Search

To determine the effectiveness of a provider-based education and implementation intervention for improving diabetes control.Cluster-randomized trial with baseline and follow-up cross sections of diabetes patients in each participating physician's practice.Eleven US Southeastern states, 2006-08.Two hundred and five rural primary care physicians.Multi-component interactive intervention including Web-based continuing medical education, performance feedback and quality improvement tools. Primary Outcome Measures 'Acceptable control' [hemoglobin A1c ≤9%, blood pressure (BP)140/90 mmHg, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL)130 mg/dl] and 'optimal control' (A1c7%, BP130/80 mmHg, LDL100 mg/dl).Of 364 physicians attempting to register, 205 were randomized to the intervention (n= 102) or control arms (n= 103). Baseline and follow-up data were provided by 95 physicians (2127 patients). The proportion of patients with A1c ≤9% was similar at baseline and follow-up in both the control [adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 0.94; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.61, 1.47] and intervention arms [AOR: 1.16 (95% CI: 0.80, 1.69)]; BP140/90 mmHg and LDL130 mg/dl were also similar at both measurement points (P= 0.66, P= 0.46; respectively). We observed no significant effect on diabetes control attributable to the intervention for any of the primary outcome measures. Intervention physicians engaged with the Website over a median of 64.7 weeks [interquartile range (IQR): 45.4-81.8) for a median total of 37 min (IQR: 16-66).A wide-reach, low-intensity, Web-based interactive multi-component intervention did not improve control of glucose, BP or lipids for patients with diabetes of physicians practicing in the rural Southeastern US.

Although prior authorization (PA) for prescription medications is widely employed for cost-containment for third-party insurers, it is a frustrating aspect of outpatient clinical care that imposes uncompensated costs to medical providers. To characterize these costs, we monitored the PA-associated administrative and operational process at the University of Alabama at Birmingham 1917 HIV Clinic over a 2-year period. A total of 288 PAs were processed with a mean (+/- standard deviation [SD]) of 3.1+/-5.8 days delay in the patient's access to medication. A mean (+/-SD) of 26.8+/-18.4 min was spent by the nurse practitioner and 6.5+/-2.9 min was spent by a clerk per PA. Nearly three-quarters (73%) of PAs were approved, 18% were denied, and 10% were voided. The mean (+/-SD) pages of paperwork was 5.8+/-6.5. The overall cost was $41.60 per PA. Although evidence supports that PA reduces third-party expenditures, it significantly delays medication accessibility for patients and imposes high costs that negatively impact operating margins for health care providers.

BACKGROUND Dramatic increases in the number of patients requiring linkage to treatment for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection are anticipated in response to updated Centers for Disease Control and Prevention HIV testing recommendations that advocate routine, opt-out HIV testing. METHODS A retrospective analysis nested within a prospective HIV clinical cohort study evaluated patients who established initial outpatient treatment for HIV infection at the University of Alabama at Birmingham 1917 HIV/AIDS Clinic from 1 January 2000 through 31 December 2005. Survival methods were used to evaluate the impact of missed visits during the first year of care on subsequent mortality in the context of other baseline sociodemographic, psychosocial, and clinical factors. Mortality was ascertained by query of the Social Security Death Index as of 1 August 2007. RESULTS Among 543 study participants initiating outpatient care for HIV infection, 60% missed a visit within the first year. The mortality rate was 2.3 deaths per 100 person-years for patients who missed visits, compared with 1.0 deaths per 100 person-years for those who attended all scheduled appointments during the first year after establishing outpatient treatment (P = .02). In Cox proportional hazards analysis, higher hazards of death were independently associated with missed visits (hazard ratio, 2.90; 95% confidence interval, 1.28-6.56), older age (hazard ratio, 1.58 per 10 years of age; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-2.22), and baseline CD4+ cell count < 200 cells/mm(3) (hazard ratio, 2.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-7.30). CONCLUSIONS Patients who missed visits within the first year after initiating outpatient treatment for HIV infection had more than twice the rate of long-term mortality, compared with those patients who attended all scheduled appointments. We posit that early missed visits are not causally responsible for the higher observed mortality but, rather, identify those patients who are more likely to exhibit health behaviors that portend increased subsequent mortality.

