors\":\"Kevin M Pantalone, Swapnil Rajpathak, Xinge Ji, Jian Jin, Tracey Weiss, Janine Bauman, Tomas Radivoyevitch, Michael W Kattan, Robert S Zimmerman, Anita D Misra-Hebert\",\"doi\":\"10.2337/ds22-0031\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess whether an electronic health record (EHR)-based diabetes intensification tool can improve the rate of A1C goal attainment among patients with type 2 diabetes and an A1C ≥8%.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An EHR-based tool was developed and sequentially implemented in a large, integrated health system using a four-phase, stepped-wedge design (single pilot site [phase 1] and then three practice site clusters [phases 2-4]; 3 months/phase), with full implementation during phase 4. A1C outcomes, tool usage, and treatment intensification metrics were compared retrospectively at implementation (IMP) sites versus nonimplementation (non-IMP) sites with sites matched on patient population characteristics using overlap propensity score weighting.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, tool utilization was low among patient encounters at IMP sites (1,122 of 11,549 [9.7%]). During phases 1-3, the proportions of patients achieving the A1C goal (<8%) were not significantly improved between IMP and non-IMP sites at 6 months (range 42.9-46.5%) or 12 months (range 46.5-53.1%). In phase 3, fewer patients at IMP sites versus non-IMP sites achieved the goal at 12 months (46.7 vs. 52.3%, <i>P</i> = 0.02). In phases 1-3, mean changes in A1C from baseline to 6 and 12 months (range -0.88 to -1.08%) were not significantly different between IMP and non-IMP sites. Times to intensification were similar between IMP and non-IMP sites.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Utilization of a diabetes intensification tool was low and did not influence rates of A1C goal attainment or time to treatment intensification. The low level of tool adoption is itself an important finding highlighting the problem of therapeutic inertia in clinical practice. Testing additional strategies to better incorporate, increase acceptance of, and improve proficiency with EHR-based intensification tools is warranted.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39737,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diabetes Spectrum\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10182961/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diabetes Spectrum\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2337/ds22-0031\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/9/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diabetes Spectrum","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2337/ds22-0031","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/9/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:评估基于电子健康记录(EHR)的糖尿病强化工具是否能提高糖化血红蛋白≥8%的2型糖尿病患者的糖化血红蛋白目标达成率。方法:开发了基于ehr的工具,并采用四阶段楔形设计在大型综合卫生系统中依次实施(单个试验点[阶段1],然后三个实践点集群[阶段2-4];3个月/阶段),在第4阶段全面实施。采用重叠倾向评分加权法回顾性比较实施(IMP)地点与未实施(非IMP)地点的A1C结果、工具使用和治疗强化指标,这些地点与患者群体特征相匹配。结果:总体而言,在IMP站点就诊的患者中,工具使用率较低(11549例中有1122例[9.7%])。在1-3期,患者达到A1C目标的比例(P = 0.02)。在1-3期,从基线到6个月和12个月的平均A1C变化(范围-0.88至-1.08%)在IMP和非IMP部位之间无显著差异。IMP和非IMP部位的强化时间相似。结论:糖尿病强化工具的使用率较低,不影响糖化血红蛋白目标达成率或强化治疗的时间。低水平的工具采用本身就是一个重要的发现,突出了临床实践中治疗惯性的问题。有必要测试其他策略,以更好地整合、提高对基于电子病历的强化工具的接受度和熟练程度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Addressing Therapeutic Inertia: Development and Implementation of an Electronic Health Record-Based Diabetes Intensification Tool.

Addressing Therapeutic Inertia: Development and Implementation of an Electronic Health Record-Based Diabetes Intensification Tool.

Objective: To assess whether an electronic health record (EHR)-based diabetes intensification tool can improve the rate of A1C goal attainment among patients with type 2 diabetes and an A1C ≥8%.

Methods: An EHR-based tool was developed and sequentially implemented in a large, integrated health system using a four-phase, stepped-wedge design (single pilot site [phase 1] and then three practice site clusters [phases 2-4]; 3 months/phase), with full implementation during phase 4. A1C outcomes, tool usage, and treatment intensification metrics were compared retrospectively at implementation (IMP) sites versus nonimplementation (non-IMP) sites with sites matched on patient population characteristics using overlap propensity score weighting.

Results: Overall, tool utilization was low among patient encounters at IMP sites (1,122 of 11,549 [9.7%]). During phases 1-3, the proportions of patients achieving the A1C goal (<8%) were not significantly improved between IMP and non-IMP sites at 6 months (range 42.9-46.5%) or 12 months (range 46.5-53.1%). In phase 3, fewer patients at IMP sites versus non-IMP sites achieved the goal at 12 months (46.7 vs. 52.3%, P = 0.02). In phases 1-3, mean changes in A1C from baseline to 6 and 12 months (range -0.88 to -1.08%) were not significantly different between IMP and non-IMP sites. Times to intensification were similar between IMP and non-IMP sites.

Conclusion: Utilization of a diabetes intensification tool was low and did not influence rates of A1C goal attainment or time to treatment intensification. The low level of tool adoption is itself an important finding highlighting the problem of therapeutic inertia in clinical practice. Testing additional strategies to better incorporate, increase acceptance of, and improve proficiency with EHR-based intensification tools is warranted.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Diabetes Spectrum
Diabetes Spectrum Medicine-Internal Medicine
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
62
期刊介绍: The mission of Diabetes Spectrum: From Research to Practice is to assist health care professionals in the development of strategies to individualize treatment and diabetes self-management education for improved quality of life and diabetes control. These goals are achieved by presenting review as well as original, peer-reviewed articles on topics in clinical diabetes management, professional and patient education, nutrition, behavioral science and counseling, educational program development, and advocacy. In each issue, the FROM RESEARCH TO PRACTICE section explores, in depth, a diabetes care topic and provides practical application of current research findings.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信