Cargando…

Use of an Automated Decision Support Tool Optimizes Clinicians’ Ability to Interpret and Appropriately Respond to Structured Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose Data

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the impact of an automated decision support tool (DST) on clinicians’ ability to identify glycemic abnormalities in structured self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) data and then make appropriate therapeutic changes based on the glycemic patterns observed. RESEARCH DESIGN A...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rodbard, Helena W., Schnell, Oliver, Unger, Jeffrey, Rees, Christen, Amstutz, Linda, Parkin, Christopher G., Jelsovsky, Zhihong, Wegmann, Nathan, Axel-Schweitzer, Matthias, Wagner, Robin S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Diabetes Association 2012
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3308297/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22344611
http://dx.doi.org/10.2337/dc11-1351
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the impact of an automated decision support tool (DST) on clinicians’ ability to identify glycemic abnormalities in structured self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG) data and then make appropriate therapeutic changes based on the glycemic patterns observed. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, controlled, multicenter study, 288 clinicians (39.6% family practice physicians, 37.9% general internal medicine physicians, and 22.6% nurse practitioners) were randomized to structured SMBG alone (STG; n = 72); structured SMBG with DST (DST; n = 72); structured SMBG with an educational DVD (DVD; n = 72); and structured SMBG with DST and the educational DVD (DST+DVD; n = 72). Clinicians analyzed 30 patient cases (type 2 diabetes), identified the primary abnormality, and selected the most appropriate therapy. RESULTS: A total of 222 clinicians completed all 30 patient cases with no major protocol deviations. Significantly more DST, DVD, and DST+DVD clinicians correctly identified the glycemic abnormality and selected the most appropriate therapeutic option compared with STG clinicians: 49, 51, and 55%, respectively, vs. 33% (all P < 0.0001) with no significant differences among DST, DVD, and DST+DVD clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Use of structured SMBG, combined with the DST, the educational DVD, or both, enhances clinicians’ ability to correctly identify significant glycemic patterns and make appropriate therapeutic decisions to address those patterns. Structured testing interventions using either the educational DVD or the DST are equally effective in improving data interpretation and utilization. The DST provides a viable alternative when comprehensive education is not feasible, and it may be integrated into medical practices with minimal training.