Implementation of appropriate use criteria for cardiology tests and procedures: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Author:

Winchester David E12ORCID,Merritt Justin2,Waheed Nida3,Norton Hannah4,Manja Veena56,Shah Nishant R78,Helfrich Christian D9

Affiliation:

1. Cardiology Section, Malcom Randall VAMC, 1601 SW Archer Rd 111-D, Gainesville, FL, USA

2. Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, 1600 SW Archer Rd, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA

3. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Florida College of Medicine, 1600 SW Archer Rd, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA

4. University of Florida College of Medicine, Health Science Center Library, 1600 SW Archer Rd, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA

5. Department of Surgery, University of California Davis, 2315 Stockton Blvd, Sacramento, CA 95817, USA

6. VA Northern California Health Care System, 10535 Hospital Way, Mather, CA 95655, USA

7. Department of Medicine, Providence VA Medical Center, Brown University Warren Alpert Medical School, 830 Chalkstone Ave, Providence, RI 02908, USA

8. Department of Health Services, Policy & Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, 121 S Main St, Providence, RI 02903, USA

9. Seattle-Denver Center for Innovation in Veteran-Centered and Value-Driven Care, 1660 S. Columbian Way Mailstop S-152 Seattle, WA 98108, USA

Abstract

Abstract Aims The American College of Cardiology appropriate use criteria (AUC) provide clinicians with evidence-informed recommendations for cardiac care. Adopting AUC into clinical workflows may present challenges, and there may be specific implementation strategies that are effective in promoting effective use of AUC. We sought to assess the effect of implementing AUC in clinical practice. Methods and results We conducted a meta-analysis of studies found through a systematic search of the MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane, or CINAHL databases. Peer-reviewed manuscripts published after 2005 that reported on the implementation of AUC for a cardiovascular test or procedure were included. The main outcome was to determine if AUC implementation was associated with a reduction in inappropriate/rarely appropriate care. Of the 18 included studies, the majority used pre/post-cohort designs; few (n = 3) were randomized trials. Most studies used multiple strategies (n = 12, 66.7%). Education was the most common individual intervention strategy (n = 13, 72.2%), followed by audit and feedback (n = 8, 44.4%) and computerized physician order entry (n = 6, 33.3%). No studies reported on formal use of stakeholder engagement or ‘nudges’. In meta-analysis, AUC implementation was associated with a reduction in inappropriate/rarely appropriate care (odds ratio 0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.49–0.78). Funnel plot suggests the possibility of publication bias. Conclusion We found most published efforts to implement AUC observed reductions in inappropriate/rarely appropriate care. Studies rarely explored how or why the implementation strategy was effective. Because interventions were infrequently tested in isolation, it is difficult to make observations about their effectiveness as stand-alone strategies. Study registration PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018091602. Available from https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42018091602.

Funder

Malcom Randall VAMC

Career Development Award

United States Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine,Health Policy

Cited by 8 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3