Does Clinical Decision Support Increase Appropriate Medication Prescribing for Cardiovascular Risk Reduction?

PURPOSE: To assess the impact of a clinical decision support (CDS) system's recommendations on prescribing patterns targeting cardiovascular disease (CVD) when the recommendations are prioritized in order from greatest to least benefit toward overall CVD risk reduction. METHODS: Secondary analysis of trial data from September 20, 2018, to March 15, 2020, where 70 community health center clinics were cluster-randomized to the CDS intervention (42 clinics; 8 organizations) or control group (28 clinics; 7 organizations). Included patients were medication-naïve and aged 40 to 75 years with ≥1 uncontrolled cardiovascular disease risk factor, with known diabetes or cardiovascular disease, or ≥10% 10-year reversible CVD risk. RESULTS: Among eligible encounters with 29,771 patients, the probability of prescribing a medication targeting hypertension was greater at intervention clinic encounters when CDS was used (34.9% [95% CI, 31.5 to 38.3]) versus dismissed (29.6% [95% CI, 26.7 to 32.6]; P < .001), but not when compared with control clinic encounters (34.9% [95% CI, 31.1 to 38.7]; P = .998). Prescribing for dyslipidemia was significantly higher at intervention encounters where the CDS system was used (11.3% [95% CI, 9.3 to 13.3]) compared with dismissed (7.7% [95% CI, 6.1 to 9.3]; P = .003) and to control encounters (8.7% [95% CI, 7.0 to 10.4]; P = .044); smoking cessation medication showed a similar pattern. Except for dyslipidemia, prescribing rates increased according to their prioritization. CONCLUSIONS: Use of this CDS system was associated with significantly higher prescribing targeting most cardiovascular risk factors. These results highlight how displaying prioritized actions to reduce reversible CVD risk could improve risk management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03001713, https://clinicaltrials.gov/.

Differential Effects of an Intervention to Reduce Cardiovascular Risk for Patients With Bipolar Disorder, Schizoaffective Disorder, or Schizophrenia: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Objective: To measure the impact of a clinical decision support (CDS) tool on total modifiable cardiovascular risk at 12 months separately for outpatients with 3 subtypes of serious mental illness (SMI) identified via ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes: bipolar disorder, schizoaffective disorder, and schizophrenia.Methods: This cluster-randomized pragmatic clinical trial was active from March 2016 to September 2018; data were analyzed from April 2021 to September 2022. Clinicians and patients from 78 primary care clinics participated. All 8,922 adult patients aged 18-75 years with diagnosed SMI, at least 1 cardiovascular risk factor not at goal, and an index and follow-up visit during the study period were included. The CDS tool provided a summary of modifiable cardiovascular risk and personalized treatment recommendations.Results: Intervention patients had 4% relative reduction in total modifiable cardiovascular risk at 12 months compared to controls (relative risk ratio = 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94 to 0.98), with similar intervention benefits for all 3 SMI subtypes. At index, 10-year cardiovascular risk was higher for patients with schizophrenia (mean [SD] = 11.3% [9.2%]) than for patients with bipolar disorder (8.5% [8.9%]) or schizoaffective disorder (9.4% [8.1%]), while 30-year cardiovascular risk was highest for patients with schizoaffective disorder (44% with 2 or more major cardiovascular risk factors, compared to 40% for patients with schizophrenia and 37% for patients with bipolar disorder). Smoking was highly prevalent (47%), and mean (SD) BMI was 32.7 (7.9).Conclusions: This CDS intervention produced a clinically and statistically significant 4% relative reduction in total modifiable cardiovascular risk for intervention patients versus controls at 12 months, an effect observed across all 3 SMI subtypes and attributable to the aggregate impact of small changes in multiple cardiovascular risk factors.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02451670.

Bolstering the Business Case for Adoption of Shared Decision-Making Systems in Primary Care: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Limited budgets may often constrain the ability of health care delivery systems to adopt shared decision-making (SDM) systems designed to improve clinical encounters with patients and quality of care. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the impact of an SDM system shown to improve diabetes and cardiovascular patient outcomes on factors affecting revenue generation in primary care clinics. METHODS: As part of a large multisite clinic randomized controlled trial (RCT), we explored the differences in 1 care system between clinics randomized to use an SDM intervention (n=8) versus control clinics (n=9) regarding the (1) likelihood of diagnostic coding for cardiometabolic conditions using the 10th Revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) and (2) current procedural terminology (CPT) billing codes. RESULTS: At all 24,138 encounters with care gaps targeted by the SDM system, the proportion assigned high-complexity CPT codes for level of service 5 was significantly higher at the intervention clinics (6.1%) compared to that in the control clinics (2.9%), with P<.001 and adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.64 (95% CI 1.02-2.61). This was consistently observed across the following specific care gaps: diabetes with glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c)>8% (n=8463), 7.2% vs 3.4%, P<.001, and adjusted OR 1.93 (95% CI 1.01-3.67); blood pressure above goal (n=8515), 6.5% vs 3.7%, P<.001, and adjusted OR 1.42 (95% CI 0.72-2.79); suboptimal statin management (n=17,765), 5.8% vs 3%, P<.001, and adjusted OR 1.41 (95% CI 0.76-2.61); tobacco dependency (n=7449), 7.5% vs. 3.4%, P<.001, and adjusted OR 2.14 (95% CI 1.31-3.51); BMI >30 kg/m2 (n=19,838), 6.2% vs 2.9%, P<.001, and adjusted OR 1.45 (95% CI 0.75-2.8). Compared to control clinics, intervention clinics assigned ICD-10 diagnosis codes more often for observed cardiometabolic conditions with care gaps, although the difference did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: In this randomized study, use of a clinically effective SDM system at encounters with care gaps significantly increased the proportion of encounters assigned high-complexity (level 5) CPT codes, and it was associated with a nonsignificant increase in assigning ICD-10 codes for observed cardiometabolic conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02451670; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02451670.

Depression and cardiovascular risk in primary care patients.

OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the relationship of both depression diagnosis and clinically significant depressive symptoms with individual cardiovascular risk factors and estimated total cardiovascular risk in primary care patients. METHODS: This study used a cross-sectional and retrospective design. Patients who had a primary care encounter between January 2016 and September 2018 and completed depression screening (PHQ-9) during the year prior to their appointment (N = 70,980) were included in this study. Data examining estimated total cardiovascular risk, specific cardiovascular risk factors, and relevant clinical diagnoses (including depression diagnosis) were extracted from the electronic health record. Patients were categorized into three groups: no depression (PHQ-9 < 10 and no depression diagnosis), controlled depression (PHQ-9 < 10 with previous depression diagnosis), and current depression (PHQ-9 ≥ 10). Groups were compared on estimated total risk and specific cardiovascular risk factors (e.g., body mass index [BMI], smoking status, lipids, blood pressure, and glucose). RESULTS: In adjusted analyses, patients with current depression (n = 18,267) demonstrated significantly higher 10-year and 30-year cardiovascular risk compared to patients with controlled depression (n = 33,383; 10-year: b = 0.59 [95% CI = 0.44,0.74]; 30-year: OR = 1.32 [95% CI = 1.26,1.39]) and patients without depression (n = 19,330; 10-year: b = 0.55 [95% CI = 0.37,0.73]; 30-year: OR = 1.56 [95% CI = 1.48,1.65]). Except for low-density lipoprotein (LDL), patients with current depression had the greatest cardiovascular risk across specific risk factors. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals who had a depression diagnosis and clinically significant depressive symptoms had the greatest cardiovascular risk. Pathways to prevent cardiovascular disease in those with depression might focus on treating depressive symptoms as well as specific uncontrolled cardiovascular risk factors.

