Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28462279›Full record

ArticleHealth services research and managerial epidemiology

A Case Study of Visit-Driven Preventive Care Screening Using Clinical Decision Support: The Need to Redesign Preventive Care Screening.

Gregory M Garrison, Chelsea R Traverse, Robert G Fish

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health services research and managerial epidemiology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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. Review
  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

3 authors.

Gregory M GarrisonDepartment of Family Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Chelsea R TraverseDepartment of Family Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Robert G FishDepartment of Family Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIn the traditional model of care, an annual visit was dedicated to the task of assessing and delivering preventive care. With the move away from annual physicals, primary care physicians are addressing preventive services at every clinic visit often aided by electronic clinical decision support (CDS) systems.

methodsWe conducted a case study of a visit-driven CDS system in use at a primary care clinic. Steady-state performance was assessed via control charts of quality metrics, data regarding completion of recommendations, and an analysis of screening intervals achieved with patient visits.

resultsUnder this visit-driven CDS system, quality metric performance was poor and declining. Almost half of the patients were not screened (46.5%), and the other half were overscreened the majority of the time (83.3%). Recommended preventive services were ordered less than half the time (42.6%), despite CDS reminders. DISCUSSION: Various barriers and systematic inefficiencies combined to produce ineffective screening in this visit-driven CDS preventive service delivery system. As a result, we conclude a visit-driven system cannot produce optimal results. In order to improve performance, preventive services should be delivered separately from clinical visits, perhaps by a "preventive service ranger" (PSR) utilizing the CDS system to review each patient once annually. Under such a system, patients would receive preventive services in an organized and efficient fashion, potentially leading to better continuity, higher quality metrics that are mathematically predictable, and improved satisfaction.

Indexed as

efficiencyhealth outcomesmedical informaticsprimary careprogram evaluation

Identifiers

PMID28462279
PMCPMC5266452

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.