Effectiveness of Electronic Quality Improvement Activities to Reduce Cardiovascular Disease Risk in People With Chronic Kidney Disease in General Practice: Cluster Randomized Trial With Active Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Future Health Today (FHT) is a program integrated with electronic medical record (EMR) systems in general practice and comprises (1) a practice dashboard to identify people at risk of, or with, chronic disease who may benefit from intervention; (2) active clinical decision support (CDS) at the point of care; and (3) quality improvement activities. One module within FHT aims to facilitate cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk reduction in people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) through the recommendation of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor inhibitors (ACEI), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), or statins according to Australian guidelines (defined as appropriate pharmacological therapy). OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine if the FHT program increases the proportion of general practice patients with CKD receiving appropriate pharmacological therapy (statins alone, ACEI or ARB alone, or both) to reduce CVD risk at 12 months postrandomization compared with active control (primary outcome). METHODS: General practices recruited through practice-based research networks in Victoria and Tasmania were randomly allocated 1:1 to the FHT CKD module or active control. The intervention was delivered to practices between October 4, 2021, and September 30, 2022. Data extracted from EMRs for eligible patients identified at baseline were used to evaluate the trial outcomes at the completion of the intervention period. The primary analysis used an intention-to-treat approach. The intervention effect for the primary outcome was estimated with a marginal logistic model using generalized estimating equations with robust SE. RESULTS: Overall, of the 734 eligible patients from 19 intervention practices and 715 from 21 control practices, 82 (11.2%) and 70 (9.8%), respectively, had received appropriate pharmacological therapy (statins alone, ACEI or ARB alone, or both) at 12 months postintervention to reduce CVD risk, with an estimated between-trial group difference (Diff) of 2.0% (95% CI -1.6% to 5.7%) and odds ratio of 1.24 (95% CI 0.85 to 1.81; P=.26). Of the 470 intervention patients and 425 control patients that received a recommendation for statins, 61 (13%) and 38 (9%) were prescribed statins at follow-up (Diff 4.3%, 95% CI 0 to 8.6%; odds ratio 1.55, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.35; P=.04). There was no statistical evidence to support between-group differences in other secondary outcomes and general practice health care use. CONCLUSIONS: FHT harnesses the data stored within EMRs to translate guidelines into practice through quality improvement activities and active clinical decision support. In this instance, it did not result in a difference in prescribing or clinical outcomes except for small changes in statin prescribing. This may relate to COVID-19-related disruptions, technical implementation challenges, and recruiting higher performing practices to the trial. A separate process evaluation will further explore factors impacting implementation and engagement with FHT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12620000993998; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=380119.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".