Purpose. A summary of the basic science underlying the current controversies regarding cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2)-selective nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), including data on their cardiovascular safety, their gastrointestinal (GI) benefits, cost-effectiveness, physician-prescribing trends, and recommendations for prescribing these agents is presented. Summary. A number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported that COX-2-selective NSAIDs increase cardiovascular events, although there appear to be gradations of risks among the COX-2-selective NSAIDs. In addition, traditional NSAIDs may increase the risk for cardiovascular events, complicating the interpretation of RCTs that use traditional NSAIDs as comparators. Selective inhibitors of COX-2-selective NSAIDs are effective antiinflammatory and analgesic drugs with improved upper-GI safety compared to traditional NSAIDs. Data on the cost-effectiveness of COX-2-selective NSAIDs indicate that they should be limited to patients at high risk for upper-GI adverse effects. However, they had been increasingly used in patients with lower GI risks until recent events reversed that trend. Circumstances under which COX-2-selective NSAIDs may be appropriate are in patients at high GI risk and in patients who did not respond to multiple traditional NSAIDs. The national spotlight in the United States on NSAID-related adverse events and recent lawsuits against health care providers prescribing COX-2-selective NSAIDs further highlights the need for provider–patient communication and risk disclosure. The relative cardiovascular risks of NSAIDs are similar in magnitude to other currently prescribed therapies. Conclusion. Health care providers must consider the efficacy, GI and cardiovascular risks, concomitant medications, and costs when determining the appropriateness of COX-2-selective NSAID therapy.

Objective: The authors developed and evaluated a rating scale, the Attitudes toward Handheld Decision Support Software Scale (H-DSS), to assess physician attitudes about handheld decision support systems. Design: The authors conducted a prospective assessment of psychometric characteristics of the H-DSS including reliability, validity, and responsiveness. Participants were 82 Internal Medicine residents. A higher score on each of the 14 five-point Likert scale items reflected a more positive attitude about handheld DSS. The H-DSS score is the mean across the fourteen items. Attitudes toward the use of the handheld DSS were assessed prior to and six months after receiving the handheld device. Statistics: Cronbach's Alpha was used to assess internal consistency reliability. Pearson correlations were used to estimate and detect significant associations between scale scores and other measures (validity). Paired sample t- tests were used to test for changes in the mean attitude scale score (responsiveness) and for differences between groups. Results: Internal consistency reliability for the scale was 0.73. In testing validity, moderate correlations were noted between the attitude scale scores and self-reported Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) usage in the hospital (correlation coefficient 0.55) and clinic (0.48), p 0.05 for both. The scale was responsive, in that it detected the expected increase in scores between the two administrations (3.99 (s.d. 0.35) vs. 4.08, (s.d. 0.34), p 0.005). Conclusion: The authors' evaluation showed that the H-DSS scale was reliable, valid, and responsive. The scale can be used to guide future handheld DSS development and implementation.

Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), one of the most frequently prescribed medication classes in adult outpatient medicine,[1][1] have the potential to cause substantial toxicity.[2][2] The gastrointestinal,[3][3]–[5][4] cardiovascular,[6][5]–[8][6] and renal[9][7]–[12][8]

