VA Integrated Medication Manager

Not Applicable

Completed

• Conditions: Electronic Health Records
• Interventions: Other: Integrated Medication Manager

• Registration Number: NCT01787175
• Lead Sponsor: University of Utah

Brief Summary

The purpose of this study is to advance the science of healthcare informatics and to improve medication management through the development of a new approach to the electronic medical record called the Integrated Medication Manager (IMM).

Detailed Description

In an attempt to address problems patient non-compliance with quality goals barriers to access and integration of health information that impede achievement of treatment goals, the VA is developing a new approach to the electronic medical record. The VA is moving away from the paper-chart metaphor and towards an integrated representation of the patient's status and care process across time. One of the first steps in the development phase has been to explicitly relate patient conditions, therapies, and goals in the domain of pharmacotherapy. This is called Integrated Medication Management and draws on Hollnagel's Contextual Control Model. Providers will be able to plan care and create orders directly in the context of these explicit relationships. This application will be implemented nationwide through a web interface embedded within the existing Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS), the graphical user interface to VA Information Systems (VistA).

Aim 1: Identify cognitive components of providers' therapeutic decision making in the field.

Aim 2. Refine and evaluate the Integrated Medication Manager using simulation studies.

* Aim 2.a. Refine interfaces and logic of the Integrated Medication Manager.

* Aim 2.b. Compare the performance of the Integrated Medication Manager and usual CPRS.

All hypotheses (below) test the use of IMM versus usual electronic medical record (EMR).

* Speed of decision-making will be faster.

* Accuracy of data interpretation (clinical assessment) will be higher.

* Appropriateness of therapeutic plans will be higher.

* Efficiency of gathering information will be higher.

* Common ground measures will be higher.

* Appropriateness of therapeutic plans will be higher when relevant data is outside the usual time horizon.

* Appropriateness of therapeutic plans will be higher when complex associations among patient therapies and goals exist.

* Appropriateness of therapeutic plans will be no lower when relevant data is not captured by the displays of the IMM.

* Appropriateness of therapeutic plans will be higher when highly salient data is not germane to the most important problem.

* Appropriateness of therapeutic plans will be higher when cognitive load is high due to interruptions.

Basic Information
|
Recruitment & Eligibility
|
Study & Design
|
Trial Locations

Study Timeline

• Study Start: 2007-10
• Primary Completion: 2011-03
• Study Completion: 2011-03
• Study First Submitted: 2013-01-22
• Study First Submitted QC: 2013-02-05
• Study First Posted: 2013-02-08
• Results First Submitted: 2014-01-03
• Status Verified: 2016-05
• Results First Submitted QC: 2016-05-17
• Last Update Submitted: 2016-05-17
• Results First Posted: 2016-06-23
• Last Update Posted: 2016-06-23

Recruitment & Eligibility

• Status: COMPLETED
• Sex: All
• Target Recruitment: 58

Inclusion Criteria

• Practiced in primary care for at least two years
• Third year residents with two years of residency in internal medicine or family practice
• Do not have to be currently practicing

Read More

Exclusion Criteria

• None

Read More

Study & Design

• Study Type: INTERVENTIONAL
• Study Design: PARALLEL

Arm && Interventions

Group	Intervention	Description
Integrated Medication Manager	Integrated Medication Manager	Experienced providers that participated in the EHR simulations. Half of the providers were assigned to use the new Integrated Medication Manager (intervention) during the simulation. The other half were assigned the VA's CPRS to use (standard EHR). Providers were randomly assigned which system to use.

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Amount of Time to Complete Assessment and Plan	10 minutes	Each participant had 10 minutes maximum to review the patient case and write an Assessment and Plan.
Accuracy of Written Assessment and Plan in Terms of Control and Status	10 minutes	Each participant had 10 minutes maximum to review the patient case and write an Assessment and Plan. The primary outcome evaluated participants' recommendations for treatment of patient conditions. Participants reviewed a total of 10 patient cases and received a score between 0 and 3 points for each issue within each patient case. The final score for each participant was a proportion between 0 and 1. The proportion represented the sum of all points assigned to the participant, divided by the total number of points possible. Higher values on the scale represent greater accuracy of the written assessment and plan.

Secondary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Identification of Planned Monitoring and Follow up Encounters in Assessment and Plan	10 minutes	Each participant had 10 minutes maximum to review the patient case and write an Assessment and Plan. . The secondary outcome evaluated participants' recommendation about future monitoring of patient conditions. Participants reviewed a total of 10 patient cases and received a score of 0 or 1 point for each issue within each case. The final score for each participant was a proportion between 0 and 1. The proportion represented the sum of all points assigned to the participant, divided by the total number of points possible. Higher values on the scale represent a greater proportion of appropriate monitoring recommendations made.

Trial Locations

Locations (1)

VA SLC Health Care System; 🇺🇸 Salt Lake City, Utah, United States