Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 9, Issue 3, pp 131–139

A computerized intervention to improve timing of outpatient follow-up

A multicenter randomized trial in patients treated with warfarin
  • Stephan D. Fihn
  • Mary B. McDonell
  • Domokos Vermes
  • Jorja G. Henikoff
  • Donald C. Martin
  • Catherine M. Callahan
  • Daniel L. Kent
  • Richard H. White
  • the National Consortium of Anticoagulation Clinics
Original Articles


Objective: To evaluate a computerized scheduling model that employs nonlinear optimization to recommend optimal follow-up intervals for patients taking warfarin.

Design: Randomized trial.Setting: 5 anticoagulation clinics.

Patients/participants: 620 patients expected to receive warfarin for ≥6 weeks.

Interventions: Computer-generated recommendations for scheduling the next visit were presented to or withheld from practitioners.

Measurements and main results: The main outcome measures were the follow-up interval scheduled by the provider, the interval at which the patient actually returned to clinic, and the quality of anticoagulation control (computed as the absolute difference between the measured and target prothrombin times [PTRs] or international normalized ratios [INRs]). Follow-up intervals scheduled for the patients whose practitioners received computer-generated recommendations were significantly longer than those for control patients (mean, 4.4 vs 3.5 weeks, p<0.001), despite the fact that the practitioners modified the suggested return interval by >1 week on 40% of the visits. The interval at which the intervention group actually returned to clinic was also longer (mean, 4.4 vs 4.1 weeks, p<0.05), even though the control patients tended to return at longer intervals than were scheduled by their practitioners. Control of anticoagulation was nearly the same among experimental and control patients. Life-threatening complications occurred in the care of three experimental patients and one control patient, while other serious complications occurred in the care of 16 experimental patients and 17 control patients.

Conclusions: Recommendations based on nonlinear optimization prompted clinicians to schedule less frequent follow-up for patients taking warfarin, with no deterioration in anticoagulation control. This approach to scheduling can potentially reduce utilization while maintaining quality of care for patients who require long-term monitoring.

