4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Academic detailing to improve laboratory testing among outpatient medication users

期刊

MEDICAL CARE
卷 45, 期 10, 页码 966-972

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3180546856

关键词

academic detailing; quality improvement; physician practice patterns; medication safety

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To determine whether group academic detailing with performance feedback increases recommended laboratory monitoring among outpatients dispensed medications. Methods: Thirty-eight primary care practices in 3 states were randomized to group academic detailing with physician-level performance feedback (intervention) or a control group. Adjusted differences in creatinine and potassium testing between intervention and control group patients with a new or continuing dispensing for angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), diuretics, or digoxin were evaluated using generalized estimating equation approaches. Results: Monitoring among patients with an initial ACE/ARB and diuretic :dispensing significantly improved with the intervention [odds ratio (OR) = 1.22, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.08-1.38; and OR = 1.25, 95% CI: 1.08-1.44, respectively). The intervention also significantly improved monitoring among patients with a continuing dispensing for an ACE/ARB (OR = 1.39, 95% CI: 1.111.74) or a diuretic (OR = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.02-1.60). Adjusted differences in testing rates between study arms were modest (ranging from 2.5% to 4.9%). No significant differences in monitoring by study arm were detected among patients dispensed digoxin. Conclusions: The impact of a group academic detailing program with feedback on recommended laboratory monitoring among medication users was modest. Yet, given the numbers of outpatients dispensed medications for which laboratory monitoring is recommended, group academic detailing may offer I method by which outpatient medication safety can be significantly improved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据