Effectiveness of electronic point-of-care reminders versus monthly feedback to improve adherence to 10 clinical recommendations in primary care: a cluster randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have analyzed the effectiveness of electronic reminder interventions to improve different clinical conditions, and most have reported a small to moderate effect. Few studies, however, have analyzed reminder systems targeting multiple conditions, and fewer still have compared electronic point-of-care reminders systems with other forms of feedback designed to improve delivery of care. METHODS: We performed an unblinded cluster randomized clinical trial to compare the effectiveness of an electronic point-of-care reminder system with that of a well-established system providing monthly feedback on adherence to clinical recommendations. The control group received monthly feedback only while the intervention group received monthly feedback in addition to on-screen point-of-care reminders for 10 clinical conditions. The study targeted all physicians and nurses at the 283 primary care centers managed by the Institut Català de la Salut (approximately 6600 professionals). RESULTS: Following exclusions and randomization, 132 primary care centers (328,728 patients with reminders) were assigned to the intervention group while 137 centers (317,117 patients with reminders) were randomized to the control group. A 20.6% improvement (OR 1.29, 95% CI: 1.25-1.34) in reminder resolution rates was observed in the intervention group. Results varied according to the clinical condition. The most effective reminder was screening for diabetic retinopathy (OR 1.51, 95% CI:1.46-1.57) while the least effective reminders were measurement of glycated hemoglobin (OR: 1.10, 95% CI: 1.07-1.13) and smoking cessation encouragement (OR 1.12, 95% CI: 1.09-1.16). CONCLUSIONS: Electronic point-of-care reminders were more effective than the existing monthly feedback system at resolving the 10 clinical situations. However, more studies are needed to investigate the variations of the effect observed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN42391639, 08/10/2012. Retrospectively registered.

Rheumatoid factor testing in Spanish primary care: A population-based cohort study including 4.8 million subjects and almost half a million measurements / Uso del factor reumatoide en atención primaria en España: estudio de cohortes poblacionales incluyendo 4.8 millones de participantes y casi medio millón de mediciones

OBJECTIVE: Rheumatoid factor (RF) testing is used in primary care in the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA); however a positive RF may occur without RA. Incorrect use of RF testing may lead to increased costs and delayed diagnoses. The aim was to assess the performance of RF as a test for RA and to estimate the costs associated with its use in a primary care setting. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using the Information System for the Development of Research in Primary Care database (contains primary care records and laboratory results of >80% of the Catalonian population, Spain). Participants were patients ≥18 years with ≥1 RF test performed between 01/01/2006 and 31/12/2011, without a pre-existing diagnosis of RA. Outcome measures were an incident diagnosis of RA within 1 year of testing, and the cost of testing per case of RA. RESULTS: 495,434/4,796,498 (10.3%) patients were tested at least once.107,362 (21.7%) of those tested were sero-positive of which 2768 (2.6%) were diagnosed with RA within 1 year as were 1141/388,072 (0.3%) sero-negative participants. The sensitivity of RF was 70.8% (95% CI 69.4-72.2), specificity 78.7% (78.6-78.8), and positive and negative predictive values 2.6% (2.5-2.7) and 99.7% (99.6-99.7) respectively. Approximately €3,963,472 was spent, with a cost of €1432 per true positive case. CONCLUSIONS: Although 10% of patients were tested for RF, most did not have RA. Limiting testing to patients with a higher pre-test probability would significantly reduce the cost of testing

