Personalised physician learning intervention to improve hypertension and lipid control: randomised trial comparing two methods of physician profiling.

PURPOSE: To assess the impact of personalised physician learning (PPL) interventions using simulated learning cases on control of hypertension and dyslipidaemia in primary care settings. METHODS: A total of 132 primary care physicians, 4568 eligible patients with uncontrolled hypertension, and 15 392 eligible patients with uncontrolled dyslipidaemia were cluster-randomised to one of three conditions: (a) no intervention, (b) PPL-electronic medical record (EMR) intervention in which 12 PPL cases were assigned to each physician based on observed patterns of care in the EMR in the previous year, or (c) PPL-ASSESS intervention in which 12 PPL cases were assigned to each physician based on their performance on four standardised assessment cases. General and generalised linear mixed models were used to account for clustering and to model differences in patient outcomes in the study arms. RESULTS: Among patients with uncontrolled hypertension at baseline, 49.1%, 46.6% and 47.3% (p=0.43) achieved blood pressure (BP) targets at follow-up. Among patients with uncontrolled dyslipidaemia at baseline, 37.5%, 37.3% and 38.1% (p=0.72) achieved low density lipoprotein cholesterol targets at follow-up in PPL-EMR, PPL-ASSESS and the control group, respectively. Although systolic (BP) (p<0.001) and lipid (p<0.001) values significantly improved during the study, the group-by-time interaction term showed no differential change in systolic BP values (p=0.51) or lipid values (p=0.61) among the three study arms. No difference in intervention effect was noted when comparing the PPL-EMR with the PPL-ASSESS intervention (p=0.47). CONCLUSIONS: The two PPL interventions tested in this study did not lead to improved control of hypertension or dyslipidaemia in primary care clinics during a mean 14-month follow-up period. This null result may have been due in part to substantial overall improvement in BP and lipid control at the study sites during the study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00903071.

Guideline concordance of testing for hyperkalemia and kidney dysfunction during initiation of mineralocorticoid receptor antagonist therapy in patients with heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRA) reduce morbidity and mortality in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction but can cause hyperkalemia and acute kidney injury. Guidelines recommend measurement of serum potassium (K) and creatinine (Cr) before and serially after MRA initiation, but the extent to which this occurs is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using electronic data from 3 health systems 2005 to 2008, we performed a retrospective review of laboratory monitoring among 490 patients hospitalized for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction who were subsequently initiated on MRA therapy. Median age at time of MRA initiation was 73 years, and 37.1% were women. Spironolactone accounted for 99.4% of MRA use. Initial ambulatory MRA dispensing occurred at hospital discharge in 70.0% of cases. In the 30 days before MRA initiation, 94.3% of patients had a K or Cr measurement. Preinitiation K was >5.0 mmol/L in 1.4% and Cr>2.5 mg/dL in 1.7%. In the 7 days after MRA initiation among patients who remained alive and out of the hospital, 46.5% had no evidence of K measurement; by 30 days, 13.6% remained untested. Patient factors explained a small portion of postinitiation K testing (c-statistic, 0.67). CONCLUSIONS: Although laboratory monitoring before MRA initiation for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction is common, laboratory monitoring after MRA initiation frequently does not meet guideline recommendations, even in patients at higher risk for complications. Quality improvement efforts that encourage the use of MRA should also include mechanisms to address recommended monitoring.

Natural history of left ventricular ejection fraction in patients with heart failure.

BACKGROUND: Patients with heart failure (HF) are typically designated as having reduced or preserved ejection fraction (HFREF, HFPEF) because of the importance of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) on therapeutic decisions and prognosis. Such designations are not necessarily static, yet few data exist to describe the natural history of LVEF over time. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified 2413 patients from Kaiser Permanente Colorado with a primary discharge diagnosis of HF between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2008, who had ≥2 LVEF measurements separated by ≥30 days. We used multi-state Markov modeling to examine transitions among HFREF, HFPEF, and death. We observed a total of 8183 transitions. Women were more likely than men to transition from HFREF to HFPEF (hazard ratio, 1.85; 95% confidence interval, 1.38-2.47). Patients who were adherent to ß-blockers were more likely to transition from HFREF to HFPEF (hazard ratio, 1.53; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-2.13) compared with patients who were nonadherent to ß-blockers, whereas angiotensin-converting enzyme or angiotensin II receptor blocker adherence was not associated with LVEF transitions. Patients who had a previous myocardial infarction were more likely to transition from HFPEF to HFREF (hazard ratio, 1.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.26-2.42). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of patients with HF, LVEF is a dynamic factor related to sex, coexisting conditions, and drug therapy. These findings have implications for left ventricular systolic function ascertainment in patients with HF and support evidence-based therapy use, especially ß-blockers.

