SUPPORT-AF II: Supporting Use of Anticoagulants Through Provider Profiling of Oral Anticoagulant Therapy for Atrial Fibrillation: A Cluster-Randomized Study of Electronic Profiling and Messaging Combined With Academic Detailing for Providers Making Decisions About Anticoagulation in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Previous provider-directed electronic messaging interventions have not by themselves improved anticoagulation use in patients with atrial fibrillation. Direct engagement with providers using academic detailing coupled with electronic messaging may overcome the limitations of the prior interventions. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomized outpatient providers affiliated with our health system in a 2.5:1 ratio to our electronic profiling/messaging combined with academic detailing intervention. In the intervention, we emailed providers monthly reports of their anticoagulation percentage relative to peers for atrial fibrillation patients with elevated stroke risk (CHA2DS2-VASc ≥2). We also sent electronic medical record-based messages shortly before an appointment with an anticoagulation-eligible but untreated atrial fibrillation patient. Providers had the option to send responses with explanations for prescribing decisions. We also offered to meet with intervention providers using an academic detailing approach developed based on knowledge gaps discussed in provider focus groups. To assess feasibility, we tracked provider review of our messages. To assess effectiveness, we measured the change in anticoagulation for patients of intervention providers relative to controls. We identified 85 intervention and 34 control providers taking care of 3591 and 1908 patients, respectively; 33 intervention providers participated in academic detailing. More than 80% of intervention providers read our emails, and 98% of the time a provider reviewed our in-basket messages. Replies to messages identified patient refusal as the most common reason for patients not being on anticoagulation (11.2%). For the group of patients not on anticoagulation at baseline assigned to an intervention versus control provider, the adjusted percent increase in the use of anticoagulation over 6 months was 5.2% versus 7.4%, respectively (P=0.21). CONCLUSIONS: Our electronic messaging and academic detailing intervention was feasible but did not increase anticoagulation use. Patient-directed interventions or provider interventions targeting patients declining anticoagulation may be necessary to raise the rate of anticoagulation. Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03583008.

Reducing Hospitalizations and Emergency Department Visits in Patients With Venous Thromboembolism Using a Multicomponent Care Transition Intervention.

Preventing utilization of hospital and emergency department after diagnosis of venous thromboembolism is a complex problem. The objective of this study is to assess the impact of a care transition intervention on hospitalizations and emergency department visits after venous thromboembolism. We randomized adults diagnosed with a new episode of venous thromboembolism to usual care or a multicomponent intervention that included a home pharmacist visit in the week after randomization (typically occurring at time of discharge), illustrated medication instructions distributed during home visit, and a follow-up phone call with an anticoagulation expert scheduled for 8 to 30 days from time of randomization. Through physician chart review of the 90 days following randomization, we measured the incidence rate of hospital and emergency department visits for each group and their ratio. We also determined which visits were related to recurrent venous thromboembolism, bleeding, or anticoagulation and which where preventable. We enrolled 77 intervention and 85 control patients. The incidence rate was 4.50 versus 6.01 visits per 1000 patient days in the intervention versus control group (incidence rate ratio = 0.71; 95% confidence interval = 0.40-1.27). Most visits in the control group were not related to venous thromboembolism or bleeding (21%) and of those that were, most were not preventable (25%). The adjusted incidence rate ratio for the intervention was 1.05 (95% confidence interval = 0.57-1.91). Our patients had a significant number of hospital and emergency department visits after diagnosis. Most visits were not related to recurrent venous thromboembolism or bleeding and of those that were, most were not preventable. Our multicomponent intervention did not decrease hospitalizations and emergency department visits.

SUPPORT-AF: Piloting a Multi-Faceted, Electronic Medical Record-Based Intervention to Improve Prescription of Anticoagulation.

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.