Human Papillomavirus vaccination clinical decision support for young adults in an upper midwestern healthcare system: a clinic cluster-randomized control trial.

INTRODUCTION: Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination rates are low in young adults. Clinical decision support (CDS) in primary care may increase HPV vaccination. We tested the treatment effect of algorithm-driven, web-based, and electronic health record-linked CDS with or without shared decision-making tools (SDMT) on HPV vaccination rates compared to usual care (UC). METHODS: In a clinic cluster-randomized control trial conducted in a healthcare system serving a largely rural population, we randomized 34 primary care clinic clusters (with three clinics sharing clinicians randomized together) to: CDS; CDS+SDMT; UC. The sample included young adults aged 18-26 due for HPV vaccination with a study index visit from 08/01/2018-03/15/2019 in a study clinic. Generalized linear mixed models tested differences in HPV vaccination status 12 months after index visits by study arm. RESULTS: Among 10,253 patients, 6,876 (65.2%) were due for HPV vaccination, and 5,054 met study eligibility criteria. In adjusted analyses, the HPV vaccination series was completed by 12 months in 2.3% (95% CI: 1.6%-3.2%) of CDS, 1.6% (95% CI: 1.1%-2.3%) of CDS+SDMT, and 2.2% (95% CI: 1.6%-3.0%) of UC patients, and at least one HPV vaccine was received by 12 months in 13.1% (95% CI: 10.6%-16.1%) of CDS, 9.2% (95% CI: 7.3%-11.6%) of CDS+SDMT, and 11.2% (95% CI: 9.1%-13.7%) of UC patients. Differences were not significant between arms. Females, those with prior HPV vaccinations, and those seen at urban clinics had significantly higher odds of HPV vaccination in adjusted models. DISCUSSION: CDS may require optimization for young adults to significantly impact HPV vaccination. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT02986230, 12/6/2016.

Cardiovascular Risk for Patients With and Without Schizophrenia, Schizoaffective Disorder, or Bipolar Disorder.

Background To compare estimated 10-year and 30-year cardiovascular risk in primary care patients with and without serious mental illness (SMI; bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, or schizoaffective disorder). Methods and Results All patients aged 18 to 75 years with a primary care visit in January 2016 to September 2018 were included and were grouped into those with and without SMI using diagnosis codes. Ten-year cardiovascular risk was estimated using atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease scores for patients aged 40 to 75 years without cardiovascular disease; 30-year cardiovascular risk was estimated using Framingham risk scores for patients aged 18 to 59 years without cardiovascular disease. Demographic, vital sign, medication, diagnosis, and health insurance data were collected from the electronic health record by a clinical decision support system. Descriptive statistics examined unadjusted differences, while general linear models examined differences for continuous variables and logistic regression models for categorical variables. Models were then adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, and insurance type. A total of 11 333 patients with SMI and 579 924 patients without SMI were included. After covariate adjustment, 10-year cardiovascular risk was significantly higher in patients with SMI (mean, 9.44%; 95% CI, 9.29%-9.60%) compared with patients without SMI (mean, 7.99%; 95% CI, 7.97-8.02). Similarly, 30-year cardiovascular risk was significantly higher in those with SMI (25% of patients with SMI in the highest-risk group compared with 11% of patients without SMI; P<0.001). The individual cardiovascular risk factors contributing most to increased risk for those with SMI were elevated body mass index and smoking. Among SMI subtypes, patients with bipolar disorder had the highest 10-year cardiovascular risk, while patients with schizoaffective disorder had the highest 30-year cardiovascular risk. Conclusions The significantly increased cardiovascular risk associated with SMI is evident even in young adults. This suggests the importance of addressing uncontrolled major cardiovascular risk factors in those with SMI at as early an age as possible. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02451670.