Patterns of beta-blocker intensification in ambulatory heart failure patients and short-term association with hospitalization.

BACKGROUND: In response to the short-term negative inotropic and chronotropic effects of ß-blockers, heart failure (HF) guidelines recommend initiating ß-blockers at low dose with gradual uptitration as tolerated to doses used in clinical trials. However, patterns and safety of ß-blocker intensification in routine practice are poorly described. METHODS: We described ß-blocker intensification among Kaiser Colorado enrollees with a primary discharge diagnosis of HF between 2001-2009. We then assessed ß-blocker intensification in the 30 days prior to first hospital readmission for cases compared to the same time period following index hospitalization for non-rehospitalized matched controls. In separate analysis of the subgroup initiated on ß-blocker after index hospital discharge, we compared adjusted rates of 30-day hospitalization following initiation of high versus low dose ß-blocker. RESULTS: Among 3,227 patients, median age was 76 years and 37% had ejection fraction ≤ 40% (LVSD). During a median follow up of 669 days, 14% were never on ß-blocker, 21% were initiated on ß-blocker, 43% were discharged on ß-blocker but never uptitrated, and 22% had discharge ß-blocker uptitrated; 63% were readmitted and 49% died. ß-blocker intensification occurred in the 30 days preceding readmission for 39 of 1,674 (2.3%) readmitted cases compared to 27 (1.6%) of matched controls (adjusted OR 1.36, 95% CI 0.81-2.27). Among patients initiated on therapy, readmission over the subsequent 30 days occurred in 6 of 155 (3.9%) prescribed high dose and 9 of 513 (1.8%) prescribed low dose ß-blocker (adjusted OR 3.10, 95% CI 1.02-9.40). For the subgroup with LVSD, findings were not significantly different. CONCLUSION: While ß-blockers were intensified in nearly half of patients following hospital discharge and high starting dose was associated with increased readmission risk, the prevailing finding was that readmission events were rarely preceded by ß-blocker intensification. These data suggest that ß-blocker intensification is not a major precipitant of hospitalization, provided recommended dosing is followed.

A multimodal blood pressure control intervention in 3 healthcare systems.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if a multimodal intervention composed of patient education, home blood pressure (BP) monitoring, BP measurement reporting to an interactive voice response (IVR) phone system, and clinical pharmacist follow-up improves BP control compared with usual care. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study with patient enrollment, medication consultation and adjustment, remote BP monitoring, and follow-up at 6 months. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial was conducted at 3 healthcare systems in Denver, Colorado, including a large health maintenance organization, a Veterans Affairs medical center, and a county hospital. At each site, patients with uncontrolled BP were randomized to the multimodal intervention vs usual care for 6 months, with the primary end point of BP reduction. RESULTS: Of 338 patients randomized, 283 (84%) completed the study, including 138 intervention patients and 145 usual care patients. Baseline BP was higher in the intervention group vs the usual care group (150.5/89.4 vs 143.8/85.3 mm Hg). At 6 months, BPs were similar in the intervention group vs the usual care group (137.4 vs 136.7 mm Hg, P = .85 for systolic; 82.9 vs 81.1 mm Hg, P = .14 for diastolic). However, BP reductions were greater in the intervention group vs the usual care group (−13.1 vs −7.1 mm Hg, P = .006 for systolic; −6.5 vs −4.2 mm Hg, P = .07 for diastolic). Adherence to medications was similar between the 2 groups, but intervention patients had a greater increase in medication regimen intensity. CONCLUSIONS: A multimodal intervention of patient education, home BP monitoring, BP measurement reporting to an IVR system, and clinical pharmacist follow-up achieved greater reductions in BP compared with usual care.

