Cargando…

Computerized clinical decision support system for diabetes in primary care does not improve quality of care: a cluster-randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: The EBMeDS system is the computerized clinical decision support (CCDS) system of EBPNet, a national computerized point-of-care information service in Belgium. There is no clear evidence of more complex CCDS systems to manage chronic diseases in primary care practices (PCPs). The objectiv...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Heselmans, Annemie, Delvaux, Nicolas, Laenen, Annouschka, Van de Velde, Stijn, Ramaekers, Dirk, Kunnamo, Ilkka, Aertgeerts, Bert
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6947861/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31910877
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0955-6
_version_ 1783485641453993984
author Heselmans, Annemie
Delvaux, Nicolas
Laenen, Annouschka
Van de Velde, Stijn
Ramaekers, Dirk
Kunnamo, Ilkka
Aertgeerts, Bert
author_facet Heselmans, Annemie
Delvaux, Nicolas
Laenen, Annouschka
Van de Velde, Stijn
Ramaekers, Dirk
Kunnamo, Ilkka
Aertgeerts, Bert
author_sort Heselmans, Annemie
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The EBMeDS system is the computerized clinical decision support (CCDS) system of EBPNet, a national computerized point-of-care information service in Belgium. There is no clear evidence of more complex CCDS systems to manage chronic diseases in primary care practices (PCPs). The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of EBMeDS use in improving diabetes care. METHODS: A cluster-randomized trial with before-and-after measurements was performed in Belgian PCPs over 1 year, from May 2017 to May 2018. We randomly assigned 51 practices to either the intervention group (IG), to receive the EBMeDS system, or to the control group (CG), to receive usual care. Primary and secondary outcomes were the 1-year pre- to post-implementation change in HbA1c, LDL cholesterol, and systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Composite patient and process scores were calculated. A process evaluation was added to the analysis. Results were analyzed at 6 and 12 months. Linear mixed models and logistic regression models based on generalized estimating equations were used where appropriate. RESULTS: Of the 51 PCPs that were enrolled and randomly assigned (26 PCPs in the CG and 25 in the IG), 29 practices (3815 patients) were analyzed in the study: 2464 patients in the CG and 1351 patients in the IG. No change differences existed between groups in primary or secondary outcomes. Change difference between CG and IG after 1-year follow-up was − 0.09 (95% CI − 0.18; 0.01, p-value = 0.06) for HbA1c; 1.76 (95% CI − 0.46; 3.98, p-value = 0.12) for LDL cholesterol; and 0.13 (95% CI − 0.91; 1.16, p-value = 0.81) and 0.12 (95% CI − 1.25;1.49, p-value = 0.86) for systolic and diastolic blood pressure respectively. The odds ratio of the IG versus the CG for the probability of no worsening and improvement was 1.09 (95% CI 0.73; 1.63, p-value = 0.67) for the process composite score and 0.74 (95% CI 0.49; 1.12, p-value = 0.16) for the composite patient score. All but one physician was satisfied with the EBMeDS system. CONCLUSIONS: The CCDS system EBMeDS did not improve diabetes care in Belgian primary care. The lack of improvement was mainly caused by imperfections in the organizational context of Belgian primary care for chronic disease management and shortcomings in the system requirements for the correct use of the EBMeDS system (e.g., complete structured records). These shortcomings probably caused low-use rates of the system. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01830569, Registered 12 April 2013.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6947861
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69478612020-01-09 Computerized clinical decision support system for diabetes in primary care does not improve quality of care: a cluster-randomized controlled trial Heselmans, Annemie Delvaux, Nicolas Laenen, Annouschka Van de Velde, Stijn Ramaekers, Dirk Kunnamo, Ilkka Aertgeerts, Bert Implement Sci Research BACKGROUND: The EBMeDS system is the computerized clinical decision support (CCDS) system of EBPNet, a national computerized point-of-care information service in Belgium. There is no clear evidence of more complex CCDS systems to manage chronic diseases in primary care practices (PCPs). The objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of EBMeDS use in improving diabetes care. METHODS: A cluster-randomized trial with before-and-after measurements was performed in Belgian PCPs over 1 year, from May 2017 to May 2018. We randomly assigned 51 practices to either the