OBJETIVOS: El factor reumatoide (FR) se usa en atención primaria para el diagnóstico de la artritis reumatoide (AR); sin embargo, un FR positivo puede observarse en sujetos sin AR, y su uso inapropiado puede conllevar costes y retraso diagnóstico. En este contexto, estudiamos la utilidad y costes del FR como test diagnóstico de la AR en atención primaria. MÉTODOS: Estudio de cohortes retrospectivas basadas en datos de historia clínica informatizada de >80% de la población de Cataluña (SIDIAP). Se incluyeron sujetos de edad ≥18 años y con ≥1 medida de FR entre el 1/1/2006 y el 31/12/2011, sin diagnóstico previo de AR. El diagnóstico incidente de AR durante el año posterior a la medida de FR, y el coste por caso de AR fueron las medidas de interés. RESULTADOS: 495.434/4.796.498 (10,3%) pacientes tuvieron al menos una medida de FR 107.362 (21,7%) de estos fueron sero-positivos, de los cuales solo 2.768 (2,6%) fueron diagnosticados de AR en el año siguiente, comparado a 1.141/388.072 (0,3%) diagnósticos en sero-negativos. La sensibilidad del FR fue del 70,8% (IC 95%: 69,4 a 72,2%), especificidad 78,7% (78,6 a 78,8%), y valor predictivo positivo y negativo 2,6% (2,5 a 2,7%) y 99,7% (99,6 a 99,7%), respectivamente. El coste total estimado fue de 3.963,472€, alrededor de 1.432€ por caso de AR diagnosticado. CONCLUSIONES: Aunque el 10% de participantes (casi medio millón de personas) fueron sujetos de medición/es de FR, la mayoría no desarrollaron AR. El uso de FR en pacientes con mayor probabilidad pre-test reduciría de forma significativa su coste

Rheumatoid factor testing in Spanish primary care: A population-based cohort study including 4.8 million subjects and almost half a million measurements.

OBJECTIVE: Rheumatoid factor (RF) testing is used in primary care in the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA); however a positive RF may occur without RA. Incorrect use of RF testing may lead to increased costs and delayed diagnoses. The aim was to assess the performance of RF as a test for RA and to estimate the costs associated with its use in a primary care setting. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using the Information System for the Development of Research in Primary Care database (contains primary care records and laboratory results of >80% of the Catalonian population, Spain). Participants were patients ≥18 years with ≥1 RF test performed between 01/01/2006 and 31/12/2011, without a pre-existing diagnosis of RA. Outcome measures were an incident diagnosis of RA within 1 year of testing, and the cost of testing per case of RA. RESULTS: 495,434/4,796,498 (10.3%) patients were tested at least once. 107,362 (21.7%) of those tested were sero-positive of which 2768 (2.6%) were diagnosed with RA within 1 year as were 1141/388,072 (0.3%) sero-negative participants. The sensitivity of RF was 70.8% (95% CI 69.4-72.2), specificity 78.7% (78.6-78.8), and positive and negative predictive values 2.6% (2.5-2.7) and 99.7% (99.6-99.7) respectively. Approximately €3,963,472 was spent, with a cost of €1432 per true positive case. CONCLUSIONS: Although 10% of patients were tested for RF, most did not have RA. Limiting testing to patients with a higher pre-test probability would significantly reduce the cost of testing.

Base de datos SIDIAP: la historia clínica informatizada de Atención Primaria como fuente de información para la investigación epidemiológica / SIDIAP database: electronic clinical records in Primary Care as a source of information for epidemiologic research

No disponible

A new system to reduce formaldehyde levels improves safety conditions during gross veterinary anatomy learning.

Dissection is a very useful method of learning veterinary anatomy. However, formaldehyde, which is widely used to preserve cadavers, is an irritant, and it has recently been classified as a carcinogen. In 1997, the Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo [National Institute of Workplace Security and Hygiene] found that the levels of formaldehyde in our dissection room were above the threshold limit values. Unfortunately, no optimal substitute for formaldehyde is currently available. Therefore, we designed a new ventilation system that combines slow propulsion of fresh air from above the dissection table and rapid aspiration of polluted air from the perimeter. Formaldehyde measurements performed in 2004, after the introduction of this new system into our dissection laboratory, showed a dramatic reduction (about tenfold, or 0.03 ppm). A suitable propelling/aspirating air system successfully reduces the concentration of formaldehyde in the dissection room, significantly improving safety conditions for students, instructors, and technical staff during gross anatomy learning.