Improving prescribing safety in patients with renal insufficiency in the ambulatory setting: the Drug Renal Alert Pharmacy (DRAP) program.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a computerized Drug Renal Alert Pharmacy (DRAP) program could decrease the rate of medication errors in drug selection or dosing for 15 target drugs in patients with renal insufficiency. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled, population-based effectiveness trial. SETTING: A large integrated health care delivery system. PATIENTS: A total of 32,917 health plan members who were at least 18 years old, had an estimated creatinine clearance of 50 ml/minute or lower, and were not receiving dialysis between December 1, 2003, and February 28, 2005, were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (16,577 patients) or usual care (control) group (16,340 patients). Of the 32,917 patients, 6125 patients (3025 in the intervention group and 3100 in the usual care group) were prescribed at least one target drug and were included in the analysis. INTERVENTION: A computerized tool--the DRAP program--was used to alert pharmacists at the time of dispensing to possible errors in target drug selection and dosing for patients with renal insufficiency. The 15 target drugs were previously identified based on frequency of use in our health care system and risk of serious adverse events. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was the proportion of medication errors, defined as target drugs that should be avoided or were dosed inappropriately, in the intervention and usual care groups. The Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework was used to evaluate the intervention's potential for translation and generalizability. Among the 6125 patients who received a target drug, no significant differences were noted in age, sex, creatinine clearance, comorbid conditions, and number of target drugs between groups at baseline. Over the 15-month intervention period, the proportion of medication errors was significantly lower in the intervention group than the usual care group (33% vs 49%, p<0.001). After the study period, when the intervention was expanded to both groups, a 20% reduction in errors was sustained in the combined groups over the subsequent 7 months. CONCLUSION: The DRAP program was successful in reducing medication errors for patients with renal insufficiency in an ambulatory setting and was demonstrated to have sustainability after study completion.

Patient sex and quality of ED care for patients with myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to assess the quality of care between male and female emergency department (ED) patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). METHODS: A 2-year retrospective cohort study of 2215 patients with AMI presenting immediately to 5 EDs from July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2002 was conducted. Data on patient characteristics, clinical presentation, and ED processes of care were obtained from chart and electrocardiogram reviews. Multivariable regression models were used to assess the independent association between sex and the ED administration of aspirin, beta-blockers, and reperfusion therapy to eligible patients with AMI. RESULTS: There were 849 women and 1366 men in the study. Female patients were older than male patients (74.3 years for women vs 66.8 years for men, P < .001). Among ideal patients, women were less likely than men to receive aspirin (76.3% of women vs 81.3% of men, P < .01), beta-blockers (51.7% of women vs 61.4% of men, P < .01), and reperfusion therapy (64.0% of women vs 72.8% of men, P < .05). However, after adjustment for age, there was no longer a significant relationship between sex and the use of aspirin (odds ratio [OR], 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95-1.03), beta-blockers (OR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.82-1.04), or reperfusion therapy (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.89-1.09). In models adjusting for additional demographic, clinical, and hospital characteristics, there remained no association between sex and the processes of care. CONCLUSION: Women with AMI treated in the ED have a lower likelihood of receiving aspirin, beta-blocker, and reperfusion therapy. However, this association appears to be explained by the age difference between men and women with AMI. Although there are no apparent sex disparities in care, ED AMI management remains suboptimal for both sexes.

Factors related to adherence to statin therapy.