Effect of Clinical Decision Support on Cardiovascular Risk Among Adults With Bipolar Disorder, Schizoaffective Disorder, or Schizophrenia: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Adults with schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or bipolar disorder, collectively termed serious mental illness (SMI), have shortened life spans compared with people without SMI. The leading cause of death is cardiovascular (CV) disease. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether a clinical decision support (CDS) system aimed at primary care clinicians improves CV health for adult primary care patients with SMI. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this cluster randomized clinical trial conducted from March 2, 2016, to September 19, 2018, restricted randomization assigned 76 primary care clinics in 3 Midwestern health care systems to receive or not receive a CDS system aimed at improving CV health among patients with SMI. Eligible clinics had at least 20 patients with SMI; clinicians and their adult patients with SMI with at least 1 modifiable CV risk factor not at the goal set by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines were included. Statistical analysis was conducted on an intention-to-treat basis from January 10, 2019, to December 29, 2021. INTERVENTION: The CDS system assessed modifiable CV risk factors and provided personalized treatment recommendations to clinicians and patients. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Patient-level change in total modifiable CV risk over 12 months, summed from individual modifiable risk factors (smoking, body mass index, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level, systolic blood pressure, and hemoglobin A1c level). RESULTS: A total of 80 clinics were randomized; 4 clinics were excluded for having fewer than 20 eligible patients, leaving 42 intervention clinics and 34 control clinics. A total of 8937 patients with SMI (4922 women [55.1%]; mean [SD] age, 48.4 [13.5] years) were enrolled. There was a 4% lower rate of increase in total modifiable CV risk among intervention patients relative to control patients (relative rate ratio [RR], 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94-0.98). The intervention favored patients who were 18 to 29 years of age (RR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81-0.98) or 50 to 59 years of age (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.90-0.96), Black (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88-0.98), or White (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94-0.98). Men (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94-0.99) and women (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.92-0.97), as well as patients with any SMI subtype (bipolar disorder: RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94-0.99; schizoaffective disorder: RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.90-0.98; schizophrenia: RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.85-0.99) also benefited from the intervention. Despite treatment effects favoring the intervention, there were no significant differences in individual modifiable risk factors. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This CDS intervention resulted in a rate of change in total modifiable CV risk that was 4% lower among intervention patients compared with control patients. Results were driven by the cumulative effects of incremental and mostly nonsignificant changes in individual modifiable risk factors. These findings emphasize the value of using CDS to prompt early primary care intervention for adults with SMI. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02451670.

Clinical Decision Support with or without Shared Decision Making to Improve Preventive Cancer Care: A Cluster-Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Innovative interventions are needed to address gaps in preventive cancer care, especially in rural areas. This study evaluated the impact of clinical decision support (CDS) with and without shared decision making (SDM) on cancer-screening completion. METHODS: In this 3-arm, parallel-group, cluster-randomized trial conducted at a predominantly rural medical group, 34 primary care clinics were randomized to clinical decision support (CDS), CDS plus shared decision making (CDS+SDM), or usual care (UC). The CDS applied web-based clinical algorithms identifying patients overdue for United States Preventive Services Task Force-recommended preventive cancer care and presented evidence-based recommendations to patients and providers on printouts and on the electronic health record interface. Patients in the CDS+SDM clinic also received shared decision-making tools (SDMTs). The primary outcome was a composite indicator of the proportion of patients overdue for breast, cervical, or colorectal cancer screening at index who were up to date on these 1 y later. RESULTS: From August 1, 2018, to March 15, 2019, 69,405 patients aged 21 to 74 y had visits at study clinics and 25,198 were overdue for 1 or more cancer screening tests at an index visit. At 12-mo follow-up, 9,543 of these (37.9%) were up to date on the composite endpoint. The adjusted, model-derived percentage of patients up to date was 36.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 34.0-39.1) in the UC group, 38.1% (95% CI: 35.5-40.9) in the CDS group, and 34.4% (95% CI: 31.8-37.2) in the CDS+SDM group. For all comparisons, the screening rates were higher than UC in the CDS group and lower than UC in the CDS+SDM group, although these differences did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: The CDS did not significantly increase cancer-screening rates. Exploratory analyses suggest a deeper understanding of how SDM and CDS interact to affect cancer prevention decisions is needed. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02986230, December 6, 2016.

Patient Perceptions of Using Clinical Decision Support for Cancer Screening and Prevention: "I wouldn't have thought about getting screened without it."

PURPOSE: We sought to gain an understanding of cancer prevention and screening perspectives among patients exposed to a clinical decision support (CDS) tool because they were due or overdue for certain cancer screenings or prevention. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 37 adult patients due or overdue for cancer prevention services in 10 primary care clinics within the same health system. Data were thematically segmented and coded using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: We identified three themes: 1) The CDS tool had more strengths than weaknesses, with areas for improvement; 2) Many facilitators and barriers to cancer prevention and screening exist; and 3) Discussions and decision-making varied by type of cancer prevention and screening. Almost all participants made positive comments regarding the CDS. Some participants learned new information, reporting the CDS helped them make a decision they otherwise would not have made. Participants who used the tool with their provider had higher self-reported rates of deciding to be screened than those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: Learning about patients' perceptions of a CDS tool may increase understanding of how patient-tailored CDS impacts cancer screening and prevention rates. Participants found a personalized CDS tool for cancer screening and prevention in primary care useful and a welcome addition to their visit. However, many providers were not using the tool with eligible patients.

Pragmatic clinic randomized trial to improve chronic kidney disease care: Design and adaptation due to COVID disruptions.

BACKGROUND: We describe a clinic-randomized trial to improve chronic kidney disease (CKD) care through a CKD-clinical decision support (CKD-CDS) intervention in primary care clinics and the challenges we encountered due to COVID-19 care disruption. METHODS/DESIGN: Primary care clinics (N = 32) were randomized to usual care (UC) or to CKD-CDS. Between April 17, 2019 and March 14, 2020, more than 7000 patients had accrued for analysis by meeting study-eligibility criteria at an index office visit: age 18-75, laboratory criteria for stage 3 or 4 CKD (eGFR 15-59 mL/min/1.73 m2), and one or more opportunities algorithmically identified to improve CKD care such as blood pressure (BP) or glucose control, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) use, discontinuance of a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), or nephrology referral. At CKD-CDS clinics, CDS provided individualized treatment suggestions that were printed for patients and clinicians at the start of office encounters and were viewable within the electronic health record. By initial design, the impact of the CKD-CDS intervention on care gaps was to be assessed 12 months after the index date, but COVID-19 caused major disruptions to care delivery during the intervention period. In response to disruptions, the intervention was temporarily suspended while we expanded CDS use for telehealth encounters and programmed new criteria for displaying the CKD-CDS to intervention patients due to clinic closures and scheduling changes. DISCUSSION: We describe a NIH-funded pragmatic trial of web-based EHR-integrated CKD-CDS and modifications necessary mid-study to complete the study as intended in the face of COVID-19 pandemic challenges.

The impact of personalized clinical decision support on primary care patients' views of cancer prevention and screening: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have assessed the impact of clinical decision support (CDS), with or without shared decision-making tools (SDMTs), on patients' perceptions of cancer screening or prevention in primary care settings. This cross-sectional survey was conducted to understand primary care patient's perceptions on cancer screening or prevention. METHODS: We mailed surveys (10/2018-1/2019) to 749 patients aged 18 to 75 years within 15 days after an index clinical encounter at 36 primary care clinics participating in a clinic-randomized control trial of a CDS system for cancer prevention. All patients were overdue for cancer screening or human papillomavirus vaccination. The survey compared respondents' answers by study arm: usual care; CDS; or CDS + SDMT. RESULTS: Of 387 respondents (52% response rate), 73% reported having enough time to discuss cancer prevention options with their primary care provider (PCP), 64% reported their PCP explained the benefits of the cancer screening choice very well, and 32% of obese patients reported discussing weight management, with two-thirds reporting selecting a weight management intervention. Usual care respondents were significantly more likely to decide on colorectal cancer screening than CDS respondents (p < 0.01), and on tobacco cessation than CDS + SDMT respondents (p = 0.02) and both CDS and CDS + SDMT respondents (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients reported discussing cancer prevention needs with PCPs, with few significant differences between the three study arms in patient-reported cancer prevention care. Upcoming research will assess differences in screening and vaccination rates between study arms during the post-intervention follow-up period. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov , NCT02986230 , December 6, 2016.

Design and rationale of an intervention to improve cancer prevention using clinical decision support and shared decision making: A clinic-randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite decades of research the gap in primary and secondary cancer prevention services in the U. S. remains unacceptably wide. Innovative interventions are needed to address this persistent challenge. Electronic health records linked with Web-based clinical decision support may close this gap, especially if delivered to both patients and their providers. OBJECTIVES: The Cancer Prevention Wizard (CPW) study is an implementation, clinic-randomized trial designed to achieve these aims: 1) assess impact of the Cancer Prevention Wizard-Clinical Decision Support (CPW-CDS) alone and CPW-CDS plus Shared Decision Making Tools (CPW + SDMTs) compared to usual care (UC) on tobacco cessation counseling and drugs, HPV vaccinations, and screening tests for breast, cervical, colorectal, or lung cancer; 2) assess cost of the CPW-CDS intervention; and 3) describe critical facilitators and barriers for CPW-CDS implementation, use, and clinical impact using a mixed-methods approach supported by the CFIR and RE-AIM frameworks. METHODS: 34 predominantly rural, primary care clinics were randomized to CPW-CDS, CPW + SMDTs, or UC. Between August 2018 and October 2020, primary care providers and their patients who met inclusion criteria in intervention clinics were exposed to the CPW-CDS with or without SDMTs. Study outcomes at 12 months post index visit include patients up to date on screening tests and HPV vaccinations, overall healthcare costs, and diagnostic codes and billing levels for cancer prevention services. CONCLUSIONS: We will test in rural primary care settings whether CPW-CDS with or without SDMTs can improve delivery of primary and secondary cancer prevention services. The trial and analyses are ongoing with results expected in 2021.

Pre-implementation adaptation of primary care cancer prevention clinical decision support in a predominantly rural healthcare system.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is a leading cause of death in the United States. Primary care providers (PCPs) juggle patient cancer prevention and screening along with managing acute and chronic health problems. However, clinical decision support (CDS) may assist PCPs in addressing patients' cancer prevention and screening needs during short clinic visits. In this paper, we describe pre-implementation study design and cancer screening and prevention CDS changes made to maximize utilization and better fit a healthcare system's goals and culture. We employed the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), useful for evaluating the implementation of CDS interventions in primary care settings, in understanding barriers and facilitators that led to those changes. METHODS: In a three-arm, pragmatic, 36 clinic cluster-randomized control trial, we integrated cancer screening and prevention CDS and shared decision-making tools (SDMT) into an existing electronic medical record-linked cardiovascular risk management CDS system. The integrated CDS is currently being tested within a predominately rural upper Midwestern healthcare system. Prior to CDS implementation, we catalogued pre-implementation changes made from 2016 to 2018 based on: pre-implementation site engagement; key informant interviews with healthcare system rooming staff, providers, and leadership; and pilot testing. We identified influential barriers, facilitators, and changes made in response through qualitative content analysis of meeting minutes and supportive documents. We then coded pre-implementation changes made and associated barriers and facilitators using the CFIR. RESULTS: Based on our findings from system-wide pre-implementation engagement, pilot testing, and key informant interviews, we made changes to accommodate the needs of the healthcare system based on barriers and facilitators that fell within the Intervention Characteristics, Inner Setting, and Outer Setting CFIR domains. Changes included replacing the expansion of medical assistant roles in one intervention arm with targeted SDMT, as well as altering cancer prevention CDS and study design elements. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-implementation changes to CDS may help meet healthcare systems' evolving needs and optimize the intervention by being responsive to real-world implementation barriers and facilitators. Frameworks like the CFIR are useful tools for identifying areas where pre-implementation barriers and facilitators may result in design changes, both to research studies and CDS systems. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02986230.

Pragmatic trial design of an intervention to reduce cardiovascular risk in people with serious mental illness.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular (CV) disease is the leading cause of death for people with serious mental illness (SMI), but clinicians are often slow to address this risk. METHODS/DESIGN: 78 Midwestern primary care clinics were randomized to receive or not receive access to a clinical decision support (CDS) tool. Between March 2016 and September 2018, primary care clinicians (PCPs) received CDS alerts during visits with adult patients with SMI who met minimal inclusion criteria and had at least one CV risk factor not at goal. The PCP CDS included a summary of six modifiable CV risk factors and patient-specific treatment recommendations. Psychiatrists received CDS alerts during their next visit with an eligible patient with SMI that alerted them to an elevated body mass index or recent weight gain and the presence of an obesogenic SMI medication. Study outcomes include total modifiable CV risk, six modifiable CV risk factors, and use of obesogenic SMI medications. DISCUSSION: This cluster-randomized pragmatic trial allowed PCPs and psychiatrists the opportunity to improve CV risk in a timely manner for patients with SMI. Effectiveness will be assessed using an intent-to-treat analysis, and outcomes will be assessed largely through electronic health record data harvested by the CDS tool itself. In total, 10,347 patients with SMI had an index primary care visit in a randomized clinic, and 8937 patients had at least one follow-up visit. Analyses are ongoing, and trial results are expected in mid-2020. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02451670.

Barriers and facilitators to implementing cancer prevention clinical decision support in primary care: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, primary care providers (PCPs) routinely balance acute, chronic, and preventive patient care delivery, including cancer prevention and screening, in time-limited visits. Clinical decision support (CDS) may help PCPs prioritize cancer prevention and screening with other patient needs. In a three-arm, pragmatic, clinic-randomized control trial, we are studying cancer prevention CDS in a large, upper Midwestern healthcare system. The web-based, electronic health record (EHR)-linked CDS integrates evidence-based primary and secondary cancer prevention and screening recommendations into an existing cardiovascular risk management CDS system. Our objective with this study was to identify adoption barriers and facilitators before implementation in primary care. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) with 28 key informants employed by the healthcare organization in either leadership roles or the direct provision of clinical care. Transcribed interviews were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: EHR, CDS workflow, CDS users (providers and patients), training, and organizational barriers and facilitators were identified related to Intervention Characteristics, Outer Setting, Inner Setting, and Characteristics of Individuals CFIR domains. CONCLUSION: Identifying and addressing key informant-identified barriers and facilitators before implementing cancer prevention CDS in primary care may support a successful implementation and sustained use. The CFIR is a useful framework for understanding pre-implementation barriers and facilitators. Based on our findings, the research team developed and instituted specialized training, pilot testing, implementation plans, and post-implementation efforts to maximize identified facilitators and address barriers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov , NCT02986230 , December 6, 2016.

Priorities Wizard: Multisite Web-Based Primary Care Clinical Decision Support Improved Chronic Care Outcomes with High Use Rates and High Clinician Satisfaction Rates.

INTRODUCTION: Priorities Wizard is an electronic health record-linked, web-based clinical decision support (CDS) system designed and implemented at multiple Health Care Systems Research Network (HCSRN) sites to support high quality outpatient chronic disease and preventive care. The CDS system (a) identifies patients who could substantially benefit from evidence-based actions; (b) presents prioritized evidence-based treatment options to both patient and clinician at the point of care; and (c) facilitates efficient ordering of recommended medications, referrals or procedures. METHODS: The CDS system extracts relevant data from electronic health records (EHRs), processes the data using Web-based clinical decision support algorithms, and displays the CDS output seamlessly on the EHR screen for use by the clinician and patient. Through a series of National Institutes of Health-funded projects led by HealthPartners Institute and the HealthPartners Center for Chronic Care Innovation and HCSRN partners, Priorities Wizard has been evaluated in cluster-randomized trials and expanded to include over 20 clinical domains. RESULTS: Cluster-randomized trials show that this CDS system significantly improved glucose and blood pressure control in diabetes patients, reduced 10-year cardiovascular (CV) risk in high-CV risk adults without diabetes, improved management of smoking in dental patients, and improved high blood pressure identification and management in adolescents. CDS output was used at 71-77 percent of targeted visits, 85-98 percent of clinicians were satisfied with the CDS system, and 94 percent reported they would recommend it to colleagues. CONCLUSIONS: Recently developed EHR-linked, Web-based CDS systems have significantly improved chronic disease care outcomes and have high use rates and primary care clinician satisfaction.

Understanding primary care providers' perceptions of cancer prevention and screening in a predominantly rural healthcare system in the upper Midwest.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is the leading cause of death in the United States, with the burden expected to rise in the coming decades, increasing the need for effective cancer prevention and screening options. The United States Preventive Services Task Force has suggested that a shared decision-making process be used when clinicians and patients discuss cancer screening. The electronic medical record (EMR) often provides only reminders or alerts to primary care providers (PCPs) when screenings are due, a strategy with limited efficacy. METHODS: We administered a cross-sectional electronic survey to PCPs (n = 165, 53% response rate) at 36 Essentia Health primary care clinics participating in a large, National Cancer Institute-funded study on a cancer prevention clinical decision support (CDS) tool. The survey assessed PCP demographics, perceptions of the EMR's ability to help assess and manage patients' cancer risk, and experience and comfort level discussing cancer screening and prevention with patients. RESULTS: In these predominantly rural clinics, only 49% of PCPs thought the EMR was well integrated to help assess and manage cancer risk. Both advanced care practitioners and physicians agreed that cancer screening and informed discussion of cancer risks are important; however, only 53% reported their patients gave cancer screening a high priority relative to other health issues. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of EMR-linked CDS delivered to both patients and PCPs may improve cancer screening, but only if it is easy to use and saves PCPs time.

Clinical decision support directed to primary care patients and providers reduces cardiovascular risk: a randomized trial.

Objective: To test the hypothesis that use of a clinical decision support (CDS) system in a primary care setting can reduce cardiovascular (CV) risk in patients. Materials and Methods: Twenty primary care clinics were randomly assigned to usual care (UC) or CDS. For CDS clinic patients identified algorithmically with high CV risk, rooming staff were prompted by the electronic health record (EHR) to print CDS that identified evidence-based treatment options for lipid, blood pressure, weight, tobacco, or aspirin management and prioritized them based on potential benefit to the patient. The intention-to-treat analysis included 7914 adults who met high CV risk criteria at an index clinic visit and had at least one post-index visit, accounted for clustering, and assessed impact on predicted annual rate of change in 10-year CV risk over a 14-month period. Results: The CDS was printed at 75% of targeted visits, and providers reported 85% to 98% satisfaction with various aspects of the intervention. Predicted annual rate of change in absolute 10-year CV risk was significantly better in CDS clinics than in UC clinics (-0.59% vs. +1.66%, -2.24%; P < .001), with difference in 10-year CV risk at 12 months post-index favoring the CDS group (UC 24.4%, CDS 22.5%, P < .03). Discussion: Deploying to both patients and providers within primary care visit workflow and limiting CDS display and print burden to two mouse clicks by rooming staff contributed to high CDS use rates and high provider satisfaction. Conclusion: This EHR-integrated, web-based outpatient CDS system significantly improved 10-year CV risk trajectory in targeted adults.