Computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals: effects on professional practice and healthcare 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 them 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. This is an update of a previously published review. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of reminders automatically generated through a computerized system (computer-generated) and delivered on paper to healthcare professionals on quality of care (outcomes related to healthcare professionals' practice) and patient outcomes (outcomes related to patients' health condition). SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, six other databases and two trials registers up to 21 September 2016 together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included individual- or cluster-randomized and non-randomized trials that evaluated the impact of computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals, alone (single-component intervention) or in addition to one or more co-interventions (multi-component intervention), compared with usual care or the co-intervention(s) without the reminder component. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Review authors working in pairs independently screened studies for eligibility and abstracted data. 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 improvement and interquartile range (IQR) across included studies using the primary outcome or median outcome as representative outcome. We assessed the certainty of the evidence according to the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 35 studies (30 randomized trials and five non-randomized trials) and analyzed 34 studies (40 comparisons). Twenty-nine studies took place in the USA and six studies took place in Canada, France, Israel, and Kenya. All studies except two took place in outpatient care. Reminders were aimed at enhancing compliance with preventive guidelines (e.g. cancer screening tests, vaccination) in half the studies and at enhancing compliance with disease management guidelines for acute or chronic conditions (e.g. annual follow-ups, laboratory tests, medication adjustment, counseling) in the other half.Computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals, alone or in addition to co-intervention(s), probably improves quality of care slightly compared with usual care or the co-intervention(s) without the reminder component (median improvement 6.8% (IQR: 3.8% to 17.5%); 34 studies (40 comparisons); moderate-certainty evidence).Computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals alone (single-component intervention) probably improves quality of care compared with usual care (median improvement 11.0% (IQR 5.4% to 20.0%); 27 studies (27 comparisons); moderate-certainty evidence). Adding computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals to one or more co-interventions (multi-component intervention) probably improves quality of care slightly compared with the co-intervention(s) without the reminder component (median improvement 4.0% (IQR 3.0% to 6.0%); 11 studies (13 comparisons); moderate-certainty evidence).We are uncertain whether reminders, alone or in addition to co-intervention(s), improve patient outcomes as the certainty of the evidence is very low (n = 6 studies (seven comparisons)). None of the included studies reported outcomes related to harms or adverse effects of the intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence that computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals probably slightly improves quality of care, in terms of compliance with preventive guidelines and compliance with disease management guidelines. It is uncertain whether reminders improve patient outcomes because the certainty of the evidence is very low. The heterogeneity of the reminder interventions included in this review also suggests that reminders can probably improve quality of care in various settings under various conditions.

Patients' involvement in e-health services quality assessment: a system for the automatic interpretation of SMS-based patients' feedback.

PURPOSE: Effective communication between patients and health services providers is a key aspect for optimizing and maintaining these services. This work describes a system for the automatic evaluation of users' perception of the quality of SmsCup, a reminder system for outpatient visits based on short message service (SMS). The final purpose is the creation of a closed-loop control system for the outpatient service, where patients' complaints and comments represent a feedback that can be used for a better implementation of the service itself. METHODS: SmsCup was adopted since about eight years by an Italian healthcare organization, with very good results in reducing the no-show (missing visits) phenomenon. During these years, a number of citizens, even if not required, sent a message back, with comments about the service. The automatic interpretation of the content of those SMS may be useful for monitoring and improving service performances.Yet, due to the complex nature of SMS language, their interpretation represents an ongoing challenge. The proposed system uses conditional random fields as the information extraction method for classifying messages into several semantic categories. The categories refer to appreciation of the service or complaints of various types. Then, the system analyzes the extracted content and provides feedback to the service providers, making them learning and acting on this basis. RESULTS: At each step, the content of the messages reveals the actual state of the service as well as the efficacy of corrective actions previously undertaken. Our evaluations showed that: (i) the SMS classification system has achieved good overall performance with an average F1-measure and an overall accuracy of about 92%; (ii) the notification of the patients' feedbacks to service providers showed a positive impact on service functioning. CONCLUSIONS: Our study proposed an interactive patient-centered system for continuous monitoring of the service quality. It has demonstrated the feasibility of a tool for the analysis and notification of the patients' feedback on their service experiences, which would support a more regular access to the service.

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.

Notifications received by primary care practitioners in electronic health records: a taxonomy and time analysis.

