Key result
EMR flag alerts linked to an absolute ~29% increase in patients meeting LDL goals.
Why the study?
This study evaluated the long-term effect of electronic medical record flag alerts on adherence to NCEP guidelines for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease, lipid-lowering drug prescribing, and barriers to reaching LDL goals.
Does inserting flag alerts into electronic medical records improve the proportion of patients reaching low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) goals in adult patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease warranting secondary prevention of coronary heart disease?
Observational (n=89)
No
Does inserting flag alerts into electronic medical records improve the proportion of patients reaching low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) goals in adult patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease warranting secondary prevention of coronary heart disease?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Electronic medical record flag alerts significantly increased lipid-lowering therapy prescriptions and LDL goal attainment over 5.6 years in patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease, though nearly half still failed to reach target levels primarily due to inadequate dose titration.
Study Objectives. To assess the effect of flag alerts that were placed in electronic medical records on patients' adherence with National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) guidelines for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. A secondary objective was to identify the proportion of patients who were prescribed lipid‐lowering agents and assess the barriers of patients who did not reach low‐density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) goals 5.6 years after the intervention. Design. Retrospective analysis of a prospective medical record intervention. Setting. University‐based primary care clinic. Patients. Eighty‐nine adult patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease. Intervention. For each patient identified as needing secondary prevention for coronary heart disease according to NCEP guidelines, flags were inserted into the patient's electronic medical record. Measurements and Main Results. Baseline patient data were collected. After 5.6 years, we performed a retrospective analysis. At that time, 72 patients were evaluated; 17 were lost to follow‐up. Fifty‐four percent of patients (39 of 72 patients) had reached their LDL goal compared with 25% (16 of 64 patients for whom complete lipid panels had been obtained) at baseline (p=0.001). The proportion of patients prescribed lipid‐lowering agents rose from 16% at baseline to 75% at follow‐up (p=0.0001). However, 33 patients (46%) were above their LDL goal levels at follow‐up. Reasons for failure to reach LDL goal were as follows: drug dosage not titrated (10 patients [30%]), adverse drug reaction (four patients [12%]), planned to adjust therapy in the future (three patients [9%]), high drug cost (two patients [6%]), drug contraindicated (two patients [6%]), and non‐compliance (one patient [3%]). In 11 patients (33%), the reason for failure was not addressed in the progress notes. Thus, inadequate drug dosage titration (dosage not titrated, planned to adjust therapy, and reason not addressed [assume no action]) occurred in more than 70% of these patients. Conclusions. These findings emphasize the need for regular evaluation of patients' lipid panels followed by appropriate therapy titration to reach LDL goals. Further study of factors influencing cholesterol management and methods to improve adherence is needed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Whitley et al. (2006) conducted an observational in Atherosclerotic vascular disease warranting secondary prevention of coronary heart disease (n=89). Electronic medical record flag alerts vs. Baseline (pre-intervention) was evaluated on Reaching NCEP low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) goal (p=0.001). Electronic medical record flag alerts increased the proportion of patients reaching NCEP LDL goals from 25% at baseline to 54% at 5.6 years (p=0.001).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: