Among CVRM patients , the results tended towards a beneficial effect of CDSS , but only LDL-c target attainment in diabetes patients reached statistical significance .
Prompting , integration into the electronical health record , patient empowerment , and medication support were related to more effective CVRM .
Conclusion We did not find a clear clinical benefit from CDSS in cardiovascular risk factor levels and target attainment .
Some features of CDSS seem more promising than others .
Clinical relevance of CDSS in CVRM might additionally be sought in the improvement of shared decision making and patient empowerment
Background Cardiovascular risk management ( CVRM ) is notoriously difficult because of multi-morbidity and the different phenotypes and severities of cardiovascular disease .
Computerized decision support systems ( CDSS ) enable the clinician to integrate the latest scientific evidence and patient information into tailored strategies .
The effect on cardiovascular risk factor management is yet to be confirmed .
An endocrinologist-supported intervention aimed at providers improves diabetes management in a primary care site: improving primary care of African Americans with diabetes (IPCAAD) 7.
OBJECTIVE Management of diabetes is frequently suboptimal in primary care setting s , where providers often fail to intensify therapy when glucose levels are high , a problem known as clinical inertia . We asked whether interventions targeting clinical inertia can improve outcomes . RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS A controlled trial over a 3-year period was conducted in a municipal hospital primary care clinic in a large academic medical center . We studied all patients ( 4,138 ) with type 2 diabetes who were seen in continuity clinics by 345 internal medicine residents and were r and omized to be control subjects or to receive one of three interventions . Instead of consultative advice , the interventions were hard copy computerized reminders that provided patient-specific recommendations for management at the time of each patient 's visit , individual face-to-face feedback on performance for 5 min every 2 weeks , or both . RESULTS Over an average patient follow-up of 15 months within the intervention site , improvements in and final HbA1c ( A1C ) with feedback + reminders ( deltaA1C 0.6 % , final A1C 7.46 % ) were significantly better than control ( deltaA1C 0.2 % , final A1C 7.84 % , P < 0.02 ) ; changes were smaller with feedback only and reminders only ( P = NS vs. control ) . Trends were similar but not significant with systolic blood pressure ( sBP ) and LDL cholesterol . Multivariable analysis showed that the feedback intervention independently facilitated attainment of American Diabetes Association goals for both A1C and sBP . Over a 2-year period , overall glycemic control improved in the intervention site but did not change in other primary care sites ( final A1C 7.5 vs. 8.2 % , P < 0.001 ) . CONCLUSIONS Feedback on performance aim ed at overcoming clinical inertia and given to internal medicine resident primary care providers improves glycemic control . Partnering generalists with diabetes specialists may be important to enhance diabetes management in other primary care setting
Among CVRM patients , the results tended towards a beneficial effect of CDSS , but only LDL-c target attainment in diabetes patients reached statistical significance .
Prompting , integration into the electronical health record , patient empowerment , and medication support were related to more effective CVRM .
Conclusion We did not find a clear clinical benefit from CDSS in cardiovascular risk factor levels and target attainment .
Some features of CDSS seem more promising than others .
Clinical relevance of CDSS in CVRM might additionally be sought in the improvement of shared decision making and patient empowerment
Background Cardiovascular risk management ( CVRM ) is notoriously difficult because of multi-morbidity and the different phenotypes and severities of cardiovascular disease .
Computerized decision support systems ( CDSS ) enable the clinician to integrate the latest scientific evidence and patient information into tailored strategies .
The effect on cardiovascular risk factor management is yet to be confirmed .