BACKGROUND: Asynchronous electronic health record (EHR)-based alerts used to notify practitioners via an inbox-like format rather than through synchronous computer "pop-up" messages are understudied. Our objective was to create an asynchronous alert taxonomy and measure the impact of different alert types on practitioner workload. METHODS: We quantified and categorized asynchronous alerts according to the information they conveyed and conducted a time-motion analysis to assess practitioner workload. We reviewed alert information transmitted to all 47 primary care practitioners (PCPs) at a large, tertiary care Veterans Affairs facility over 4 evenly spaced 28-day periods. An interdisciplinary team used content analysis to categorize alerts according to their conveyed information. We then created an alert taxonomy and used it to calculate the mean number of alerts of each type PCPs received each day. We conducted a time-motion study of 26 PCPs while they processed their alerts. We used these data to estimate the uninterrupted time practitioners spend processing alerts each day. RESULTS: We extracted 295,792 asynchronously generated alerts and created a taxonomy of 33 alert types categorized under 6 major categories: Test Results, Referrals, Note-Based Communication, Order Status, Patient Status Changes, and Incomplete Task Reminders. PCPs received a mean of 56.4 alerts/day containing new information. Based on 749 observed alert processing episodes, practitioners spent an estimated average of 49 minutes/day processing their alerts. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs receive a large number of EHR-based asynchronous alerts daily and spend significant time processing them. The utility of transmitting large quantities and varieties of alerts to PCPs warrants further investigation.

Encuesta nutricional pediátrica / Pediatric nutrition survey

Luego de los años setenta, y a partir de la experiencia norteamericana, en varios países, se comienza a medir el estado alimenticio de la población y los cambios a través del tiempo. La encuesta nacional, con el fin de ofrecer información periódica y actualizada, permite desarrollar, monitorear y establecer políticas en relación a la salud y nutrición de la población infantil. Entre los métodos de encuesta nutricional más utilizados están el recordatorio de 24 horas, el registro diario de alimentos, peso directo de los alimentos y frecuencia semi-cuantitativa.

After the seventies, and from the American experience in several countries, begin to measure the nutritional status of the population and changes over time. The national survey, in order to provide regular and updated information, can develop, monitor and develop policies in relation to health and nutrition of children. Among the nutritional survey methods most used are the 24-hour recall, the journal of food, live weight of food and often semi-quantitative.

Two pharmacy interventions to improve refill persistence for chronic disease medications: a randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite the proven effectiveness of many medications for chronic diseases, many patients do not refill their prescriptions in the required timeframe. OBJECTIVE: Compare the effectiveness of 3 pharmacist strategies to decrease time to refill of prescriptions for common chronic diseases. RESEARCH DESIGN/SUBJECTS: A randomized, controlled clinical trial with patients as the unit of randomization. Nine pharmacies within a medium-sized grocery store chain in South Carolina were included, representing urban, suburban, and rural areas and patients from a variety of socioeconomic backgrounds. Patients (n = 3048) overdue for refills for selected medications were randomized into 1 of 3 treatment arms: (1) pharmacist contact with the patient via telephone, (2) pharmacist contact with the patient's prescribing physician via facsimile, and (3) usual care. MEASURES: The primary outcome was the number of days from their recommended refill date until the patient filled a prescription for any medication relevant to his/her chronic disease. Prescription refill data were obtained routinely from the pharmacy district office's centralized database. Patient disposition codes were obtained by pharmacy employees. An intent-to-treat approach was used for all analyses. RESULTS: There were no significant differences by treatment arm in the study outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Neither of the interventions is more effective than usual care at improving persistence of prescription refills for chronic diseases in overdue patients.

Improving uptake of cervical cancer screening in women with prolonged history of non-attendance for screening: a randomized trial of enhanced invitation methods.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of three methods of inviting women with a long history of non-attendance to undergo cervical screening. METHODS: Randomized controlled trial and cost-effectiveness analysis. In all, 1140 women were identified from routine NHS screening records as having no smear for at least 15 years and randomly allocated to receive a telephone call from a nurse, a letter from a well-known celebrity (Claire Rayner) or letter from the local NHS Cervical Screening Commissioner. Uptake of screening was measured using routine data and attributed to interventions if occurring within three months. Uptake was compared with a control group. Costs of carrying out the interventions were noted from the perspective of the NHS and cost-effectiveness, as cost per additional attender, calculated. RESULTS: Uptake following all interventions was low: telephone call (1.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38-3.6%); celebrity letter (1.8, 95% CI 0.57-4.0%); commissioner letter (4.6, 95% CI 2.5-7.7%); control group (1.8, 95% CI 0.57-4.0%). There were no significant differences between groups. Telephone intervention was not possible in a quarter of women whose numbers were unlisted. Telephone intervention was the most expensive and least effective of the interventions. The commissioner letter yielded an additional attender within three months at an incremental cost of 23.21 pounds compared with taking no action. CONCLUSIONS: Neither a telephone call from a nurse nor a letter from a celebrity to encourage attendance for cervical screening were effective or cost-effective in women with a prolonged history of non-participation in the screening programme. A letter from the local cervical screening programme commissioner resulted in a small, non-significant increase in uptake. The low cost and ease of implementation of this intervention supports further research into its use in routine practice.