Key result
Computerized clinical decision support increased the proportion of atrial fibrillation patients receiving guideline-based oral anticoagulants (84.0% vs 77.1%; RR 1.08; 95% CI 1.01-1.15; P=0.024).
Why the study?
Despite guidelines supporting antithrombotic therapy use in AF, under-prescribing persists.
Does computerized clinical decision support improve guideline-based oral anticoagulant prescribing in primary care patients with atrial fibrillation?
RCT (n=1,145)
Cluster randomized
Yes
Does computerized clinical decision support improve guideline-based oral anticoagulant prescribing in primary care patients with atrial fibrillation?
Relative Risk: 1.08 (95% CI 1.01–1.15)
Absolute Event Rate: 84% vs 77.1%
p-value: p=0.024
Implementation of a computerized clinical decision support tool in primary care significantly increased the proportion of atrial fibrillation patients prescribed guideline-directed oral anticoagulation.
Supports implementation of computerized decision support to boost appropriate anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation; extends evidence for digital tools in guideline adherence.
BACKGROUND: Despite guidelines supporting antithrombotic therapy use in atrial fibrillation (AF), under-prescribing persists. We assessed whether computerized clinical decision support (CDS) would enable guideline-based antithrombotic therapy for AF patients in primary care. METHODS: This cluster randomized trial of CDS versus usual care (UC) recruited participants from primary care practices across Nova Scotia, following them for 12 months. The CDS tool calculated bleeding and stroke risk scores and provided recommendations for using oral anticoagulants (OAC) per Canadian guidelines. RESULTS: From June 14, 2014 to December 15, 2016, 203 primary care providers (99 UC, 104 CDS) with access to high-speed Internet were recruited, enrolling 1,145 eligible patients (543 UC, 590 CDS) assigned to the same treatment arm as their provider. Patient mean age was 72.3 years; most were male (350, 64.5% UC, 351, 59.5% CDS) and from a rural area (298, 54.9% UC, 315, 53.4% CDS). At baseline, a higher than anticipated proportion of patients were receiving guideline-based OAC therapy (373, 68.7% UC, 442, 74.9% CDS; relative risk [RR] 0.97 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-1.07; P = .511)). At 12 months, prescription data were available for 538 usual care and 570 CDS patients, and significantly more CDS patients were managed according to guidelines (415, 77.1% UC, 479, 84.0% CDS; RR 1.08 (95% CI, 1.01-1.15; P = .024)). CONCLUSION: Notwithstanding high baseline rates, primary care provider access to the CDS over 12 months further optimized the prescribing of OAC therapy per national guidelines to AF patients potentially eligible to receive it. This suggests that CDS can be effective in improving clinical process of care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials NCT01927367. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01927367?term=NCT01927367&draw=2&rank=1.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cox et al. (2024) conducted an RCT in Atrial fibrillation (n=1,145). Computerized clinical decision support (CDS) vs. Usual care was evaluated on Managed according to guidelines (prescription of oral anticoagulants) (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01-1.15, p=0.024). Computerized clinical decision support increased the proportion of atrial fibrillation patients receiving guideline-based oral anticoagulants (84.0% vs 77.1%; RR 1.08; 95% CI 1.01-1.15; P=0.024).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: