Computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals; effects on professional practice and health care outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice does not always reflect best practice and evidence, partly because of unconscious acts of omission, information overload, or inaccessible information. Reminders may help clinicians overcome these problems by prompting the doctor to recall information that they already know or would be expected to know and by providing information or guidance in a more accessible and relevant format, at a particularly appropriate time. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of reminders automatically generated through a computerized system and delivered on paper to healthcare professionals on processes of care (related to healthcare professionals' practice) and outcomes of care (related to patients' health condition). SEARCH METHODS: For this update the EPOC Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the following databases between June 11-19, 2012: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and Cochrane Library (Economics, Methods, and Health Technology Assessment sections), Issue 6, 2012; MEDLINE, OVID (1946- ), Daily Update, and In-process; EMBASE, Ovid (1947- ); CINAHL, EbscoHost (1980- ); EPOC Specialised Register, Reference Manager, and INSPEC, Engineering Village. The authors reviewed reference lists of related reviews and studies.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included individual or cluster-randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized controlled trials (NRCTs) that evaluated the impact of computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals on processes and/or outcomes of care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors working in pairs independently screened studies for eligibility and abstracted data. We contacted authors to obtain important missing information for studies that were published within the last 10 years. For each study, we extracted the primary outcome when it was defined or calculated the median effect size across all reported outcomes. We then calculated the median absolute improvement and interquartile range (IQR) in process adherence across included studies using the primary outcome or median outcome as representative outcome. MAIN RESULTS: In the 32 included studies, computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals achieved moderate improvement in professional practices, with a median improvement of processes of care of 7.0% (IQR: 3.9% to 16.4%). Implementing reminders alone improved care by 11.2% (IQR 6.5% to 19.6%) compared with usual care, while implementing reminders in addition to another intervention improved care by 4.0% only (IQR 3.0% to 6.0%) compared with the other intervention. The quality of evidence for these comparisons was rated as moderate according to the GRADE approach. Two reminder features were associated with larger effect sizes: providing space on the reminder for provider to enter a response (median 13.7% versus 4.3% for no response, P value = 0.01) and providing an explanation of the content or advice on the reminder (median 12.0% versus 4.2% for no explanation, P value = 0.02). Median improvement in processes of care also differed according to the behaviour the reminder targeted: for instance, reminders to vaccinate improved processes of care by 13.1% (IQR 12.2% to 20.7%) compared with other targeted behaviours. In the only study that had sufficient power to detect a clinically significant effect on outcomes of care, reminders were not associated with significant improvements. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate quality evidence that computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals achieve moderate improvement in process of care. Two characteristics emerged as significant predictors of improvement: providing space on the reminder for a response from the clinician and providing an explanation of the reminder's content or advice. The heterogeneity of the reminder interventions included in this review also suggests that reminders can improve care in various settings under various conditions.

Mise en place d'un programme de prévention et de prise en charge du diabète en Suisse: le point de vue des patients et des professionnels de la santé [Implementation of a diabetes disease management program in Switzerland: patients' and healthcare professionals' point of view].

BACKGROUND: A reorganization of healthcare systems is required to meet the challenge of the increasing prevalence of chronic diseases, e.g. diabetes. In North-America and Europe, several countries have thus developed national or regional chronic disease management programs. In Switzerland, such initiatives have only emerged recently. In 2010, the canton of Vaud set up the "Diabetes Cantonal Program", within the framework of which we conducted a study designed to ascertain the opinions of both diabetic patients and healthcare professionals on the elements that could be integrated into this program, the barriers and facilitators to its development, and the incentives that could motivate these actors to participate. METHODS: We organized eight focus-groups: one with diabetic patients and one with healthcare professionals in the four sanitary areas of the canton of Vaud. The discussions were recorded, transcribed and submitted to a thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Patients and healthcare professionals were rather in favour of the implementation of a cantonal program, although patients were more cautious concerning its necessity. All participants envisioned a set of elements that could be integrated to this program. They also considered that the program could be developed more easily if it were adapted to patients' and professionals' needs and if it used existing structures and professionals. The difficulty to motivate both patients and professionals to participate was mentioned as a barrier to the development of this program however. Quality or financial incentives could therefore be created to overcome this potential problem. CONCLUSION: The identification of the elements to consider, barriers, facilitators and incentives to participate to a chronic disease management program, obtained by exploring the opinions of patients and healthcare professionals, should favour its further development and implementation.

