Dataset Information

Impact of Kidney Failure Risk Prediction Clinical Decision Support on Monitoring and Referral in Primary Care Management of CKD: A Randomized Pragmatic Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Rationale & objective

To design and implement clinical decision support incorporating a validated risk prediction estimate of kidney failure in primary care clinics and to evaluate the impact on stage-appropriate monitoring and referral.

Study design

Block-randomized, pragmatic clinical trial.

Setting & participants

Ten primary care clinics in the greater Boston area. Patients with stage 3-5 chronic kidney disease (CKD) were included. Patients were randomized within each primary care physician panel through a block randomization approach. The trial occurred between December 4, 2015, and December 3, 2016.

Intervention

Point-of-care noninterruptive clinical decision support that delivered the 5-year kidney failure risk equation as well as recommendations for stage-appropriate monitoring and referral to nephrology.

Outcomes

The primary outcome was as follows: Urine and serum laboratory monitoring test findings measured at one timepoint 6 months after the initial primary care visit and analyzed only in patients who had not undergone the recommended monitoring test in the preceding 12 months. The secondary outcome was nephrology referral in patients with a calculated kidney failure risk equation value of >10% measured at one timepoint 6 months after the initial primary care visit.

Results

The clinical decision support application requested and processed 569,533 Continuity of Care Documents during the study period. Of these, 41,842 (7.3%) documents led to a diagnosis of stage 3, 4, or 5 CKD by the clinical decision support application. A total of 5,590 patients with stage 3, 4, or 5 CKD were randomized and included in the study. The link to the clinical decision support application was clicked 122 times by 57 primary care physicians. There was no association between the clinical decision support intervention and the primary outcome. There was a small but statistically significant difference in nephrology referral, with a higher rate of referral in the control arm.

Limitations

Contamination within provider and clinic may have attenuated the impact of the intervention and may have biased the result toward null.

Conclusions

The noninterruptive design of the clinical decision support was selected to prevent cognitive overload; however, the design led to a very low rate of use and ultimately did not improve stage-appropriate monitoring.

Funding

Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health under award K23DK097187.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02990897.

SUBMITTER: Samal L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9293940 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Impact of Kidney Failure Risk Prediction Clinical Decision Support on Monitoring and Referral in Primary Care Management of CKD: A Randomized Pragmatic Clinical Trial.

Samal Lipika L D'Amore John D JD Gannon Michael P MP Kilgallon John L JL Charles Jean-Pierre JP Mann Devin M DM Siegel Lydia C LC Burdge Kelly K Shaykevich Shimon S Lipsitz Stuart S Waikar Sushrut S SS Bates David W DW Wright Adam A

Kidney medicine 20220528 7

<h4>Rationale & objective</h4>To design and implement clinical decision support incorporating a validated risk prediction estimate of kidney failure in primary care clinics and to evaluate the impact on stage-appropriate monitoring and referral.<h4>Study design</h4>Block-randomized, pragmatic clinical trial.<h4>Setting & participants</h4>Ten primary care clinics in the greater Boston area. Patients with stage 3-5 chronic kidney disease (CKD) were included. Patients were randomized within each pr ...[more]

