Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27881130›Full record

Trial reportBMC medical informatics and decision making2016

Electronic reminders to facilitate longitudinal care: a mixed-methods study in general practices.

Christine Kersting, Birgitta Weltermann

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Christine KerstingInstitute for General Medicine, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Hufelandstr. 55, 45147, Essen, Germany. christine.kersting@uk-essen.de.
Birgitta WeltermannInstitute for General Medicine, University Hospital Essen, University of Duisburg-Essen, Hufelandstr. 55, 45147, Essen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLongitudinal, patient-centered care represents a challenge for general practitioners (GPs), and in this context, reminder systems can offer targeted support. This study aimed to identify details of such reminders: (1) contents of care addressed, (2) their mode of display in the electronic health record (EHR), (3) their visual appearance, (4) personnel responsibilities for editing and applying reminders, and (5) use of reminders for patient recall.

methodsThis mixed-methods study comprised (1) a cross-sectional survey among 185 GP practices from a German university network, and (2) structured observations of reminder utilization in six practices based on a clinical vignette describing a multimorbid senior with 26 care needs. Descriptive statistics were performed for survey data. The practice observations were analyzed by portraying different types of reminders.

resultsSeventy-three of 185 practices completed the survey (39.5%): 98.6% reported using reminders in the EHR. Frequent care contents addressed were allergies/adverse drug events (95.8%), preventive measures (93.1%), participation in disease management programs (87.5%), chronic diseases (75.0%), and upcoming vaccinations (68.1%). Practice observations showed a variety of mainly self-configured reminders. In a patients' EHR, information was displayed (1) compiled in a separate field, (2) scattered throughout the EHR, and/or (3) in a pop-up window. The visual appearance of electronic reminders varied: (1) colored fields with short text, (2) EHR entries and/or billing codes in pre-defined colors, (3) abbreviations within the treatment documentation, (4) symbols within the treatment documentation, (5) symbols linked to free text fields, and (6) traffic light schemes. Five practices self-designed reminders 'as needed'; one practice applied an EHR-embedded, pre-defined reminder system. Practices used reminders for a mean of 13.3 of the 26 aspects of care detailed in the clinical vignette (range: 9-21; standard deviation (SD): 4.3). Practices needed 20-35 min (mean: 27.5; SD: 6.1) to retrieve the information requested.

conclusionsMost GP practices use self-designed, visual reminders for some aspects of care, yet data-based, sophisticated solutions are needed to improve longitudinal care.

trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register, unique identifying number: DRKS00008777 (date of registration: 06/19/2015).

Indexed as

Cross-Sectional StudiesElectronic Health RecordsGeneral PracticeGermanyHumansPrimary Health CareQualitative ResearchReminder SystemsElectronic health recordHealth information technologyLongitudinal careMixed methodsPrimary health careReminder system

Identifiers

PMID27881130
PMCPMC5122020

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.