Lobach David F, Kawamoto Kensaku, Anstrom Kevin J, Silvey Garry M, Willis Janese M, Johnson Fred S, Edwards Rex, Simo Jessica, Phillips Pam, Crosslin David R, Eisenstein Eric L
Division of Clinical Informatics, Department of Community and Family Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
J Med Syst. 2013 Feb;37(1):9922. doi: 10.1007/s10916-012-9922-3. Epub 2013 Jan 13.
To determine whether a clinical decision support system can favorably impact the delivery of emergency department and hospital services. Randomized clinical trial of three clinical decision support delivery modalities: email messages to care managers (email), printed reports to clinic administrators (report) and letters to patients (letter) conducted among 20,180 Medicaid beneficiaries in Durham County, North Carolina with follow-up through 9 months. Patients in the email group had fewer low-severity emergency department encounters vs. controls (8.1 vs. 10.6/100 enrollees, p < 0.001) with no increase in outpatient encounters or medical costs. Patients in the letter group had more outpatient encounters and greater outpatient and total medical costs. There were no treatment-related differences for patients in the reports group. Among patients <18 years, those in the email group had fewer low severity (7.6 vs. 10.6/100 enrollees, p < 0.001) and total emergency department encounters (18.3 vs. 23.5/100 enrollees, p < 0.001), and lower emergency department ($63 vs. $89, p = 0.002) and total medical costs ($1,736 vs. $2,207, p = 0.009). Patients who were ≥18 years in the letter group had greater outpatient medical costs. There were no intervention-related differences in patient-reported assessments of quality of life and medical care received. The effectiveness of clinical decision support messaging depended upon the delivery modality and patient age. Health IT interventions must be carefully evaluated to ensure that the resultant outcomes are aligned with expectations as interventions can have differing effects on clinical and economic outcomes.
为确定临床决策支持系统是否能对急诊科和医院服务的提供产生积极影响。对三种临床决策支持传递方式进行随机临床试验:给护理经理发送电子邮件(电子邮件组)、给诊所管理人员打印报告(报告组)以及给患者写信(信件组),研究对象为北卡罗来纳州达勒姆县的20180名医疗补助受益患者,随访时间长达9个月。电子邮件组患者的低严重程度急诊科就诊次数少于对照组(每100名参保者分别为8.1次和10.6次,p<0.001),门诊就诊次数或医疗费用未增加。信件组患者的门诊就诊次数更多,门诊和总医疗费用更高。报告组患者在治疗方面无差异。在18岁以下的患者中,电子邮件组患者的低严重程度就诊次数(每100名参保者分别为7.6次和10.6次,p<0.001)和急诊科总就诊次数(每100名参保者分别为18.3次和23.5次,p<0.00)更少,急诊科费用(63美元对89美元,p = 0.)和总医疗费用(1736美元对2207美元,p = 0.009)更低。信件组中18岁及以上患者的门诊医疗费用更高。在患者报告的生活质量和所接受医疗护理的评估方面,未发现与干预措施相关的差异。临床决策支持信息传递的有效性取决于传递方式和患者年龄。必须仔细评估卫生信息技术干预措施,以确保最终结果符合预期,因为干预措施可能对临床和经济结果产生不同影响。