Changing Clinical Practice Through Patient Specific Reminders Available at the Time of the Clinical Encounter: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- 362 Downloads
To synthesise current evidence for the influence on clinical behaviour of patient-specific electronically generated reminders available at the time of the clinical encounter.
PubMed, Cochrane library of systematic reviews; Science Citation Index Expanded; Social Sciences Citation Index; ASSIA; EMBASE; CINAHL; DARE; HMIC were searched for relevant articles.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS
We included controlled trials of reminder interventions if the intervention was: directed at clinician behaviour; available during the clinical encounter; computer generated (including computer generated paper-based reminders); and generated by patient-specific (rather than condition specific or drug specific) data.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS
Systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled trials published since 1970. A random effects model was used to derive a pooled odds ratio for adherence to recommended care or achievement of target outcome. Subgroups were examined based on area of care and study design. Odds ratios were derived for each sub-group. We examined the designs, settings and other features of reminders looking for factors associated with a consistent effect.
Altogether, 42 papers met the inclusion criteria. The studies were of variable quality and some were affected by unit of analysis errors due to a failure to account for clustering. An overall odds ratio of 1.79 [95% confidence interval 1.56, 2.05] in favour of reminders was derived. Heterogeneity was high and factors predicting effect size were difficult to identify.
Methodological diversity added to statistical heterogeneity as an obstacle to meta-analysis. The quality of included studies was variable and in some reports procedural details were lacking.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS
The analysis suggests a moderate effect of electronically generated, individually tailored reminders on clinician behaviour during the clinical encounter. Future research should concentrate on identifying the features of reminder interventions most likely to result in the target behaviour.
KEY WORDSreminder systems electronic health records computer systems decision support systems, clinical
We thank Dr Simon Gates for analytical advice and Samantha Johnson for assistance with database searching and retrieval of papers. We also thank the authors of studies for which clarification was required for providing useful information.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.
Funded through internal sources. No external funding.
- 12.Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org (last accessed 24.1.12).
- 19.Dexter PR, Wolinsky FD, Gramelspacher GP, Zhou XH, Eckert GJ, Waisburd M, et al. Effectiveness of computer-generated reminders for increasing discussions about advance directives and completion of advance directive forms. A randomized, controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 1998;128(2):102–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Filippi A, Sabatini A, Badioli L, Samani F, Mazzaglia G, Catapano A, et al. Effects of an automated electronic reminder in changing the antiplatelet drug-prescribing behavior among Italian general practitioners in diabetic patients: an intervention trial. Diabetes Care. 2003;26(5):1497–500.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Krall MA, Traunweiser K, Towery W. Effectiveness of an electronic medical record clinical quality alert prepared by off-line data analysis. Medinfo. 2004;11(Pt 1):135–9.Google Scholar
- 33.McDonald CJ. Use of a computer to detect and respond to clinical events: Its effect on clinical behavior. Ann Intern Med. 1976;84:162–7.Google Scholar
- 52.Tierney W, Overhage J, Murray M, Harris L, Zhou X, Eckert G, et al. Can computer-generated evidence-based care suggestions enhance evidence-based management of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease? A randomized, controlled trial. Health Serv Res. 2005;40(2):477–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 53.van Wyk MA, van der Lei J, Mosseveld M, Bohnen AM, van Bemmel JH. Assessment of decision support for blood test ordering in primary care. A randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134(4):274–81.Google Scholar
- 56.Gandhi TJ, Sequist TD, Poon EG, et al. Primary care clinicians’ attitudes towards electronic clinical reminders and clinical practice guidelines. Proceedings of the AMIA Symposium 2003:848.Google Scholar
- 57.Krall MA, Sittig DF. Subjective assessment of usefulness and appropriate presentation mode of alerts and reminders in the outpatient setting. Proceedings of the AMIA Symposium 2001:334–338.Google Scholar
- 61.Krall MA, Sittig DF. Clinicians’ assessments of outpatient electronic medical record alert and reminder usability and usefulness requirements. Proceedings of the AMIA Symposium 2002:400–404.Google Scholar
- 62.Agrawal A, Mayo-Smith MF. Adherence to computerized clinical reminders in a large healthcare delivery network. Medinfo. 2004;11(1):111–114.Google Scholar