Cargando…

Engineering practice variation through provider agreement: a cluster-randomized feasibility trial

PURPOSE: Minimal-risk randomized trials that can be embedded in practice could facilitate learning health-care systems. A cluster-randomized design was proposed to compare treatment strategies by assigning clusters (eg, providers) to “favor” a particular drug, with providers retaining autonomy for s...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McCarren, Madeline, Twedt, Elaine L, Mansuri, Faizmohamed M, Nelson, Philip R, Peek, Brian T
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4218905/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25414573
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S69878
_version_ 1782342494490460160
author McCarren, Madeline
Twedt, Elaine L
Mansuri, Faizmohamed M
Nelson, Philip R
Peek, Brian T
author_facet McCarren, Madeline
Twedt, Elaine L
Mansuri, Faizmohamed M
Nelson, Philip R
Peek, Brian T
author_sort McCarren, Madeline
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Minimal-risk randomized trials that can be embedded in practice could facilitate learning health-care systems. A cluster-randomized design was proposed to compare treatment strategies by assigning clusters (eg, providers) to “favor” a particular drug, with providers retaining autonomy for specific patients. Patient informed consent might be waived, broadening inclusion. However, it is not known if providers will adhere to the assignment or whether institutional review boards will waive consent. We evaluated the feasibility of this trial design. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Agreeable providers were randomized to “favor” either hydrochlorothiazide or chlorthalidone when starting patients on thiazide-type therapy for hypertension. The assignment applied when the provider had already decided to start a thiazide, and providers could deviate from the strategy as needed. Prescriptions were aggregated to produce a provider strategy-adherence rate. RESULTS: All four institutional review boards waived documentation of patient consent. Providers (n=18) followed their assigned strategy for most of their new thiazide prescriptions (n=138 patients). In the “favor hydrochlorothiazide” group, there was 99% adherence to that strategy. In the “favor chlorthalidone” group, chlorthalidone comprised 77% of new thiazide starts, up from 1% in the pre-study period. When the assigned strategy was followed, dosing in the recommended range was 48% for hydrochlorothiazide (25–50 mg/day) and 100% for chlorthalidone (12.5–25.0 mg/day). Providers were motivated to participate by a desire to contribute to a comparative effectiveness study. A study promotional mug, provider information letter, and interactions with the site investigator were identified as most helpful in reminding providers of their study drug strategy. CONCLUSION: Providers prescribed according to an assigned drug-choice strategy most of the time for the purpose of a comparative effectiveness study. This simple design could facilitate research participation and behavior change in non-research clinicians. Waiver of patient consent can broaden the representation of patients, providers, and settings.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4218905
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Dove Medical Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-42189052014-11-20 Engineering practice variation through provider agreement: a cluster-randomized feasibility trial McCarren, Madeline Twedt, Elaine L Mansuri, Faizmohamed M Nelson, Philip R Peek, Brian T Ther Clin Risk Manag Original Research PURPOSE: Minimal-risk randomized trials that can be embedded in practice could facilitate learning health-care systems. A cluster-randomized design was proposed to compare treatment strategies by assigning clusters (eg, providers) to “favor” a particular drug, with providers retaining autonomy for specific patients. Patient informed consent might be waived, broadening inclusion. However, it is not known if providers will adhere to the assignment or whether institutional review boards will waive consent. We evaluated the feasibility of this trial design. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Agreeable providers were randomized to “favor” either hydrochlorothiazide or chlorthalidone when starting patients on thiazide-type therapy for hypertension. The assignment applied when the provider had already decided to start a thiazide, and providers could deviate from the strategy as needed. Prescriptions were aggregated to produce a provider strategy-adherence rate. RESULTS: All four institutional review boards waived documentation of patient consent. Providers (n=18) followed their assigned strategy for most of their new thiazide prescriptions (n=138 patients). In the “favor hydrochlorothiazide” group, there was 99% adherence to that strategy. In the “favor chlorthalidone” group, chlorthalidone comprised 77% of new thiazide starts, up from 1% in the pre-study period. When the assigned strategy was followed, dosing in the recommended range was 48% for hydrochlorothiazide (25–50 mg/day) and 100% for chlorthalidone (12.5–25.0 mg/day). Providers were motivated to participate by a desire to contribute to a comparative effectiveness study. A study promotional mug, provider information letter, and interactions with the site investigator were identified as most helpful in reminding providers of their study drug strategy. CONCLUSION: Providers prescribed according to an assigned drug-choice strategy most of the time for the purpose of a comparative effectiveness study. This simple design could facilitate research participation and behavior change in non-research clinicians. Waiver of patient consent can broaden the representation of patients, providers, and settings. Dove Medical Press 2014-10-28 /pmc/articles/PMC4218905/ /pubmed/25414573 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S69878 Text en © 2014 McCarren et al. This work is published by Dove Medical Press Limited, and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License The full terms of the License are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.
spellingShingle Original Research
McCarren, Madeline
Twedt, Elaine L
Mansuri, Faizmohamed M
Nelson, Philip R
Peek, Brian T
Engineering practice variation through provider agreement: a cluster-randomized feasibility trial
title Engineering practice variation through provider agreement: a cluster-randomized feasibility trial
title_full Engineering practice variation through provider agreement: a cluster-randomized feasibility trial
title_fullStr Engineering practice variation through provider agreement: a cluster-randomized feasibility trial
title_full_unstemmed Engineering practice variation through provider agreement: a cluster-randomized feasibility trial
title_short Engineering practice variation through provider agreement: a cluster-randomized feasibility trial
title_sort engineering practice variation through provider agreement: a cluster-randomized feasibility trial
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4218905/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25414573
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S69878
work_keys_str_mv AT mccarrenmadeline engineeringpracticevariationthroughprovideragreementaclusterrandomizedfeasibilitytrial
AT twedtelainel engineeringpracticevariationthroughprovideragreementaclusterrandomizedfeasibilitytrial
AT mansurifaizmohamedm engineeringpracticevariationthroughprovideragreementaclusterrandomizedfeasibilitytrial
AT nelsonphilipr engineeringpracticevariationthroughprovideragreementaclusterrandomizedfeasibilitytrial
AT peekbriant engineeringpracticevariationthroughprovideragreementaclusterrandomizedfeasibilitytrial