We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
An evaluation of educational outreach to improve evidence-based prescribing in Medicaid: a cautionary tale.
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 2008 October
RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Evidence suggests that educational outreach ('academic detailing') improves evidence-based prescribing. We evaluated the impact of an academic detailing programme intended to increase new statin prescriptions.
METHODS: In a 2 x 2 factorial design we evaluated the effect of an academic detailing programme with/without telephonic care management for patients. Eligible patients were continuously enrolled Medicaid members at high risk for cardiovascular disease utilization who were not receiving statin medication in the 18 months prior to the intervention. All primary care prescribers assigned to these patients were randomized by clinic to academic detailing. Two trained nurses provided the detailing to prescribers, including specific discussion about the use of statins in this high-risk patient population. Nurses left the prescribers with a summary of clinical practice guidelines, a one-page detailing sheet and a list of patients under the care of the prescriber who were candidates for statins. The primary outcome was the incidence of a new statin prescription claim during the 6-month intervention period and the subsequent 6 months. Logistic regression models were used to estimate main effects of the interventions and to adjust for potential confounding variables in the study.
RESULTS: Forty-eight clinics were randomized, effectively randomizing a total of 284 patients and 128 prescribers. Among the 284 patients, 46 (16%) received a new statin claim during the evaluation period. Controlling for significant bivariate associations, the academic detailing intervention had no significant effect on new statin prescriptions compared with the control group (odds ratio = 0.8, 95% confidence interval: 0.4-1.6, P = 0.5).
CONCLUSION: Among this Medicaid population at high risk for cardiovascular events, an academic detailing programme to increase statin prescriptions was not effective. To assist others to learn from our failed effort, we identify and discuss critical elements in the design and implementation of the programme that could account for these results.
METHODS: In a 2 x 2 factorial design we evaluated the effect of an academic detailing programme with/without telephonic care management for patients. Eligible patients were continuously enrolled Medicaid members at high risk for cardiovascular disease utilization who were not receiving statin medication in the 18 months prior to the intervention. All primary care prescribers assigned to these patients were randomized by clinic to academic detailing. Two trained nurses provided the detailing to prescribers, including specific discussion about the use of statins in this high-risk patient population. Nurses left the prescribers with a summary of clinical practice guidelines, a one-page detailing sheet and a list of patients under the care of the prescriber who were candidates for statins. The primary outcome was the incidence of a new statin prescription claim during the 6-month intervention period and the subsequent 6 months. Logistic regression models were used to estimate main effects of the interventions and to adjust for potential confounding variables in the study.
RESULTS: Forty-eight clinics were randomized, effectively randomizing a total of 284 patients and 128 prescribers. Among the 284 patients, 46 (16%) received a new statin claim during the evaluation period. Controlling for significant bivariate associations, the academic detailing intervention had no significant effect on new statin prescriptions compared with the control group (odds ratio = 0.8, 95% confidence interval: 0.4-1.6, P = 0.5).
CONCLUSION: Among this Medicaid population at high risk for cardiovascular events, an academic detailing programme to increase statin prescriptions was not effective. To assist others to learn from our failed effort, we identify and discuss critical elements in the design and implementation of the programme that could account for these results.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app