PMID: 35866010

Similar Datasets

Project description:Rationale & objectiveMost adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the United States are cared for by primary care providers (PCPs). We evaluated the feasibility and preliminary effectiveness of an electronic clinical decision support system (eCDSS) within the electronic health record with or without pharmacist follow-up to improve the management of CKD in primary care.Study designPragmatic cluster-randomized trial.Setting & participants524 adults with confirmed creatinine-based estimated glomerular filtration rates of 30 to 59mL/min/1.73m2 cared for by 80 PCPs at the University of California San Francisco. Electronic health record data were used for patient identification, intervention deployment, and outcomes ascertainment.InterventionsEach PCP's eligible patients were randomly assigned as a group into 1 of 3 treatment arms: (1) usual care; (2) eCDSS: testing of creatinine, cystatin C, and urinary albumin-creatinine ratio with individually tailored guidance for PCPs on blood pressure, potassium, and proteinuria management, cardiovascular risk reduction, and patient education; or (3) eCDSS plus pharmacist counseling (eCDSS-PLUS).OutcomesThe primary clinical outcome was change in blood pressure over 12 months. Secondary outcomes were PCP awareness of CKD and use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker and statin therapy.ResultsAll 80 eligible PCPs participated. Mean patient age was 70 years, 47% were nonwhite, and mean estimated glomerular filtration rate was 56±0.6mL/min/1.73m2. Among patients receiving eCDSS with or without pharmacist counseling (n=336), 178 (53%) completed laboratory measurements and 138 (41%) had laboratory measurements followed by a PCP visit with eCDSS deployment. eCDSS was opened by the PCP for 102 (74%) patients, with at least 1 suggested order signed for 83 of these 102 (81%). Changes in systolic blood pressure were-2.1±1.5mm Hg with usual care, -2.8±1.8mm Hg with eCDSS, and -1.1±1.1 with eCDSS-PLUS (P=0.7). PCP awareness of CKD was 16% with usual care, 26% with eCDSS, and 32% for eCDSS-PLUS (P=0.09). In as-treated analyses, PCP awareness of CKD was significantly greater with eCDSS and eCDSS-PLUS (73% and 69%) versus usual care (47%; P=0.002).LimitationsRecruitment of smaller than intended sample size and limited uptake of the testing component of the intervention.ConclusionsAlthough we were unable to demonstrate the effectiveness of eCDSS to lower blood pressure and uptake of the eCDSS was limited by low testing rates, eCDSS use was high when laboratory measurements were available and was associated with higher PCP awareness of CKD.FundingGrants from government (National Institutes of Health) and not-for-profit (American Heart Association) entities.Trial registrationRegistered at ClinicalTrials.gov with study number NCT02925962.

Project description:Rationale & objectiveThe study aimed to develop, implement, and evaluate a clinical decision support (CDS) system for chronic kidney disease (CKD) in a primary care setting, with the goal of improving CKD care in adults.Study designThis was a cluster randomized trial.Setting & participantsA total of 32 Midwestern primary care clinics were randomly assigned to either receive usual care or CKD-CDS intervention. Between April 2019 and March 2020, we enrolled 6,420 patients aged 18-75 years with laboratory-defined glomerular filtration rate categories of CKD Stage G3 and G4, and 1 or more of 6 CKD care gaps: absence of a CKD diagnosis, suboptimal blood pressure or glycated hemoglobin levels, indication for angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker but not prescribed, a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agent on the active medication list, or indication for a nephrology referral.InterventionThe CKD-CDS provided personalized suggestions for CKD care improvement opportunities directed to both patients and clinicians at primary care encounters.OutcomesWe assessed the proportion of patients meeting each of 6 CKD-CDS quality metrics representing care gap resolution after 18 months.ResultsThe adjusted proportions of patients meeting quality metrics in CKD-CDS versus usual care were as follows: CKD diagnosis documented (26.6% vs 21.8%; risk ratio [RR], 1.17; 95% CI, 0.91-1.51); angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker prescribed (15.9% vs 16.1%; RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.76-1.18); blood pressure control (20.4% vs 20.2%; RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.84-1.15); glycated hemoglobin level control (21.4% vs 22.1%; RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.80-1.24); nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agent not on the active medication list (51.5% vs 50.4%; RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.90-1.17); and referral or visit to a nephrologist (38.7% vs 36.1%; RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.79-1.32).LimitationsWe encountered an overall reduction in expected primary care encounters and obstacles to point-of-care CKD-CDS utilization because of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.ConclusionsThe CKD-CDS intervention did not lead to a significant improvement in CKD quality metrics. The challenges to CDS use during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic likely influenced these results.FundingNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R18DK118463).Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03890588.

