Improving rates of herpes zoster vaccination with a clinical decision support system in a primary care practice.

RATIONALE: Herpes zoster (shingles) is a localized neurocutaneous eruption of blisters caused by reactivation of the varicella zoster virus. The cost of care for herpes zoster and its complications is estimated at $1.1 billion. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends a one-time dose of the vaccine for adults aged 60 years or older. Despite that recommendation, utilization of the vaccine is very low. One way to boost the delivery of preventive services such as vaccinations is with a computerized clinical decision support system. Our study found that the herpes zoster vaccination rate increased significantly after the implementation of such a system. AIMS: To study utilization of herpes zoster vaccine before and after the implementation of a web-based clinical decision support software solution in a primary care practice. METHODS: Billing data was utilized to determine number of herpes zoster vaccination administered to patients for a 12-month period during the implementation of the software solution. RESULTS: The utilization of vaccinations improved from 63 to 117 (53.8% increase) for one primary care practice and from 54 to 127 (42.5% increase) in the other primary care practice. CONCLUSION: Herpes zoster vaccination rate significantly improved with implementation of a web-based clinical decision support system.

Use of a clinical decision support system to increase osteoporosis screening.

BACKGROUND: In 2002, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended routine osteoporosis screening for women aged 65 years or older. However, studies have indicated that osteoporosis remains underdiagnosed, and various methods such as the use of health information technology have been tried to increase screening rates. We investigated whether we could boost the low rates of bone mineral density testing with implementation of a point-of-care clinical decision support system in our primary care practice. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of female patients eligible for osteoporosis screening who had no prior bone mineral density test who were seen at our primary care practice sites in 2007 or 2008 (before and after implementation of a point-of-care clinical decision support system). RESULTS: Overall, screening rates were 80.1% in 2007 and 84.1% in 2008 (P < 0.001). Of patients who did not have osteoporosis screening before the visit, 5.87% completed the screening after the visit in 2007, compared with 9.79% in 2008 (when the clinical support system was implemented), a 66.7% improvement (P = 0.025). CONCLUSION: Clinical decision support for primary care doctors significantly improved osteoporosis screening rates among eligible women. Carefully designed clinical decision support systems can optimize care delivery, ensuring that important preventive services such as osteoporosis screening for patients at risk for fracture are performed while unnecessary testing is avoided.

Portion control for the treatment of obesity in the primary care setting.

BACKGROUND: The increasing prevalence of obesity is a significant health threat and a major public health challenge. A critical need exists to develop and evaluate practical methods for the treatment of obesity in the clinical setting. One of the factors contributing to the obesity epidemic is food portion sizes. Limited data are available on the efficacy of visual or tactile devices designed to enhance patient understanding and control of portion sizes. A portion control plate is a commercially-available product that can provide visual cues of portion size and potentially contribute to weight loss by enhancing portion size control among obese patients. This tool holds promise as a useful adjunct to dietary counseling. Our objective was to evaluate a portion control intervention including dietary counseling and a portion control plate to facilitate weight loss among obese patients in a primary care practice. FINDINGS: We randomized 65 obese patients [body mass index (BMI) ≥ 30 and < 40] to an intervention including counseling by a dietitian incorporating a portion control plate or to usual care. Following initial consultation, patients in the intervention arm were contacted at 1, 3, and 5 months by the dietician for brief follow-up counseling. Usual care subjects received instructional handouts on diet and exercise. Forty-two (65%) subjects returned to have weight assessed at 6 months. Subjects in the portion control intervention had a greater percentage change (± SD) in weight from baseline at 3 months (-2.4% ± 3.7% vs. -0.5% ± 2.2%; p = 0.041) and a non significant trend in weight change from baseline at 6 months (-2.1% ± 3.8% vs. -0.7% ± 3.7%; p = 0.232) compared with usual care. Nearly one-half of patients assigned to the portion control intervention who completed the study reported the overall intervention was helpful and the majority would recommend it to others. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that a portion control intervention incorporating dietary counseling and a portion control plate may be effective for enhancing weight loss among obese subjects. A portion control intervention deserves further evaluation as a weight control strategy in the primary care setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current controlled trials NCT01451554.

Use of a decision aid to improve treatment decisions in osteoporosis: the osteoporosis choice randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: Poor adherence to therapy, perhaps related to unaddressed patient preferences, limits the effectiveness of osteoporosis treatment in at-risk women. A parallel patient-level randomized trial in primary care practices was performed. METHODS: Eligible postmenopausal women with bone mineral density T-scores less than -1.0 and not receiving bisphosphonate therapy were included. In addition to usual primary care, intervention patients received a decision aid (a tailored pictographic 10-year fracture risk estimate, absolute risk reduction with bisphosphonates, side effects, and out-of-pocket cost), and control patients received a standard brochure. Knowledge transfer, patient involvement in decision-making, and rates of bisphosphonate start and adherence were studied. Data came from medical records, post-visit written and 6-month phone surveys, video recordings of clinical encounters, and pharmacy prescription profiles. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients (range of 10-year fracture risk, 6%-60%) were allocated randomly to receive the decision aid (n=52) or usual care (n=48). Patients receiving the decision aid were 1.8 times more likely to correctly identify their 10-year fracture risk (49% vs 28%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-3.2) and 2.7 times more likely to identify their estimated risk reduction with bisphosphonates (43% vs 16%; 95% CI, 1.3-5.7). Patient involvement improved with the decision aid by 23% (95% CI, 13.6-31.4). Bisphosphonates were started by 44% of patients receiving the decision aid and 40% of patients receiving usual care. Adherence at 6 months was similarly high across both groups, but the proportion with more than 80% adherence was higher with the decision aid (n=23 [100%] vs n=14 [74%]; P = .009). CONCLUSION: A decision aid improved the quality of clinical decisions about bisphosphonate therapy in at-risk postmenopausal women, did not affect start rates, and may have improved adherence.