A randomized controlled clinical trial evaluating the performance and safety of platelets treated with MIRASOL pathogen reduction technology.

BACKGROUND: Pathogen reduction of platelets (PRT-PLTs) using riboflavin and ultraviolet light treatment has undergone Phase 1 and 2 studies examining efficacy and safety. This randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT) assessed the efficacy and safety of PRT-PLTs using the 1-hour corrected count increment (CCI(1hour) ) as the primary outcome. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A noninferiority RCT was performed where patients with chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia (six centers) were randomly allocated to receive PRT-PLTs (Mirasol PRT, CaridianBCT Biotechnologies) or reference platelet (PLT) products. The treatment period was 28 days followed by a 28-day follow-up (safety) period. The primary outcome was the CCI(1hour) determined using up to the first eight on-protocol PLT transfusions given during the treatment period. RESULTS: A total of 118 patients were randomly assigned (60 to PRT-PLTs; 58 to reference). Four patients per group did not require PLT transfusions leaving 110 patients in the analysis (56 PRT-PLTs; 54 reference). A total of 541 on-protocol PLT transfusions were given (303 PRT-PLTs; 238 reference). The least square mean CCI was 11,725 (standard error [SE], 1.140) for PRT-PLTs and 16,939 (SE, 1.149) for the reference group (difference, -5214; 95% confidence interval, -7542 to -2887; p<0.0001 for a test of the null hypothesis of no difference between the two groups). CONCLUSION: The study failed to show noninferiority of PRT-PLTs based on predefined CCI criteria. PLT and red blood cell utilization in the two groups was not significantly different suggesting that the slightly lower CCIs (PRT-PLTs) did not increase blood product utilization. Safety data showed similar findings in the two groups. Further studies are required to determine if the lower CCI observed with PRT-PLTs translates into an increased risk of bleeding.

Study design for technology assessment: critical issues.

The epidemiological methods have become useful tools for the assessment of the effectiveness and safety of health care technologies. The experimental methods, namely the randomized controlled trials (RCT), give the best evidence of the effect of a technology. However, the ethical issues and the very nature of the intervention under study sometimes make it difficult to carry out an RCT. Therefore, quasi-experimental and non-experimental study designs are also applied. The critical issues concerning these designs are discussed. The results of evaluative studies are of importance for decision-makers in health policy. The measurements of the impact of a medical technology should go beyond a statement of its effectiveness, because the essential outcome of an intervention or programme is the health status and quality of life of the individuals and populations concerned.

Consensus summary statement of the International Multidisciplinary Consensus Conference on Multimodality Monitoring in Neurocritical Care : A statement for healthcare professionals from the Neurocritical Care Society and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine.

Neurocritical care depends, in part, on careful patient monitoring but as yet there are little data on what processes are the most important to monitor, how these should be monitored, and whether monitoring these processes is cost-effective and impacts outcome. At the same time, bioinformatics is a rapidly emerging field in critical care but as yet there is little agreement or standardization on what information is important and how it should be displayed and analyzed. The Neurocritical Care Society in collaboration with the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, the Society for Critical Care Medicine, and the Latin America Brain Injury Consortium organized an international, multidisciplinary consensus conference to begin to address these needs. International experts from neurosurgery, neurocritical care, neurology, critical care, neuroanesthesiology, nursing, pharmacy, and informatics were recruited on the basis of their research, publication record, and expertise. They undertook a systematic literature review to develop recommendations about specific topics on physiologic processes important to the care of patients with disorders that require neurocritical care. This review does not make recommendations about treatment, imaging, and intraoperative monitoring. A multidisciplinary jury, selected for their expertise in clinical investigation and development of practice guidelines, guided this process. The GRADE system was used to develop recommendations based on literature review, discussion, integrating the literature with the participants' collective experience, and critical review by an impartial jury. Emphasis was placed on the principle that recommendations should be based on both data quality and on trade-offs and translation into clinical practice. Strong consideration was given to providing pragmatic guidance and recommendations for bedside neuromonitoring, even in the absence of high quality data.

