Zillich Alan J, Ackermann Ronald T, Stump Timothy E, Ambuehl Roberta J, Downs Steven M, Holmes Ann M, Katz Barry, Inui Thomas S
School of Pharmacy, Purdue University, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
J Eval Clin Pract. 2008 Oct;14(5):854-60. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2008.01035.x.
RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Evidence suggests that educational outreach ('academic detailing') improves evidence-based prescribing. We evaluated the impact of an academic detailing programme intended to increase new statin prescriptions.
In a 2 x 2 factorial design we evaluated the effect of an academic detailing programme with/without telephonic care management for patients. Eligible patients were continuously enrolled Medicaid members at high risk for cardiovascular disease utilization who were not receiving statin medication in the 18 months prior to the intervention. All primary care prescribers assigned to these patients were randomized by clinic to academic detailing. Two trained nurses provided the detailing to prescribers, including specific discussion about the use of statins in this high-risk patient population. Nurses left the prescribers with a summary of clinical practice guidelines, a one-page detailing sheet and a list of patients under the care of the prescriber who were candidates for statins. The primary outcome was the incidence of a new statin prescription claim during the 6-month intervention period and the subsequent 6 months. Logistic regression models were used to estimate main effects of the interventions and to adjust for potential confounding variables in the study.
Forty-eight clinics were randomized, effectively randomizing a total of 284 patients and 128 prescribers. Among the 284 patients, 46 (16%) received a new statin claim during the evaluation period. Controlling for significant bivariate associations, the academic detailing intervention had no significant effect on new statin prescriptions compared with the control group (odds ratio = 0.8, 95% confidence interval: 0.4-1.6, P = 0.5).
Among this Medicaid population at high risk for cardiovascular events, an academic detailing programme to increase statin prescriptions was not effective. To assist others to learn from our failed effort, we identify and discuss critical elements in the design and implementation of the programme that could account for these results.
原理、目的和目标:有证据表明,教育推广(“学术性药物推广”)可改善循证处方。我们评估了一项旨在增加他汀类药物新处方量的学术性药物推广计划的影响。
采用2×2析因设计,我们评估了一项针对患者有无电话护理管理的学术性药物推广计划的效果。符合条件的患者是心血管疾病利用风险高的持续参保医疗补助计划成员,他们在干预前18个月未接受他汀类药物治疗。所有分配给这些患者的初级保健开方者按诊所随机分组接受学术性药物推广。两名经过培训的护士向开方者进行药物推广,包括针对该高危患者群体使用他汀类药物的具体讨论。护士给开方者留下临床实践指南摘要、一页的药物推广单页以及开方者所护理的他汀类药物适用患者名单。主要结局是6个月干预期及随后6个月内新的他汀类药物处方申请的发生率。使用逻辑回归模型估计干预的主要效果,并对研究中的潜在混杂变量进行调整。
48个诊所被随机分组,总共有效随机分配了284名患者和128名开方者。在这284名患者中,46名(16%)在评估期内收到了新的他汀类药物处方申请。在控制显著的双变量关联后,与对照组相比,学术性药物推广干预对新的他汀类药物处方没有显著影响(比值比 = 0.8,95%置信区间:0.4 - 1.6,P = 0.5)。
在这个心血管事件高危的医疗补助人群中,一项旨在增加他汀类药物处方的学术性药物推广计划无效。为帮助其他人从我们的失败努力中吸取教训,我们识别并讨论了该计划设计和实施中可能导致这些结果的关键因素。