Key words

patient warfarin follow-up monitoring scheduling computers 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Dittus RS, Tierney WM. Scheduling follow-up office visits: physician variability [abstract]. Clin Res. 1987;35:738A.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lichtenstein MJ, Steele MA, Hoehn TP, Bulpitt CJ Coles EC. Visit frequency for essential hypertension: observed associations. J Fam Pract. 1989;28:667–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tobacman JK, Zeitler R, Cilursu AM, Mori M. Variation in physician opinion about scheduling of return visits for common ambulatory care conditions. J Gen Intern Med. 1992;7:312–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    National Center for Health Statistics, Cypress BK. Patterns of ambulatory care in internal medicine. The National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. United States, January 1980–December 1981. Vital and Health Statistics, Series 13, No. 80. DHHS Pub. no. 84-1741. Public Health Service, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, Sep 1984.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Petersen P, Boysen G, Godtfredsen J, Andersen ED, Andersen B. Placebo-controlled, randomised trial of warfarin and aspirin for prevention of thromboembolic complications in chronic atrial fibrillation: the Copenhagen AFASAK Study. Lancet. 1989;i:175–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation Study Group Investigators. Preliminary report of the Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation Study. N Engl J Med. 1990;322:863–8.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    The Boston Area Anticoagulation Trial for Atrial Fibrillation Investigators. The effect of low-dose warfarin on the risk of stroke in patients with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 1990;323:1505–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Connolly SJ, Laupacis A, Gent M, et al. Canadian atrial fibrillation anticoagulation study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1991;18:349–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ezekowitz MD, Bridgers SL, James KE, et al. Warfarin in the prevention of stroke associated with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 1992;327:1406–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Smith P. The effect of warfarin on mortality and reinfarction after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1990;323:147–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hirsh J, Dalen JE, Deykin D, Poller L. Oral anticoagulants. Mechanism of action, clinical effectiveness, and optimal therapeutic range. Chest. 1992;102(suppl):312S-326S.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Duxbury BM. Therapeutic control of anticoagulant treatment. BMJ. 1982;284:702–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Harries AD, Birtwell AJ, Jones DB. Anticoagulant control [letter]. Lancet. 1981;i:1320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McInnes GT. Efficacy of anticoagulation in the UK [letter]. Lancet. 1981;ii:88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pegg M, Bourne J, Mackay AD, Lawton WA, Cole RB. The role of the pharmacist in the anticoagulant clinic. J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1985;19:39–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stamp EJ, Jones SJ, Ryrie DR, Hedley AJ. Oral anticoagulants: a cost-effectiveness approach. J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1985;19:105–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Forfar JC. Prediction of hemorrhage during long-term oral coumarin anticoagulation by excessive prothrombin ratio. Am Heart J. 1982;103:445–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Landefeld CS, Flatley M, Weisberg M, Cook EF, Goldman L. Identification and preliminary validation of predictors of major bleeding in hospitalized patients starting anticoagulant therapy. Am J Med. 1987;82:703–13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Landefeld CS, Rosenblatt MW, Goldman L. Bleeding in outpatients treated with warfarin: relation to the prothrombin time and important remediable lesions. Am J Med. 1989;87:153–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Levine MN, Hirsh J, Landefeld S, Raskob G. Hemorrhagic complications of anticoagulant treatment. Chest. 1992;102(suppl):352S-363S.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fihn SD, McDonell M, Martin D, et al., for the Warfarin Optimized Outpatient Follow-up Study Group. Risk factors for complications of chronic anticoagulation. A multicenter study. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118:511–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Davis FB, Estruch MT, Samson-Corvera EB, Voight GC, Tobin JD. Management of anticoagulation in outpatients. Experience with an anticoagulation service in a municipal hospital setting. Arch Intern Med. 1977;137:197–202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Teinders TP, Steinke WE. Pharmacist management of anticoagulant therapy in ambulant patients. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1979;36:645–58.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Errichetti AM, Holden A, Ansell J. Management of oral anticoagulant therapy. Experience with an anticoagulation clinic. Arch Intern Med. 1984;144:1966–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Garabedian-Ruffalo SM, Gray DR, Sax MJ, Ruffalo RL. Retrospective evaluation of a pharmacist managed warfarin anticoagulation clinic. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1985;42:304–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cohen IA, Hutchinson TA, Kirking DM, Shue ME. Evaluation of a pharmacist-managed anticoagulation clinic. J Clin Hosp Pharm. 1985;10:167–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hoffer EP, Marble KD, Yurchak PM, Barnett GO. A computer-based information system for managing patients on long-term oral anticoagulants. Comput Biomed Res. 1975;8:573–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wiegman H, Vossepoel AM. A computer program for long-term anticoagulation control. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 1977;7:71–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sawyer WT, Finn A. Digital computer-assisted warfarin therapy: comparison of two models. Comput Biomed Res. 1979;12:221–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    O’Leary TJ, Abbrecht OH. Predicting oral anticoagulant response using a pharmacodynamic model. Ann Biomed Eng. 1981;9:199- 216.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wilson R, James AH. Computer-assisted management of warfarin treatment. BMJ. 1984;289:422–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Landefeld CS, Anderson PA. Guideline-based consultation to prevent anticoagulant-related bleeding. A randomized controlled trial in a teaching hospital. Ann Intern Med. 1992;116:829–37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    White RH, McCurdy SA, von Marensdorff H, Woodruff DE Jr, Leftgoff L. Home prothrombin time monitoring after the initiation of warfarin therapy. A randomized, prospective study. Ann Intern Med. 1989;111:730–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gottlieb LK, Salem-Schatz S. Anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation: does efficacy in clinical trials translate into effectiveness in practice? [abstract]. Clin Res. 1992;40:582A.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kent DL, Vermes D, McDonell M, Henikoff J, Fihn SD, and the Warfarin Optimal Outpatient Follow-up Study Group. A model for planning optimal follow-up for outpatients on warfarin anticoagulation. Med Decis Making. 1992;12:132–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hirsh J, Poller L, Deykin D, Levine M, Dalen J. Optimal therapeutic range for oral anticoagulants. Second ACCP-NHLBI Conference on Antithrombotic Therapy. Chest. 1989;95(suppl):5S-11S.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Karatzas I, Shreve LE. Brownian Motion and Stochastic Calculus. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1988.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Edgington ES. Randomization Tests, 2nd Ed. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1987.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Noreen EW. Computer Methods of Hypothesis Testing: An Introduction. New York: John Wiley, 1989.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wennberg J, Gittlesohn A. Variations in medical care among small areas. Sci Am. 1982;246:120–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Chasin MR, Kosecoff J, Park RE, et al. Does inappropriate use explain geographic variations in the use of health care services? A study of three procedures. JAMA. 1987;258:2533–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kent DL, Schachter RD, Sox HC, et al. Efficient scheduling of cystoscopies in monitoring for recurrent bladder cancer. Med Decis Making. 1989;9:26–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kent DL, Nease RA, Sox HC, Shortliffe LD, Schachter RD, and the Bladder Cancer Follow-up Group. Evaluation of nonlinear optimization for scheduling of follow-up cystoscopy to detect recurrent bladder cancer. Med Decis Making. 1991;11:240–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephan D. Fihn
    • 1
  • Mary B. McDonell
  • Domokos Vermes
  • Jorja G. Henikoff
  • Donald C. Martin
  • Catherine M. Callahan
  • Daniel L. Kent
  • Richard H. White
  • the National Consortium of Anticoagulation Clinics
  1. 1.Section of General Internal MedicineSeattle VA Medical Center (HIM)Seattle

Personalised recommendations