Contact and communication with healthcare providers regarding influenza vaccination during the 2009-2010 H1N1 pandemic.

Objective. The existence of two vaccines seasonal and pandemic-created the potential for confusion and misinformation among consumers during the 2009-2010 vaccination season. We measured the frequency and nature of influenza vaccination communication between healthcare providers and adults for both seasonal and 2009 influenza A(H1N1) vaccination and quantified its association with uptake of the two vaccines.Methods. We analyzed data from 4040 U.S. adult members of a nationally representative online panel surveyed between March 4th and March 24th, 2010. We estimated prevalence rates and adjusted associations between vaccine uptake and vaccination-related communication between patients and healthcare providers using bivariate probit models.Results. 64.1% (95%-CI: 61.5%-66.6%) of adults did not receive any provider-issued influenza vaccination recommendation. Adults who received a provider-issued vaccination recommendation were 14.1 (95%-CI: -2.4 to 30.6) to 32.1 (95%-CI: 24.3-39.8) percentage points more likely to be vaccinated for influenza than adults without a provider recommendation, after adjusting for other characteristics associated with vaccination.Conclusions. Influenza vaccination communication between healthcare providers and adults was relatively uncommon during the 2009-2010 pandemic. Increased communication could significantly enhance influenza vaccination rates. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Underreporting of needlestick and sharps injuries among healthcare workers in a Swiss University Hospital.

OBJECTIVES: To determine 1) rates of needlestick and sharps injuries (NSSIs) not reported to occupational health services, 2) reasons for underreporting and 3) awareness of reporting procedures in a Swiss university hospital. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We surveyed 6,367 employees having close clinical contact with patients or patient specimens. The questionnaire covered age, sex, occupation, years spent in occupation, history of NSSI during the preceding twelve months, NSSI reporting, barriers to reporting and knowledge of reporting procedures. RESULTS: 2,778 questionnaires were returned (43.6%) of which 2,691 were suitable for analysis. 260/2,691 employees (9.7%) had sustained at least one NSSI during the preceding twelve months. NSSIs were more frequent among nurses (49.2%) and doctors performing invasive procedures (IPs) (36.9%). NSSI rate by occupation was 8.6% for nurses, 19% for doctors and 1.3% for domestic staff. Of the injured respondents, 73.1% reported all events, 12.3% some and 14.6% none. 42.7% of doctors performing invasive procedures (IPs) underreported NSSIs and represented 58.6% of underreported events. Estimation that transmission risk was low (87.1%) and perceived lack of time (34.3%) were the most common reasons for non-reporting. Regarding reporting procedures, 80.1% of respondents knew to contact occupational health services. CONCLUSION: Doctors performing IPs have high rates of NSSI and, through self-assessment that infection transmission risk is low or perceived lack of time, high rates of underreporting. If individual risk analyses underestimate the real risk, such underreporting represents a missed opportunity for post-exposure prophylaxis and identification of hazardous procedures. Doctors' training in NSSI reporting merits re-evaluation.

Ambulatory healthcare information system: a conceptual framework

Despite the tremendous amount of data collected in the field of ambulatory care, political authorities still lack synthetic indicators to provide them with a global view of health services utilization and costs related to various types of diseases. Moreover, public health indicators fail to provide useful information for physicians' accountability purposes. The approach is based on the Swiss context, which is characterized by the greatest frequency of medical visits in Europe, the highest rate of growth for care expenditure, poor public information but a lot of structured data (new fee system introduced in 2004). The proposed conceptual framework is universal and based on descriptors of six entities: general population, people with poor health, patients, services, resources and effects. We show that most conceptual shortcomings can be overcome and that the proposed indicators can be achieved without threatening privacy protection, using modern cryptographic techniques. Twelve indicators are suggested for the surveillance of the ambulatory care system, almost all based on routinely available data: morbidity, accessibility, relevancy, adequacy, productivity, efficacy (from the points of view of the population, people with poor health, and patients), effectiveness, efficiency, health services coverage and financing. The additional costs of this surveillance system should not exceed Euro 2 million per year (Euro 0.3 per capita).