Project description:Rationale: Care of emergency department (ED) patients with pneumonia can be challenging. Clinical decision support may decrease unnecessary variation and improve care. Objectives: To report patient outcomes and processes of care after deployment of electronic pneumonia clinical decision support (ePNa): a comprehensive, open loop, real-time clinical decision support embedded within the electronic health record. Methods: We conducted a pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster-controlled trial with deployment at 2-month intervals in 16 community hospitals. ePNa extracts real-time and historical data to guide diagnosis, risk stratification, microbiological studies, site of care, and antibiotic therapy. We included all adult ED patients with pneumonia over the course of 3 years identified by International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision discharge coding confirmed by chest imaging. Measurements and Main Results: The median age of the 6,848 patients was 67 years (interquartile range, 50-79), and 48% were female; 64.8% were hospital admitted. Unadjusted mortality was 8.6% before and 4.8% after deployment. A mixed effects logistic regression model adjusting for severity of illness with hospital cluster as the random effect showed an adjusted odds ratio of 0.62 (0.49-0.79; P < 0.001) for 30-day all-cause mortality after deployment. Lower mortality was consistent across hospital clusters. ePNa-concordant antibiotic prescribing increased from 83.5% to 90.2% (P < 0.001). The mean time from ED admission to first antibiotic was 159.4 (156.9-161.9) minutes at baseline and 150.9 (144.1-157.8) minutes after deployment (P < 0.001). Outpatient disposition from the ED increased from 29.2% to 46.9%, whereas 7-day secondary hospital admission was unchanged (5.2% vs. 6.1%). ePNa was used by ED clinicians in 67% of eligible patients. Conclusions: ePNa deployment was associated with improved processes of care and lower mortality. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03358342).

Project description:Some drugs have a narrow therapeutic range and require monitoring and dose adjustments to optimize their efficacy and safety. Computerized clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) may improve the net benefit of these drugs. The objective of this review was to determine if CCDSSs improve processes of care or patient outcomes for therapeutic drug monitoring and dosing.We conducted a decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review. Studies from our previous review were included, and new studies were sought until January 2010 in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews, and Inspec databases. Randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of a CCDSS on process of care or patient outcomes were selected by pairs of independent reviewers. A study was considered to have a positive effect (i.e., CCDSS showed improvement) if at least 50% of the relevant study outcomes were statistically significantly positive.Thirty-three randomized controlled trials were identified, assessing the effect of a CCDSS on management of vitamin K antagonists (14), insulin (6), theophylline/aminophylline (4), aminoglycosides (3), digoxin (2), lidocaine (1), or as part of a multifaceted approach (3). Cluster randomization was rarely used (18%) and CCDSSs were usually stand-alone systems (76%) primarily used by physicians (85%). Overall, 18 of 30 studies (60%) showed an improvement in the process of care and 4 of 19 (21%) an improvement in patient outcomes. All evaluable studies assessing insulin dosing for glycaemic control showed an improvement. In meta-analysis, CCDSSs for vitamin K antagonist dosing significantly improved time in therapeutic range.CCDSSs have potential for improving process of care for therapeutic drug monitoring and dosing, specifically insulin and vitamin K antagonist dosing. However, studies were small and generally of modest quality, and effects on patient outcomes were uncertain, with no convincing benefit in the largest studies. At present, no firm recommendation for specific systems can be given. More potent CCDSSs need to be developed and should be evaluated by independent researchers using cluster randomization and primarily assess patient outcomes related to drug efficacy and safety.