Predictors of osteoporosis screening completion rates in a primary care practice.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force and the National Osteoporosis Foundation recommend routine osteoporosis screening for women aged 65 years or older. Previous studies have shown that the use of a clinical decision-support tool significantly improves screening rates. In a recently published study, a statistically significant improvement was found in the screening rates for eligible women with use of the tool. To evaluate whether a clinical decision-support tool independently predicts completion of osteoporosis screening tests and to identify predictors of screening completion, we examined the records of 2462 female patients who were eligible for osteoporosis screening but had no prior baseline screening and who were seen in our primary care practices in 2007 and 2008. Patient and provider characteristics and clinic visit type were identified, and their association with screening test completion was statistically analyzed using both univariate and multivariate models. Screening completion rates increased significantly from 2007 to 2008. Factors associated with increased likelihood of screening completion included race, marital status, residence, presence of comorbidity (cancer, rheumatologic disease), and the year and type of visit. Screening was less likely for women aged 80 years or older. The use of a point-of-care decision-support tool not only improved osteoporosis screening rates significantly but appeared to be an independent predictor of screening completion. It potentially can facilitate the systematic and effective delivery of preventive health services to patients in the primary care setting.

Population informatics-based system to improve osteoporosis screening in women in a primary care practice.

OBJECTIVE: To study the effects of using a population-based informatics system for osteoporosis screening and treatment in women aged 65 years or older. DESIGN: A population-based informatics system (PRECARES: PREventive CAre REminder System) was implemented to meet the needs of the workflow of a primary care practice. Patients treated in either of two sections of a primary care internal medicine department were selected for the intervention, and patients of a comparable third section served as the control group. PRECARES identified women in the intervention group who were due for osteoporosis screening on the basis of age and who had no record of previous screening in our clinical system. If these eligible patients did not have an upcoming outpatient appointment, appointment secretaries sent a letter requesting that they call to make an appointment for a dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scan. MEASUREMENTS: At baseline and 3 months after the letters were sent, a database was used to determine the rate of osteoporosis screening in the intervention and control groups. RESULTS: A total of 689 patients in the intervention group were sent the letter. Three months after the letters were sent, the rate of osteoporosis screening was 76.4% (2409/3152) in the intervention group vs 69% (928/1344) in the control group (p<0.001). In the intervention group, 25% of the 689 patients responded to the letter and completed osteoporosis screening. Patients who had osteoporosis screening received appropriate treatment. CONCLUSION: A population-based informatics system for primary care practice significantly improved the rate of osteoporosis screening.

Protocol for the Osteoporosis Choice trial. A pilot randomized trial of a decision aid in primary care practice.

BACKGROUND: Bisphosphonates can reduce fracture risk in patients with osteoporosis, but many at-risk patients do not start or adhere to these medications. The aims of this study are to: (1) preliminarily evaluate the effect of an individualized 10-year osteoporotic fracture risk calculator and decision aid (OSTEOPOROSIS CHOICE) for postmenopausal women at risk for osteoporotic fractures; and (2) assess the feasibility and validity (i.e., absence of contamination) of patient-level randomization (vs. cluster randomization) in pilot trials of decision aid efficacy. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a protocol for a parallel, 2-arm, randomized trial to compare an intervention group receiving OSTEOPOROSIS CHOICE to a control group receiving usual primary care. Postmenopausal women with bone mineral density T-scores of <-1.0, not receiving bisphosphonate therapy, and receiving care at participating primary care practices in and around Rochester, Minnesota, USA will be eligible to participate in the trial. We will measure the effect of OSTEOPOROSIS CHOICE on five outcomes: (a) patient knowledge regarding osteoporosis risk factors and treatment; (b) quality of the decision-making process for both the patient and clinician; (c) patient and clinician acceptability and satisfaction with the decision aid; (d) rate of bisphosphonate use and adherence, and (e) trial processes (e.g., ability to recruit participants, collect patient outcomes). To capture these outcomes, we will use patient and clinician surveys following each visit and video recordings of the clinical encounters. These video recordings will also allow us to determine the extent to which clinicians previously exposed to the decision aid were able to recreate elements of the decision aid with control patients (i.e., contamination). Pharmacy prescription profiles and follow-up phone interviews will assess medication start and adherence at 6 months. DISCUSSION: This pilot trial will provide evidence of feasibility, validity of patient randomization, and preliminary efficacy of a novel approach--decision aids--to improving medication adherence for postmenopausal women at risk of osteoporotic fractures. The results will inform the design of a larger trial that could provide more precise estimates of the efficacy of the decision aid. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT00578981.