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of a personal digital assistant (PDA)–based clinical decision support system (CDSS) on nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) prescribing safety in the outpatient setting. Design: The design was a randomized, controlled trial conducted in a university-based resident clinic. Internal medicine residents received a PDA-based CDSS suite. For intervention residents, the CDSS included a prediction rule for NSAID-related gastrointestinal risk assessment and treatment recommendations. Unannounced standardized patients (SPs) trained to portray musculoskeletal symptoms presented to study physicians. Safety outcomes were assessed from the prescriptions given to the SPs. Each prescription was reviewed by a committee of clinicians blinded to participant, intervention group assignment, and baseline or follow-up status. Measurements: Prescriptions were judged as safe or unsafe. The main outcome measure was the differential change in unsafe prescribing of NSAIDs for the intervention versus the control group. Results: At baseline, the mean proportion of cases per physician with unsafe prescriptions for the two groups was similar (0.27 vs. 0.29, p > 0.05). Controlling for baseline performance, intervention participants prescribed more safely than controls after receiving the CDSS (0.23 vs. 0.45 [F = 4.24, p < 0.05]). With the CDSS, intervention participants documented more complete assessment of patient gastrointestinal risk from NSAIDs. Conclusion: Participants provided with a PDA-based CDSS for NSAID prescribing made fewer unsafe treatment decisions than participants without the CDSS.

In a comparison of rates of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS)-defining malignancies (ADMs) for 1989-1996 versus 1997-2002, we found a decrease in ADMs (rate ratio, 0.31; P

Webster's Dictionary defines a benchmark as 'something that serves as a standard by which others can be measured'. Benchmarking pervades the health care quality improvement literature, and benchmarks are usually based on subjective assessment rather than on measurements derived from data. As such, benchmarks may fail to yield an achievable level of excellence that can be replicated under specific conditions. In this paper, we provide an overview of benchmarking in health care. We then describe the evolution of our data-driven method for identifying an Achievable Benchmark of Care (ABC) on the basis of process-of-care indicators. Here, our experience leads us to postulate the following premises for sound benchmarks: (i) benchmarks should represent a level of excellence; (ii) benchmarks should be demonstrably attainable; (iii) providers with high performance should be selected from among all providers in a predefined way using reliable data; (iv) all providers with high performance levels should contribute to the benchmark level; and (v) providers with high performance levels but small numbers of cases should not unduly influence the level of the benchmark. An example of an ABC applied to the cooperative cardiovascular project leads the reader through the computation of an ABC. Finally, we consider several refinements of the original ABC concept that are in progress, e.g. how to approach the special problems posed by very small denominators. The ABC methodology has been well accepted in multiple quality improvement projects. This approach lends objectivity and reliability to benchmarks that have been a widely used, but until now, arbitrarily defined tool.

Introduction: Although technology-assisted tobacco interventions (TATIs) are effective, they are underused due to recruitment challenges. We tested whether we could successfully recruit smokers to a TATI using peer marketing through a social network (Facebook). Methods: We recruited smokers on Facebook using online advertisements. These recruited smokers (seeds) and subsequent waves of smokers (peer recruits) were provided the Share2Quit peer recruitment Facebook app and other tools. Smokers were incentivized for up to seven successful peer recruitments and had 30 days to recruit from date of registration. Successful peer recruitment was defined as a peer recruited smoker completing the registration on the TATI following a referral. Our primary questions were (1) whether smokers would recruit other smokers and (2) whether peer recruitment would extend the reach of the intervention to harder-to-reach groups, including those not ready to quit and minority smokers. Results: Overall, 759 smokers were recruited (seeds: 190; peer recruits: 569). Fifteen percent (n = 117) of smokers successfully recruited their peers (seeds: 24.7%; peer recruits: 7.7%) leading to four recruitment waves. Compared to seeds, peer recruits were less likely to be ready to quit (peer recruits 74.2% vs. seeds 95.1%), more likely to be male (67.1% vs. 32.9%), and more likely to be African American (23.8% vs. 10.8%) (p < .01 for all comparisons). Conclusions: Peer marketing quadrupled our engaged smokers and enriched the sample with not-ready-to-quit and African American smokers. Peer recruitment is promising, and our study uncovered several important challenges for future research. Implications: This study demonstrates the successful recruitment of smokers to a TATI using a Facebook-based peer marketing strategy. Smokers on Facebook were willing and able to recruit other smokers to a TATI, yielding a large and diverse population of smokers.

Pharmacists play a pivotal role in the U.S health care system by providing evidence-based care, generating new knowledge, educating future generations of practitioners, and participating in policy development. In the current edition of AJHP , Schumock and Pickard[1][1] provide a comprehensive