1 University of Massachusetts Memorial Health Care Worcester MA.
2 University of Massachusetts Medical School Worcester MA.
J Am Heart Assoc. 2018 Sep 4;7(17):e009946. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.118.009946.
Background Only 50% of eligible atrial fibrillation ( AF ) patients receive anticoagulation ( AC ). Feasibility and effectiveness of electronic medical record (EMR)-based interventions to profile and raise provider AC percentage is poorly understood. The SUPPORT-AF (Supporting Use of AC Through Provider Profiling of Oral AC Therapy for AF) study aims to improve rates of adherence to AC guidelines by developing and delivering supportive tools based on the EMR to providers treating patients with AF. Methods and Results We emailed cardiologists and community-based primary care providers affiliated with our institution reports of their AC percentage relative to peers. We also sent an electronic medical record-based message to these providers the day before an appointment with an atrial fibrillation patient who was eligible but not receiving AC . The electronic medical record message asked the provider to discuss AC with the patient if he or she deemed it appropriate. To assess feasibility, we tracked provider review of our correspondence. We also tracked the change in AC for intervention providers relative to alternate primary care providers not receiving our intervention. We identified 3786, 1054, and 566 patients cared for by 49 cardiology providers, 90 community-based primary care providers, and 88 control providers, respectively. At baseline, the percentage of AC was 71.3%, 63.5%, and 58.3% for these 3 respective groups. Intervention providers reviewed our e-mails and electronic medical record messages 45% and 96% of the time, respectively. For providers responding, patient refusal was the most common reason for patients not being on AC (21%) followed by high bleeding risk (19%). At follow-up 10 weeks later, change in AC was no different for either cardiology or community-based primary care providers relative to controls (0.2% lower and 0.01% higher, respectively). Conclusions Our intervention profiling AC was feasible, but not sufficient to increase AC in our population.
背景 仅有 50%的符合条件的心房颤动 (AF) 患者接受抗凝治疗 (AC)。基于电子病历 (EMR) 的干预措施来评估和提高提供者 AC 百分比的可行性和有效性尚未得到充分了解。SUPPORT-AF (通过为 AF 患者提供口服 AC 治疗的提供者进行 AC 概况分析来支持 AC 使用) 研究旨在通过为治疗 AF 患者的提供者开发和提供基于 EMR 的支持工具来提高 AC 指南的依从率。
方法和结果 我们向我们机构的心脏病专家和社区初级保健提供者发送了他们的 AC 百分比相对于同行的报告。我们还在有 AF 患者预约的前一天向这些提供者发送了基于电子病历的信息,这些患者符合条件但未接受 AC。电子病历信息要求提供者在认为合适的情况下与患者讨论 AC。为了评估可行性,我们跟踪了提供者对我们通信的审查情况。我们还跟踪了接受我们干预的干预提供者的 AC 变化相对于未接受我们干预的替代初级保健提供者的变化。我们分别确定了 3786 名、1054 名和 566 名接受 49 名心脏病专家提供者、90 名社区初级保健提供者和 88 名对照提供者护理的患者。在基线时,这 3 个组的 AC 百分比分别为 71.3%、63.5%和 58.3%。干预提供者分别有 45%和 96%的时间查看我们的电子邮件和电子病历信息。对于回复的提供者,患者拒绝是患者未接受 AC 的最常见原因 (21%),其次是高出血风险 (19%)。在 10 周后的随访中,与对照组相比,心脏病专家或社区初级保健提供者的 AC 变化没有差异 (分别低 0.2%和高 0.01%)。
结论 我们的 AC 概况分析干预是可行的,但不足以提高我们人群中的 AC。