Project description:BackgroundEvidence-based therapy for heart failure remains underutilized at hospital discharge, particularly for patients with heart failure who are hospitalized for another cause. We developed clinical decision support (CDS) to recommend an angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor during hospitalization to promote its continuation at discharge. The CDS was designed to be implemented in both interruptive and non-interruptive versions.ObjectivesTo compare the effectiveness and implementation of interruptive and non-interruptive versions of a CDS to improve care for heart failure.MethodsHospitalizations of patients with reduced ejection fraction were pseudo-randomized to deliver interruptive or non-interruptive CDS alerts to providers based on even or odd medical record number. We compared discharge utilization of an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) for these two implementation approaches. We also assessed adoption and implementation fidelity of the CDS.ResultsOf 958 hospitalizations, interruptive alert hospitalizations had higher rates of discharge utilization of ACE inhibitors or ARBs than non-interruptive alert hospitalizations (79.6% vs. 74.2%, p = 0.05). Utilization was higher for interruptive alert versus non-interruptive alert hospitalizations which were principally for causes other than heart failure (79.8% vs. 73.4%; p = 0.05) but no difference was observed among hospitalizations with a principal heart failure diagnosis (85.9% vs.81.7%; p = 0.49). As compared to non-interruptive hospitalizations, interruptive alert hospitalizations were more likely to have had: an alert with any response (40.6% vs. 13.1%, p < 0.001), contraindications reported (33.1% vs 11.3%, p < 0.001), and an ACE inhibitor ordered within twelve hours of the alert (17.6% vs 10.3%, p < 0.01). The response rate for the interruptive alert was 1.7%, and a median (25th, 75th percentile) of 14 (5,32) alerts were triggered per hospitalization.ConclusionsA CDS implemented as an interruptive alert was associated with improved quality of care for heart failure. Whether the potential benefits of CDS in improving cardiovascular care were worth the high burden of interruptive alerts deserves further consideration. CLINICALTRIALS.Gov identifierNCT02858674.

Project description:ImportanceChronic kidney disease (CKD) affects 37 million adults in the United States, and for patients with CKD, hypertension is a key risk factor for adverse outcomes, such as kidney failure, cardiovascular events, and death.ObjectiveTo evaluate a computerized clinical decision support (CDS) system for the management of uncontrolled hypertension in patients with CKD.Design, setting, and participantsThis multiclinic, randomized clinical trial randomized primary care practitioners (PCPs) at a primary care network, including 15 hospital-based, ambulatory, and community health center-based clinics, through a stratified, matched-pair randomization approach February 2021 to February 2022. All adult patients with a visit to a PCP in the last 2 years were eligible and those with evidence of CKD and hypertension were included.InterventionThe intervention consisted of a CDS system based on behavioral economic principles and human-centered design methods that delivered tailored, evidence-based recommendations, including initiation or titration of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors. The patients in the control group received usual care from PCPs with the CDS system operating in silent mode.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the change in mean systolic blood pressure (SBP) between baseline and 180 days compared between groups. The primary analysis was a repeated measures linear mixed model, using SBP at baseline, 90 days, and 180 days in an intention-to-treat repeated measures model to account for missing data. Secondary outcomes included blood pressure (BP) control and outcomes such as percentage of patients who received an action that aligned with the CDS recommendations.ResultsThe study included 174 PCPs and 2026 patients (mean [SD] age, 75.3 [0.3] years; 1223 [60.4%] female; mean [SD] SBP at baseline, 154.0 [14.3] mm Hg), with 87 PCPs and 1029 patients randomized to the intervention and 87 PCPs and 997 patients randomized to usual care. Overall, 1714 patients (84.6%) were treated for hypertension at baseline. There were 1623 patients (80.1%) with an SBP measurement at 180 days. From the linear mixed model, there was a statistically significant difference in mean SBP change in the intervention group compared with the usual care group (change, -14.6 [95% CI, -13.1 to -16.0] mm Hg vs -11.7 [-10.2 to -13.1] mm Hg; P = .005). There was no difference in the percentage of patients who achieved BP control in the intervention group compared with the control group (50.4% [95% CI, 46.5% to 54.3%] vs 47.1% [95% CI, 43.3% to 51.0%]). More patients received an action aligned with the CDS recommendations in the intervention group than in the usual care group (49.9% [95% CI, 45.1% to 54.8%] vs 34.6% [95% CI, 29.8% to 39.4%]; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that implementing this computerized CDS system could lead to improved management of uncontrolled hypertension and potentially improved clinical outcomes at the population level for patients with CKD.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03679247.

Dataset Information

Impact of Kidney Failure Risk Prediction Clinical Decision Support on Monitoring and Referral in Primary Care Management of CKD: A Randomized Pragmatic Clinical Trial.

Rationale & objective

Study design

Setting & participants

Intervention

Outcomes

Results

Limitations

Conclusions

Funding

Trial registration

Publications

Impact of Kidney Failure Risk Prediction Clinical Decision Support on Monitoring and Referral in Primary Care Management of CKD: A Randomized Pragmatic Clinical Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets