EHR-Integrated Clinical Pathways Promote Education, Confidence, and Save Time for Primary Care Providers.

Computerized clinical decision support tools are increasingly necessary and widespread in primary care due to rapidly evolving evidence and shifting clinical guidelines. Clinical pathways are a subtype of clinical decision support tool which aim to link evidence to practice and which require evaluation of benefits and barriers to use to inform user-centered design. The objective was to describe the use and perceived benefits and barriers to evidence-based, disease-specific electronic health record pathways for clinical decision support. Primary care providers at a large integrated health system were surveyed about their use of clinical pathways using an online questionnaire distributed via email in November 2021. Descriptive statistics were estimated and differences in the characteristics and responses by pathway use were assessed using chi-square or Fisher exact tests. The survey response rate was 26% (153/593). There were differences in the response rates between providers by practice type (42% academic versus 54% community; P < 0.001). No difference was found in the demographics of those that used the pathways versus those that did not according to role, age, or length of time in practice. Providers in the academic practice were more likely than those in community practices to have used the pathways. Among providers who used the pathways, 98% agree they have evidence-based information, 98% agree they allow them to take better care of patients, 88% agree they guide clinical-decisions, and 85% agree they save time. The main barrier for those who had used pathways was that they forget about them. Among those who had not used pathways, 35% were unaware that pathways existed. This analysis demonstrates that primary care providers who adopt clinical pathways perceive benefits in several domains. The largest barriers to adoption were that users forgot about pathways or were unaware of them. Future work should focus on dissemination and education, improving tool accessibility, and content optimization to balance complexity with efficiency.

Use of repurposed and adjuvant drugs in hospital patients with covid-19: multinational network cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the use of repurposed and adjuvant drugs in patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 across three continents. DESIGN: Multinational network cohort study. SETTING: Hospital electronic health records from the United States, Spain, and China, and nationwide claims data from South Korea. PARTICIPANTS: 303 264 patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 from January 2020 to December 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prescriptions or dispensations of any drug on or 30 days after the date of hospital admission for covid-19. RESULTS: Of the 303 264 patients included, 290 131 were from the US, 7599 from South Korea, 5230 from Spain, and 304 from China. 3455 drugs were identified. Common repurposed drugs were hydroxychloroquine (used in from <5 (<2%) patients in China to 2165 (85.1%) in Spain), azithromycin (from 15 (4.9%) in China to 1473 (57.9%) in Spain), combined lopinavir and ritonavir (from 156 (<2%) in the VA-OMOP US to 2,652 (34.9%) in South Korea and 1285 (50.5%) in Spain), and umifenovir (0% in the US, South Korea, and Spain and 238 (78.3%) in China). Use of adjunctive drugs varied greatly, with the five most used treatments being enoxaparin, fluoroquinolones, ceftriaxone, vitamin D, and corticosteroids. Hydroxychloroquine use increased rapidly from March to April 2020 but declined steeply in May to June and remained low for the rest of the year. The use of dexamethasone and corticosteroids increased steadily during 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple drugs were used in the first few months of the covid-19 pandemic, with substantial geographical and temporal variation. Hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, lopinavir-ritonavir, and umifenovir (in China only) were the most prescribed repurposed drugs. Antithrombotics, antibiotics, H2 receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids were often used as adjunctive treatments. Research is needed on the comparative risk and benefit of these treatments in the management of covid-19.

Blood pressure control rates measured in specialty vs primary care practices within a large integrated health system.

Blood pressure measurement is a diagnostic test and a key component of assessing and managing hypertension, a major contributor to cardiovascular risk. Based on real-world clinical observations within a large, university-based, accountable care organization, we sought to assess whether blood pressure control results varied by the assessment setting, primary care versus specialty. We studied the most recent outpatient measurement for patients with hypertension during the 2016 calendar year and categorized each as being performed in a primary care or specialty setting, and as being controlled (<140/90 mm Hg) or uncontrolled. Among the 86 512 patients identified, the 43 364 whose most recent blood pressure measurement was in a specialty setting were significantly less likely to be controlled compared to the 43 148 whose most recent measurement was in primary care (63% vs 68%, respectively, OR = 0.83 [0.80-0.85]). For the 27 955 patients who had measurements performed in both settings during the year, the control rates based upon their most recent specialty and primary care measurements were 63% and 71%, respectively (OR = 0.62, 0.60-0.65). For the subsets of patients whose measurements in each setting were within 30 or within seven days of each other, the odds of control in the specialty versus primary care setting were 0.63 (0.58-0.75) and 0.65 (0.57-0.75), respectively. Health systems should weigh the value of performing blood pressure measurement in specialty settings that do not manage this condition, taking into consideration the resources required to perform it and the potential negative consequences of inaccurate measurements.