Physician adoption of a practice guideline: Effect on the cost of medical care for adult patients with diabetes

In the demanding environment of healthcare reform, reduction of unwanted physician practice variation is promoted, often through evidence-based guidelines. Guidelines represent innovations that direct change(s) in physician practice; however, compliance has been disappointing. Numerous studies have analyzed guideline development and dissemination, while few have evaluated the consequences of guideline adoption. The primary purpose of this study was to explore and analyze the relationship between physician adoption of the glycated hemoglobin test guideline for management of adult patients with diabetes, and the cost of medical care. The study also examined six personal and organizational characteristics of physicians and their association with innovativeness, or adoption of the guideline. ^ Cost was represented by approved charges from a managed care claims database. Total cost, and diabetes and related complications cost, first were compared for all patients of adopter physicians with those of non-adopter physicians. Then, data were analyzed controlling for disease severity based on insulin dependency, and for high cost cases. There was no statistically significant difference in any of eight cost categories analyzed. This study represented a twelve-month period, and did not reflect cost associated with future complications known to result from inadequate management of glycemia. Guideline compliance did not increase annual cost, which, combined with the future benefit of glycemic control, lends support to the cost effectiveness of the guideline in the long term. Physician adoption of the guideline was recommended to reduce the future personal and economic burden of this chronic disease. ^ Only half of physicians studied had adopted the glycated hemoglobin test guideline for at least 75% of their diabetic patients. No statistically significant relationship was found between any physician characteristic and guideline adoption. Instead, it was likely that the innovation-decision process and guideline dissemination methods were most influential. ^ A multidisciplinary, multi-faceted approach, including interventions for each stage of the innovation-decision process, was proposed to diffuse practice guidelines more effectively. Further, it was recommended that Organized Delivery Systems expand existing administrative databases to include clinical information, decision support systems, and reminder mechanisms, to promote and support physician compliance with this and other evidence-based guidelines. ^

Outcomes assessment of a pediatric practice guideline

Objective. This study examines the structure, processes, and data necessary to assess the outcome variables, length of stay and total cost, for a pediatric practice guideline. The guideline was developed by a group of physicians and ancillary staff members representing the services that most commonly provide treatment for asthma patients at Texas Children's Hospital, as a means of standardizing care. Outcomes have needed to be assessed to determine the practice guideline's effectiveness.^ Data sources and study design. Data for the study were collected retrospectively from multiple hospital data bases and from inpatient chart reviews. All patients in this quasi-experimental study had a diagnosis of Asthma (ICD-9-CM Code 493.91) at the time of admission.^ The study examined data for 100 patients admitted between September 15, 1995 and November 15, 1995, whose physician had elected to apply the asthma practice guideline at the time of the patient's admission. The study examined data for 66 inpatients admitted between September 15, 1995 and November 15, 1995, whose physician elected not to apply the asthma practice guideline. The principal outcome variables were identified as "Length of Stay" and "Cost".^ Principal findings. The mean length of stay for the group in which the practice guideline was applied was 2.3 days, and 3.1 days for the comparison group, who did not receive care directed by the practice guideline. The difference was statistically significant (p value = 0.008). There was not a demonstrable difference in risk factors, health status, or quality of care between the groups. Although not showing statistical significance in the univariate analysis, private insurance showed a significant difference in the logistic regression model presenting an elevated odds ratio (odds ratio = 2.2 for a hospital stay $\le$2 days to an odds ratio = 4.7 for a hospital stay $\le$3 days) showing that patients with private insurance experienced greater risk of a shorter hospital stay than the patients with public insurance in each of the logistic regression models. Public insurance included; Medicaid, Medicare, and charity cases. Private insurance included; private insurance policies whether group, individual, or managed care. The cost of an admission was significantly less for the group in which the practice guideline was applied, with a mean difference between the two groups of $1307 per patient.^ Conclusion. The implementation and utilization of a pediatric practice guideline for asthma inpatients at Texas Children's Hospital has a significant impact in terms of reducing the total cost of the hospital stay and length of the hospital stay for asthma patients admitted to Texas Children's Hospital. ^

