There was mixed evidence that provider-level computerized decision support improves outcomes .
There was more evidence in support of patient-level tools that provide connectivity to the healthcare system , as well as system-level interventions that involve data base monitoring and outreach by central ized care teams .
R and omized controlled trials show wide variability in the effects of HIT on lipid management outcomes .
Evidence suggests that multilevel HIT approaches that target not only providers but include patients and systems approaches will be needed to improve lipid treatment , adherence and quality
BACKGROUND Large gaps in lipid treatment and medication adherence persist in high-risk out patients in the United States .
Health information technology ( HIT ) is being applied to close quality gaps in chronic illness care , but its utility for lipid management has not been widely studied .
OBJECTIVE To perform a qualitative review of the impact of HIT interventions on lipid management processes of care ( screening or testing ; drug initiation , titration or adherence ; or referrals ) or clinical outcomes ( percent at low density lipoprotein cholesterol goal ; absolute lipid levels ; absolute risk scores ; or cardiac hospitalizations ) in out patients with coronary heart disease or at increased risk .
Technology Evaluation: A Randomized Trial of Electronic Clinical Reminders to Improve Quality of Care for Diabetes and Coronary Artery Disease
OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of an integrated patient-specific electronic clinical reminder system on diabetes and coronary artery disease ( CAD ) care and to assess physician attitudes toward this reminder system . DESIGN We enrolled 194 primary care physicians caring for 4549 patients with diabetes and 2199 patients with CAD at 20 ambulatory clinics . Clinics were r and omized so that physicians received either evidence -based electronic reminders within their patients ' electronic medical record or usual care . There were five reminders for diabetes care and four reminders for CAD care . MEASUREMENTS The primary outcome was receipt of recommended care for diabetes and CAD . We created a summary outcome to assess the odds of increased compliance with overall diabetes care ( based on five measures ) and overall CAD care ( based on four measures ) . We surveyed physicians to assess attitudes toward the reminder system . RESULTS Baseline adherence rates to all quality measures were low . While electronic reminders increased the odds of recommended diabetes care ( odds ratio [ OR ] 1.30 , 95 % confidence interval [ CI ] 1.01 - 1.67 ) and CAD ( OR 1.25 , 95 % CI 1.01 - 1.55 ) , the impact of individual reminders was variable . A total of three of nine reminders effectively increased rates of recommended care for diabetes or CAD . The majority of physicians ( 76 % ) thought that reminders improved quality of care . CONCLUSION An integrated electronic reminder system result ed in variable improvement in care for diabetes and CAD . These improvements were often limited and quality gaps persist
There was mixed evidence that provider-level computerized decision support improves outcomes .
There was more evidence in support of patient-level tools that provide connectivity to the healthcare system , as well as system-level interventions that involve data base monitoring and outreach by central ized care teams .
R and omized controlled trials show wide variability in the effects of HIT on lipid management outcomes .
Evidence suggests that multilevel HIT approaches that target not only providers but include patients and systems approaches will be needed to improve lipid treatment , adherence and quality
BACKGROUND Large gaps in lipid treatment and medication adherence persist in high-risk out patients in the United States .
Health information technology ( HIT ) is being applied to close quality gaps in chronic illness care , but its utility for lipid management has not been widely studied .
OBJECTIVE To perform a qualitative review of the impact of HIT interventions on lipid management processes of care ( screening or testing ; drug initiation , titration or adherence ; or referrals ) or clinical outcomes ( percent at low density lipoprotein cholesterol goal ; absolute lipid levels ; absolute risk scores ; or cardiac hospitalizations ) in out patients with coronary heart disease or at increased risk .