ABSTRACT
With increasing work-loads in anticoagulant clinics different methods of service delivery need evaluation. The quality of anticoagulant control achieved by a nurse-practitioner using a computer decision-support system (CDSS) was compared with that achieved by trainee doctors without CDSS. Eighty-one out-patients (group A, therapeutic range 2-3) and 96 out-patients (group B, therapeutic range 3-4.5) were randomized to management by a nurse-practitioner or by trainee doctors (clinicians). Thirty-seven patients in group A and 50 patients in group B were randomized to be managed by the nurse-practitioner. In group A, patients in the nurse-practitioner group spent a longer time in the therapeutic range than those in the clinician group (60.7% compared with 51.6%). Dose suggestion acceptance in the nurse-practitioner group (88%) was higher compared with agreement between the CDSS and the clinicians (60%). In group B, patients in the clinician group spent a slightly longer time in the therapeutic range (70% compared with 67.6%). Acceptance of dose suggestion was lower in the nurse-practitioner group (67%) compared with agreement between the CDSS and the clinicians (73%). In conclusion, the CDSS can improve the quality of control of warfarin therapy by a nurse-practitioner over that by trainee doctors for the therapeutic range 2-3. Similar quality of control is achieved for the therapeutic range 3-4.5. The CDSS may be used by nurse-practitioners to achieve safe and effective anticoagulation in hospital-based or out-reach anticoagulant clinics.
Subject(s)
Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Decision Making, Computer-Assisted , Nurse Practitioners , Physicians , Administration, Oral , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Quality Assurance, Health CareABSTRACT
Computer clinical decision-support systems require validation before clinical use. This study compared recommendations on warfarin dosage adjustment and timing of the next appointment made by an algorithm with those made by experienced and inexperienced clinicians. Data abstracted from the records of 125 patients seen regularly in the anticoagulant clinic were used. The algorithm recommended dose changes and next appointment for cases with INRs between 1.8 to 4.2 (therapeutic range 2.0-3.0) and between 2.3 to 5.3 (therapeutic range 3.0-4.5). Beyond these values the algorithm referred the cases to "see doctor'. Compared to experienced clinicians, the algorithm was better at "recognising' difficult patients than inexperienced clinicians (kappa = 0.43 and 0.32 respectively). There was no statistically significant difference between all decision makers in dosage recommendations for the non-difficult cases, but there was much more variation amongst the inexperienced clinicians. The interval recommendations were statistically different between and within the different decision-makers. The inexperienced clinicians tended to give relatively longer intervals for a given dose change. In conclusion, the algorithm performs better than inexperienced clinicians and as well as experienced clinicians for the non-difficult cases.
Subject(s)
Algorithms , Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , Appointments and Schedules , Therapy, Computer-Assisted , Warfarin/administration & dosage , Analysis of Variance , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Drug Administration Schedule , Humans , Professional Practice , Prospective Studies , Reproducibility of Results , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
Myeloproliferative disorders are well recognized as being associated with haemorrhage and thrombosis. We describe two cases, one of life-threatening haemorrhage and the other of thrombosis, in patients with normal peripheral blood counts and films, both of whom went on to develop overt manifestations of myeloproliferative disorders (CGL and essential thrombocythaemia) more than a year after their first presentation.