Clinical Impact of Couch Top and Rails on IMRT and Arc Therapy

Purpose: To evaluate the clinical impact of the Varian Exact Couch on dose and volume coverage to targets and critical structures and tumor control probability (TCP) for 6-MV IMRT and Arc Therapy. Methods: Five clinical prostate patients were planned with both, 6-MV 8-field IMRT and 6-MV 2-field RapidArc using the Eclipse treatment planning system (TPS). These plans neglected treatment couch attenuation, as is standard clinical practice. Dose distributions were then recalculated in Eclipse with the inclusion of the Varian Exact Couch (imaging couch top) and the rails in varying configurations. The changes in dose and coverage were evaluated using the DVHs from each plan iteration. We used a tumor control probability (TCP) model to calculate losses in tumor control resulting from not accounting for the couch top and rails. We also verified dose measurements in a phantom. Results: Failure to account for the treatment couch and rails resulted in clinically unacceptable dose and volume coverage losses to the target for both IMRT and RapidArc. The couch caused average dose losses (relative to plans that ignored the couch) to the prostate of 4.2% and 2.0% for IMRT with the rails out and in, respectively, and 3.2% and 2.9% for RapidArc with the rails out and in, respectively. On average, the percentage of the target covered by the prescribed dose dropped to 35% and 84% for IMRT (rails out and in, respectively) and to 18% and 17% for RapidArc (rails out and in, respectively). The TCP was also reduced by as much as 10.5% (6.3% on average). Dose and volume coverage losses for IMRT plans were primarily due to the rails, while the imaging couch top contributed most to losses for RapidArc. Both the couch top and rails contribute to dose and coverage losses that can render plans clinically unacceptable. A follow-up study we performed found that the less attenuating unipanel mesh couch top available with the Varian Exact couch does not cause a clinically impactful loss of dose or coverage for IMRT but still causes an unacceptable loss for RapidArc. Conclusions: Both the imaging couch top and rails contribute to dose and coverage loss to a degree that, if included, would prevent the plan from meeting clinical planning criteria. Therefore, the imaging and mesh couch tops and rails should be accounted for in Arc Therapy and the imaging couch and rails only in IMRT treatment planning.

Attitudes and other barriers to the utilization of clinical research findings by American physicians: A systematic review

Background: The Institute of Medicine estimates that only a maximum of 25% of clinical research findings are incorporated into practice by physicians. To improve clinical practice, efforts have been made to promote evidence-based medicine and the use of clinical guidelines. Despite these efforts, the gap between research and clinical practice remains wide.^ Objective: To systematically review the literature describing the factors which influence the use of clinical research recommendations by American physicians.^ Hypothesis: Barriers exist in the application of clinical research into clinical practice, and are multifactorial. The establishment of the Clinical and Translational Awards (CTSA; special federal grants awarded to selected institutions to support clinical and translational research) has reduced the effect of these barriers and improved the process of clinical research translation into practice among American physicians.^ Aims: Identify barriers and facilitators of the use of research findings in clinical practice by American physicians. Contrast studies published six years before and after the creation of the CTSA.^ Methods: The sources of data include published literature from Medline, PubMed and PsycINFO. Selected studies must be qualitative, a survey of American clinicians, based on evidence-based medicine practice, clinical guidelines or treatment pathways. Systematic reviews and reports were excluded, as well as studies with less than 100 respondents.^ Results: In total, 1036 abstracts were reviewed; 115 full text potential articles were identified and reviewed, and a total of 31 studies met all criteria for inclusion in the final review.^ Conclusions: The barriers against the application of clinical research findings, in the forms of clinical guidelines, evidence-based medicine guides and clinical pathways, can be divided broadly into physician barriers, practice/system barriers and patient barriers. Physician barriers are the most common barriers, especially the lack of familiarity with guidelines and the lack of time. Of the factors which improve the use of research based guidelines, physician factors such as younger age, lower duration of clinical practice, specialty training, and practice in large group Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) settings with fewer patients seen were the most commonly cited.^