A randomized trial of electronic clinical reminders to improve quality of care for diabetes and coronary artery disease. A controlled trial to improve delivery of preventive care: physician or patient reminders? A computer-generated reminder system improves physician compliance with diabetes preventive care guidelines. Can just-in-time, evidence-based "reminders" improve pain management among home health care nurses and their patients? Reminders to physicians from an introspective computer medical record. A two-year randomized trial. Use of reminders for preventive procedures in family medicine. Effect of mailed reminders on the response rate in surveys among patients in general practice. A computerized reminder system to increase the use of preventive care for hospitalized patients. Telephone reminders are a cost effective way to improve responses in postal health surveys.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of an integrated patient-specific electronic clinical reminder system on diabetes and coronary artery disease (CAD) care and to assess physician attitudes toward this reminder system.
                We enrolled 194 primary care physicians caring for 4549 patients with diabetes and 2199 patients with CAD at 20 ambulatory clinics. Clinics were randomized so that physicians received either evidence-based electronic reminders within their patients' electronic medical record or usual care. There were five reminders for diabetes care and four reminders for CAD care.
                The primary outcome was receipt of recommended care for diabetes and CAD. We created a summary outcome to assess the odds of increased compliance with overall diabetes care (based on five measures) and overall CAD care (based on four measures). We surveyed physicians to assess attitudes toward the reminder system.
                Baseline adherence rates to all quality measures were low. While electronic reminders increased the odds of recommended diabetes care (odds ratio [OR] 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.67) and CAD (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.01-1.55), the impact of individual reminders was variable. A total of three of nine reminders effectively increased rates of recommended care for diabetes or CAD. The majority of physicians (76%) thought that reminders improved quality of care.
                An integrated electronic reminder system resulted in variable improvement in care for diabetes and CAD. These improvements were often limited and quality gaps persist. To improve the delivery of preventive care in a medical clinic, a controlled trial was conducted of two interventions that were expected to influence delivery of preventive services differently, depending on level of initiative required of the physician or patient to complete a service.
                A prospective, controlled trial of five-months' duration.
                A university hospital-based, general medical clinic.
                Thirty-nine junior and senior medical residents who saw patients in stable clinic teams throughout the study.
                A computerized reminder system for physicians and a patient questionnaire and educational hand-out on preventive care.
                Delivery of five of six audited preventive services improved significantly after the interventions were introduced. The computerized reminder alone increased completion rates of services that relied primarily on physician initiative; the questionnaire alone increased completion rate of the service that depended more on patient compliance as well as on some physician-dependent services. Both interventions used together were slightly less effective in improving performance of physician-dependent services than the computerized reminder used alone.
                These interventions can improve the delivery of preventive care but they differ in their impacts on physician and patient behaviors. Overall, the computer reminder was the more effective intervention. Computerized reminder systems have been shown to be effective in improving physician compliance with preventive services guidelines. Very little has been published about the use of computerized reminders for preventive care in diabetes. We implemented a computer-generated reminder system for diabetes care guidelines in a randomized controlled study in the outpatient clinics of 35 internal medicine residents at the University of Utah and Salt Lake Veterans Affairs Hospitals. After a six month study period, compliance with the recommended care significantly improved in both the intervention group that received patient-specific reminders about the guidelines (38.0% at baseline, 54.9% at follow-up) and the control group that received a nonspecific report (34.6% at baseline, 51.0% at follow-up). There was no significant difference between the two groups. Both clinic sites showed similar improvement over baseline levels of compliance. Residents who completed encounter forms used by the system showed a significantly greater improvement in compliance than those who did not complete encounter forms (19.7% vs. 7.6%, p = 0.006). The improvements in guideline compliance were seen in all areas of diabetes preventive care studied, and significant improvements were seen with recommended items from the medical history, physical exam, laboratory testing, referrals, and patient education. The use of encounter forms by the providers significantly improved documented compliance with the guidelines in almost all categories of preventive care. These results suggest that computerized reminder systems improve compliance with recommended care more by facilitating the documentation of clinical findings and the ordering of recommended procedures than by providing the clinician with patient-specific information about guideline compliance status. Further study is needed to understand the implications of these findings to the development of future computerized reminder systems for chronic diseases such as diabetes. The purpose of this randomized, controlled, home care intervention was to test the effectiveness of two nurse-targeted, e-mail-based interventions to increase home care nurses' adherence to pain assessment and management guidelines, and to improve patient outcomes. Nurses from a large urban non-profit home care organization were assigned to usual care or one of two interventions upon identification of an eligible cancer patient with pain. The basic intervention consisted of a patient-specific, one-time e-mail reminder highlighting six pain-specific clinical recommendations. The augmented intervention supplemented the initial e-mail reminder with provider prompts, patient education material, and clinical nurse specialist outreach. Over 300 nurses were randomized and outcomes of 673 of their patients were reviewed. Data collection involved clinical record abstraction of nurse care practices and patient interviews completed approximately 45 days after start of care. The intervention had limited effect on nurse-documented care practices but patient outcomes were positively influenced. Patients in the augmented group improved significantly over the control group in ratings of pain intensity at its worst, whereas patients in the basic group had better ratings of pain intensity on average. Other outcomes measures were also positively influenced but did not reach statistical significance. Our findings suggest that although reminders have some role in improving cancer pain management, a more intensive approach is needed for a generalized nursing workforce with limited recent exposure to state-of-the-art pain management practices. We developed a computer-stored medical record system containing a limited set of the total clinical data base--primarily diagnostic studies and treatments. This system responds to its own content according to physician-authored reminder rules. To determine the effect of the reminder messages generated by 1490 rules on physician behavior, we randomly assigned practitioners in a general medicine clinic to study or control groups. The computer found indications for six different actions per patient in 12 467 patients during a 2-year study: 61 study group residents who received computer reminders responded to 49% of these indications; 54 control group residents, to only 29% (p less than 0.0001). Preventive care (occult blood testing, mammographic screening, weight reduction diets, influenza and pneumococcal vaccines) was affected. The intentions of the study group to use a given action for an indication predicted their response to the indications (p less than 0.03, r2 = 0.33). The intentions of the control residents did not. To compare the effectiveness of three computerized reminder systems in the delivery of five preventive procedures in family practice.
                Prospective, randomized, controlled study.
                Ottawa Civic Hospital Family Medicine Centre.
                Of 8502 patients 15 years of age or more who were not in a hospital or institution 5883 were randomly assigned, by family, to a control group, a physician reminder group (passive) or a telephone or letter reminder group (active). The remaining 2619 patients were not included in the randomized portion of the study but were monitored.
                During 1 year the patients in the active reminder groups received a telephone call or letter reminding them of any overdue preventive procedures; for those in the passive reminder group the physician was reminded at an office visit to provide any overdue service.
                Rates of completion of the preventive procedures required.
                All three reminder systems significantly improved the delivery of preventive services (p less than 0.001). The procedure completion rates were 42.0% in the letter reminder group, 42.0% in the telephone reminder group, 33.7% in the physician reminder group and 14.1% in the randomized control group. The use of a letter was more cost-effective than the telephone system, but the physician reminder system was the most cost-effective.
                Computerized reminder systems do improve the delivery of preventive services in family practice. Randomized trials were performed in Denmark and The Netherlands to determine the effect of mailed reminders on the response rate in surveys among patients in general practice. In both countries, general practitioners handed out questionnaires to 200 adult patients who came to visit them. An intervention group of 100 patients received reminders at 3 weeks after the visit, whereas a control group of the remaining 100 patients did not receive reminders. The response rate was significantly higher in the intervention groups than in the control group in The Netherlands (86% versus 55%, respectively) but not in Denmark (87% versus 81%, respectively). Mailed reminders can improve the response rate in surveys related to a general practice, but they are not effective in all situations. Although they are effective in outpatient settings, computerized reminders have not been proved to increase preventive care in inpatient settings.
                We conducted a randomized, controlled trial to determine the effects of computerized reminders on the rates at which four preventive therapies were ordered for inpatients. During an 18-month study period, a computerized system processed on-line information for all 6371 patients admitted to a general-medicine service (for a total of 10,065 hospitalizations), generating preventive care reminders as appropriate. Physicians who were in the intervention group viewed these reminders when they were using a computerized order-entry system for inpatients.
                The reminder system identified 3416 patients (53.6 percent) as eligible for preventive measures that had not been ordered by the admitting physician. For patients with at least one indication, computerized reminders resulted in higher adjusted ordering rates for pneumococcal vaccination (35.8 percent of the patients in the intervention group vs. 0.8 percent of those in the control group, P<0.001), influenza vaccination (51.4 percent vs. 1.0 percent, P< 0.001), prophylactic heparin (32.2 percent vs. 18.9 percent, P<0.001), and prophylactic aspirin at discharge (36.4 percent vs. 27.6 percent, P<0.001).
                A majority of hospitalized patients in this study were eligible for preventive measures, and computerized reminders significantly increased the rate of delivery of such therapies. To assess the effectiveness of a telephone reminder in increasing responses to postal surveys and to calculate the differential costs per completed questionnaire.
                Randomised controlled trial.
                Australian university and rehabilitation medicine practice.
                The trial was conducted in 1999 among the 143 non-respondents to a questionnaire about work related neck and upper body disorders. The questionnaire was sent to two Australian female samples: 200 office workers (Sample A) and 92 former rehabilitation medicine patients (Sample B). A reminder letter, another copy of the questionnaire and a final letter were sent at two week intervals. Half of the non-respondents within each sample were randomly selected to receive a telephone reminder just after the second mailout of the questionnaire. All direct costs were calculated.
                Responses were significantly higher among those who received the telephone reminder intervention (relative risk 2.54, 95% confidence intervals 1.43 to 4.52). Analysed by intention to phone, 47% of non-respondents in Sample A and 38% in Sample B returned a complete questionnaire after the intervention, compared with 21% and 10%, respectively, in the control groups. For the 112 women (combined samples) who returned completed questionnaires before randomisation, the average cost per respondent was AUD14. There was a higher total cost for the intervention groups (AUD851 versus AUD386 for controls), but the significantly higher number of additional completed responses (31 versus 12) resulted in a 15% lower marginal cost per completed questionnaire in those groups.
                Telephone reminders are cost effective in improving responses to postal surveys.
There is moderate quality evidence that computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals achieve moderate improvement in process of care. Two characteristics emerged as significant predictors of improvement: providing space on the reminder for a response from the clinician and providing an explanation of the reminder’s content or advice. The heterogeneity of the reminder interventions included in this review also suggests that reminders can improve care in various settings under various conditions