BACKGROUND: Retrospective database analyses have revealed that 50% of patients receiving statins discontinue therapy after one year of treatment. Typically, these data do not focus on patient-specific reasons for discontinuation. OBJECTIVE: To examine the reasons that patients discontinue statins and compare the patient and clinical factors of those who do and do not discontinue therapy. METHODS: All patients with a new statin prescription between January 1, 2004, and March 31, 2004, were identified through pharmacy claims. Patients who had discontinued and continued statin therapy were identified. Medical records were reviewed to determine whether there were documented reasons for statin discontinuation. Subsequently, telephone surveys addressing statin knowledge, relationships, communication with healthcare providers, and general health status were conducted. RESULTS: At one year, 47.5% (n = 671) of patients had obtained fewer than 80% of the refills of their prescribed statin. We reviewed 435 medical records and conducted 255 patient surveys. A total of 29.9% of discontinuers had reasons documented in the medical record. Compared with continuers, fewer discontinuers had follow-up and/or laboratory visits with a provider within 6 months after the start of statin therapy. The surveys indicated that more continuers than discontinuers trusted their providers (p < 0.05) and felt that providers had adequate knowledge to answer their questions (p < 0.001). In contrast, more discontinuers felt the statin was of limited benefit/unsure of the benefit (p < 0.001) and believed that their providers were not interested in their input on their medical condition (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Utilizing pharmacy claims records alone to determine statin nonadherence may not only overestimate the percentage of patients who are nonadherent, but also prevent healthcare providers from understanding the reasons that patients discontinue or continue statin therapy. Statin adherence is complex and affected by several factors. Interventions to improve adherence should focus on patient communications, education, and follow-up.

Randomized trial to improve prescribing safety in ambulatory elderly patients.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether a computerized tool that alerted pharmacists when patients aged 65 and older were newly prescribed potentially inappropriate medications was effective in decreasing the proportion of patients dispensed these medications. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized trial. SETTING: U.S. health maintenance organization. PARTICIPANTS: All 59,680 health plan members aged 65 and older were randomized to intervention (n=29,840) or usual care (n=29,840). Pharmacists received alerts on all patients randomized to intervention who were newly prescribed a targeted medication. INTERVENTION: Prescription and age information were linked to alert pharmacists when a patient aged 65 and older was newly prescribed one of 11 medications that are potentially inappropriate in older people. MEASUREMENTS: Physicians and pharmacists collaborated to develop the targeted medication list, indications for medication use for which an intervention should occur, intervention guidelines and scripts, and to implement the intervention. RESULTS: Over the 1-year study, 543 (1.8%) intervention group patients aged 65 and older were newly dispensed prescriptions for targeted medications, compared with 644 (2.2%) usual care group patients (P=.002). For medication use indications in which an intervention should occur, dispensings of amitriptyline (P<.001) and diazepam (P=.02) were reduced. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the effectiveness of a computerized pharmacy alert system plus collaboration between healthcare professionals in decreasing potentially inappropriate medication dispensings in elderly patients. Coupling data available from information systems with the knowledge and skills of physicians and pharmacists can improve prescribing safety in patients aged 65 and older.

Older emergency department patients with acute myocardial infarction receive lower quality of care than younger patients.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We assessed the independent relationship between age and the quality of medical care provided to patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acute myocardial infarction. METHODS: We conducted a 2-year retrospective cohort study of 2,216 acute myocardial infarction patients presenting urgently to 5 EDs in Colorado and California from July 1, 2000, through June 30, 2002. Data on patient characteristics, clinical presentation, and ED processes of care were obtained from the ED record and ECG review. Patients were divided into 6 groups based on their age at the time of their ED visit: younger than 50 years, 50 to 59 years, 60 to 69 years, 70 to 79 years, 80 to 89 years, and 90 years or older. Hierarchic multivariable regression was used to assess the independent association between age and the provision of aspirin, beta-blockers, and reperfusion therapy (fibrinolytic agent or percutaneous coronary intervention) in the ED to eligible acute myocardial infarction patients. RESULTS: Of ideal candidates for treatment in the ED, 1,639 (80.5%) of 2,036 received aspirin, 552 (60.3%) of 916 received beta-blockers, and 358 (77.8%) of 460 received acute reperfusion therapy. After adjustment for demographic, medical history, and clinical factors, older patients were less likely to receive aspirin (odds ratio [OR] 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77 to 0.93), beta-blockers (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.88), and reperfusion therapy (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.52). CONCLUSION: Older patients presenting to the ED with acute myocardial infarction receive lower-quality medical care than younger patients. Further investigation to identify the reasons for this disparity and to intervene to reduce gaps in care quality will likely lead to improved outcomes for older acute myocardial infarction patients.