intervention group (IG), to receive the EBMeDS system, or to the control group (CG), to receive usual care. Primary and secondary outcomes were the 1-year pre- to post-implementation change in HbA1c, LDL cholesterol, and systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Composite patient and process scores were calculated. A process evaluation was added to the analysis. Results were analyzed at 6 and 12 months. Linear mixed models and logistic regression models based on generalized estimating equations were used where appropriate. RESULTS: Of the 51 PCPs that were enrolled and randomly assigned (26 PCPs in the CG and 25 in the IG), 29 practices (3815 patients) were analyzed in the study: 2464 patients in the CG and 1351 patients in the IG. No change differences existed between groups in primary or secondary outcomes. Change difference between CG and IG after 1-year follow-up was − 0.09 (95% CI − 0.18; 0.01, p-value = 0.06) for HbA1c; 1.76 (95% CI − 0.46; 3.98, p-value = 0.12) for LDL cholesterol; and 0.13 (95% CI − 0.91; 1.16, p-value = 0.81) and 0.12 (95% CI − 1.25;1.49, p-value = 0.86) for systolic and diastolic blood pressure respectively. The odds ratio of the IG versus the CG for the probability of no worsening and improvement was 1.09 (95% CI 0.73; 1.63, p-value = 0.67) for the process composite score and 0.74 (95% CI 0.49; 1.12, p-value = 0.16) for the composite patient score. All but one physician was satisfied with the EBMeDS system. CONCLUSIONS: The CCDS system EBMeDS did not improve diabetes care in Belgian primary care. The lack of improvement was mainly caused by imperfections in the organizational context of Belgian primary care for chronic disease management and shortcomings in the system requirements for the correct use of the EBMeDS system (e.g., complete structured records). These shortcomings probably caused low-use rates of the system. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01830569, Registered 12 April 2013. BioMed Central 2020-01-07 /pmc/articles/PMC6947861/ /pubmed/31910877 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0955-6 Text en © The Author(s). 2020 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Heselmans, Annemie
Delvaux, Nicolas
Laenen, Annouschka
Van de Velde, Stijn
Ramaekers, Dirk
Kunnamo, Ilkka
Aertgeerts, Bert
Computerized clinical decision support system for diabetes in primary care does not improve quality of care: a cluster-randomized controlled trial
title Computerized clinical decision support system for diabetes in primary care does not improve quality of care: a cluster-randomized controlled trial
title_full Computerized clinical decision support system for diabetes in primary care does not improve quality of care: a cluster-randomized controlled trial
title_fullStr Computerized clinical decision support system for diabetes in primary care does not improve quality of care: a cluster-randomized controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Computerized clinical decision support system for diabetes in primary care does not improve quality of care: a cluster-randomized controlled trial
title_short Computerized clinical decision support system for diabetes in primary care does not improve quality of care: a cluster-randomized controlled trial
title_sort computerized clinical decision support system for diabetes in primary care does not improve quality of care: a cluster-randomized controlled trial
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6947861/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31910877
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0955-6
work_keys_str_mv AT heselmansannemie computerizedclinicaldecisionsupportsystemfordiabetesinprimarycaredoesnotimprovequalityofcareaclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT delvauxnicolas computerizedclinicaldecisionsupportsystemfordiabetesinprimarycaredoesnotimprovequalityofcareaclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT laenenannouschka computerizedclinicaldecisionsupportsystemfordiabetesinprimarycaredoesnotimprovequalityofcareaclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT vandeveldestijn computerizedclinicaldecisionsupportsystemfordiabetesinprimarycaredoesnotimprovequalityofcareaclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT ramaekersdirk computerizedclinicaldecisionsupportsystemfordiabetesinprimarycaredoesnotimprovequalityofcareaclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT kunnamoilkka computerizedclinicaldecisionsupportsystemfordiabetesinprimarycaredoesnotimprovequalityofcareaclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT aertgeertsbert computerizedclinicaldecisionsupportsystemfordiabetesinprimarycaredoesnotimprovequalityofcareaclusterrandomizedcontrolledtrial