Department of Neuroscience, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Scientific Direction, Foundation IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy; Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Clinical Pharmacology Unit, ASST Fatebenefratelli-Sacco University Hospital, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Am J Med. 2019 Aug;132(8):e634-e647. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2019.03.052. Epub 2019 May 8.
This study was intended to determine whether a simulation-based education addressed to physicians was able to increase the proportion of hospitalized elderly with atrial fibrillation prescribed with oral anticoagulants (OACs) compared with the usual practice.
We conducted a cluster randomized trial (from April 2015 to September 2018) on 32 Italian internal medicine and geriatric wards randomized 1:1 to intervention or control arms. The physicians of wards randomized to intervention received a computer-based e-learning tool with clinical scenarios (Dr Sim), and those of wards randomized to control received no formal educational intervention. The primary outcome was the OAC prescription rate at hospital discharge in the intervention and control arms.
Of 452 patients scrutinized, 247 were included in the analysis. Of them, 186 (75.3%) were prescribed with OACs at hospital discharge. No difference was found between the intervention and control arms in the post-intervention phase (odds ratio, 1.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81-2.64). The differences from the pre- to post-intervention phases in the proportions of patients prescribed with OACs (15.1%; 95% CI, 0%-31.5%) and with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) (20%; 95% CI, 0%-39.8%) increased more in the intervention than in the control arm.
This simulation-based course did not succeed in increasing the rate of elderly patients prescribed with OACs at hospital discharge compared with the usual practice. Notwithstanding, over time there was a greater increase in the intervention than in the control arm in the proportion of patients prescribed with OACs and DOACs.
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03188211.
本研究旨在确定基于模拟的医师教育是否能够增加住院老年房颤患者口服抗凝剂(OAC)的处方比例,与常规治疗相比。
我们进行了一项集群随机试验(2015 年 4 月至 2018 年 9 月),涉及 32 家意大利内科和老年病房,1:1 随机分为干预组和对照组。随机分配到干预组的医生接受了一个基于计算机的临床情景电子学习工具(Dr Sim),而随机分配到对照组的医生没有接受正式的教育干预。主要结局是干预组和对照组患者出院时 OAC 的处方率。
在 452 名被审查的患者中,有 247 名被纳入分析。其中,186 名(75.3%)患者在出院时被处方 OAC。干预组和对照组在干预后阶段的差异无统计学意义(比值比,1.46;95%置信区间[CI],0.81-2.64)。与干预前相比,接受 OAC 治疗的患者比例(15.1%;95%CI,0%-31.5%)和直接口服抗凝剂(DOAC)治疗的患者比例(20%;95%CI,0%-39.8%)在干预组中增加更多。
与常规治疗相比,基于模拟的课程未能增加老年患者出院时 OAC 的处方率。然而,随着时间的推移,干预组比对照组 OAC 和 DOAC 处方患者的比例增加更多。
ClinicalTrials.gov 标识符:NCT03188211。