Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28619704›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2017

Applying STOPP Guidelines in Primary Care Through Electronic Medical Record Decision Support: Randomized Control Trial Highlighting the Importance of Data Quality.

Morgan Price, Iryna Davies, Raymond Rusk, Mary Lesperance, Jens Weber

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02130895 (A Mixed-method Study to Explore, Assess, and Explain the Translation of a Complex Set of Evidence-based Rules Into Practice Through Electronic Medical Record Based Decision Support), which is not on this map. Cited by 20 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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.

NCT02130895 nacompletednot on this map

A Mixed-method Study to Explore, Assess, and Explain the Translation of a Complex Set of Evidence-based Rules Into Practice Through Electronic Medical Record Based Decision Support: How Can STOPP Effectively be Deployed in Primary Care?

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of British ColumbiaRan2014 to 2015Enrolled28ConditionsPrescribingArmsSTOPP Criteria Decision Support Content
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Using electronic health records for clinical trials: Where do we stand and where can we go?CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2019
    Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Morgan PriceLEAD Lab, Department of Family Practice, Island Medical Program, University of British Columbia, Victoria, BC, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6409-1579
Iryna DaviesLEAD Lab, Department of Family Practice, Island Medical Program, University of British Columbia, Victoria, BC, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9395-1697
Raymond RuskLEAD Lab, Department of Family Practice, Island Medical Program, University of British Columbia, Victoria, BC, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9180-2660
Mary LesperanceUniversity of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8613-1068
Jens WeberLEAD Lab, Department of Family Practice, Island Medical Program, University of British Columbia, Victoria, BC, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4591-6728
University of British Columbia · CAUniversity of Victoria · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPotentially Inappropriate Prescriptions (PIPs) are a common cause of morbidity, particularly in the elderly.

objectiveWe sought to understand how the Screening Tool of Older People's Prescriptions (STOPP) prescribing criteria, implemented in a routinely used primary care Electronic Medical Record (EMR), could impact PIP rates in community (non-academic) primary care practices.

methodsWe conducted a mixed-method, pragmatic, cluster, randomized control trial in research naïve primary care practices. Phase 1: In the randomized controlled trial, 40 fully automated STOPP rules were implemented as EMR alerts during a 16-week intervention period. The control group did not receive the 40 STOPP rules (but received other alerts). Participants were recruited through the OSCAR EMR user group mailing list and in person at user group meetings. Results were assessed by querying EMR data PIPs. EMR data quality probes were included. Phase 2: physicians were invited to participate in 1-hour semi-structured interviews to discuss the results.

resultsIn the EMR, 40 STOPP rules were successfully implemented. Phase 1: A total of 28 physicians from 8 practices were recruited (16 in intervention and 12 in control groups). The calculated PIP rate was 2.6% (138/5308) (control) and 4.11% (768/18,668) (intervention) at baseline. No change in PIPs was observed through the intervention (P=.80). Data quality probes generally showed low use of problem list and medication list. Phase 2: A total of 5 physicians participated. All the participants felt that they were aware of the alerts but commented on workflow and presentation challenges.

conclusionsThe calculated PIP rate was markedly less than the expected rate found in literature (2.6% and 4.0% vs 20% in literature). Data quality probes highlighted issues related to completeness of data in areas of the EMR used for PIP reporting and by the decision support such as problem and medication lists. Users also highlighted areas for better integration of STOPP guidelines with prescribing workflows. Many of the STOPP criteria can be implemented in EMRs using simple logic. However, data quality in EMRs continues to be a challenge and was a limiting step in the effectiveness of the decision support in this study. This is important as decision makers continue to fund implementation and adoption of EMRs with the expectation of the use of advanced tools (such as decision support) without ongoing review of data quality and improvement.

trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT02130895; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02130895 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6qyFigSYT).

Indexed as

clinical decision supportdata qualityelectronic medical recordselectronic prescribingrandomized control trial

Identifiers

PMID28619704
PMCPMC5491896
OpenAlexW2626157365

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.