The effectiveness of computer reminders versus postal reminders for improving quality assessment for point-of-care testing in primary care: a randomized controlled trial

Volkert Siersma, Marius Brostrøm Kousgaard, Susanne Reventlow, Ruth Ertmann, Peter Felding, Frans Boch Waldorff

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Resumé

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the relative effectiveness of electronic and postal reminders for increasing adherence to the quality assurance programme for the international normalized ratio (INR) point-of-care testing (POCT) device in primary care.

METHODS: All 213 family practices that use the Elective Laboratory of the Capital Region, Denmark, and regularly conduct INR POCT were randomly allocated into two similarly sized groups. During the 4-month intervention, these practices were sent either computer reminders (ComRem) or computer-generated postal reminders (Postal) if they did not perform a split test to check the quality of their INR POCT for each calendar month. The adherence of the practices was tracked during the subsequent 8 months subdivided into two 4-month periods both without intervention. Outcomes were measures of split test procedure adherence.

RESULTS: Both interventions were associated with an increase in adherence to the split test procedure - a factor 6.00 [95% confidence interval (CI) 4.46-7.72] and 8.22 [95% CI 5.87-11.52] for ComRem and Postal, respectively - but there is no evidence that one of the interventions was more effective than the other. In the ComRem group, the expected number of split tests (out of four) was 2.54 (95% CI 2.33-2.76) versus 2.44 (95% CI 2.24-2.65) in the Postal group, P = 0.14. There was a slight decrease in adherence over the two follow-ups, but neither intervention was better than the other in achieving a lasting improvement in adherence.

CONCLUSION: Computer reminders are as efficient as postal reminders in increasing adherence to a quality assurance programme for the INR POCT device in primary care.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftJournal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice Online
Vol/bind21
Udgave nummer1
Sider (fra-til)13-20
ISSN1365-2753
DOI
StatusUdgivet - feb. 2015

Fingeraftryk

International Normalized Ratio
Primary Health Care
Randomized Controlled Trials
Confidence Intervals
Equipment and Supplies
Family Practice
Denmark
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Point-of-Care Testing

Citer dette

@article{cac304d99227414688648e823daed2b9,
title = "The effectiveness of computer reminders versus postal reminders for improving quality assessment for point-of-care testing in primary care: a randomized controlled trial",
abstract = "RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the relative effectiveness of electronic and postal reminders for increasing adherence to the quality assurance programme for the international normalized ratio (INR) point-of-care testing (POCT) device in primary care.METHODS: All 213 family practices that use the Elective Laboratory of the Capital Region, Denmark, and regularly conduct INR POCT were randomly allocated into two similarly sized groups. During the 4-month intervention, these practices were sent either computer reminders (ComRem) or computer-generated postal reminders (Postal) if they did not perform a split test to check the quality of their INR POCT for each calendar month. The adherence of the practices was tracked during the subsequent 8 months subdivided into two 4-month periods both without intervention. Outcomes were measures of split test procedure adherence.RESULTS: Both interventions were associated with an increase in adherence to the split test procedure - a factor 6.00 [95{\%} confidence interval (CI) 4.46-7.72] and 8.22 [95{\%} CI 5.87-11.52] for ComRem and Postal, respectively - but there is no evidence that one of the interventions was more effective than the other. In the ComRem group, the expected number of split tests (out of four) was 2.54 (95{\%} CI 2.33-2.76) versus 2.44 (95{\%} CI 2.24-2.65) in the Postal group, P = 0.14. There was a slight decrease in adherence over the two follow-ups, but neither intervention was better than the other in achieving a lasting improvement in adherence.CONCLUSION: Computer reminders are as efficient as postal reminders in increasing adherence to a quality assurance programme for the INR POCT device in primary care.",
keywords = "Aged, Computers, Denmark, Female, Humans, International Normalized Ratio, Male, Middle Aged, Point-of-Care Systems, Postal Service, Primary Health Care, Quality Improvement, Reminder Systems",
author = "Volkert Siersma and Kousgaard, {Marius Brostr{\o}m} and Susanne Reventlow and Ruth Ertmann and Peter Felding and Waldorff, {Frans Boch}",
note = "{\circledC} 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.",
year = "2015",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1111/jep.12210",
language = "English",
volume = "21",
pages = "13--20",
journal = "Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice Online",
issn = "1365-2753",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

The effectiveness of computer reminders versus postal reminders for improving quality assessment for point-of-care testing in primary care : a randomized controlled trial. / Siersma, Volkert; Kousgaard, Marius Brostrøm; Reventlow, Susanne; Ertmann, Ruth; Felding, Peter; Waldorff, Frans Boch.

I: Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice Online, Bind 21, Nr. 1, 02.2015, s. 13-20.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The effectiveness of computer reminders versus postal reminders for improving quality assessment for point-of-care testing in primary care

T2 - a randomized controlled trial

AU - Siersma, Volkert

AU - Kousgaard, Marius Brostrøm

AU - Reventlow, Susanne

AU - Ertmann, Ruth

AU - Felding, Peter

AU - Waldorff, Frans Boch

N1 - © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

PY - 2015/2

Y1 - 2015/2

N2 - RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the relative effectiveness of electronic and postal reminders for increasing adherence to the quality assurance programme for the international normalized ratio (INR) point-of-care testing (POCT) device in primary care.METHODS: All 213 family practices that use the Elective Laboratory of the Capital Region, Denmark, and regularly conduct INR POCT were randomly allocated into two similarly sized groups. During the 4-month intervention, these practices were sent either computer reminders (ComRem) or computer-generated postal reminders (Postal) if they did not perform a split test to check the quality of their INR POCT for each calendar month. The adherence of the practices was tracked during the subsequent 8 months subdivided into two 4-month periods both without intervention. Outcomes were measures of split test procedure adherence.RESULTS: Both interventions were associated with an increase in adherence to the split test procedure - a factor 6.00 [95% confidence interval (CI) 4.46-7.72] and 8.22 [95% CI 5.87-11.52] for ComRem and Postal, respectively - but there is no evidence that one of the interventions was more effective than the other. In the ComRem group, the expected number of split tests (out of four) was 2.54 (95% CI 2.33-2.76) versus 2.44 (95% CI 2.24-2.65) in the Postal group, P = 0.14. There was a slight decrease in adherence over the two follow-ups, but neither intervention was better than the other in achieving a lasting improvement in adherence.CONCLUSION: Computer reminders are as efficient as postal reminders in increasing adherence to a quality assurance programme for the INR POCT device in primary care.

AB - RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the relative effectiveness of electronic and postal reminders for increasing adherence to the quality assurance programme for the international normalized ratio (INR) point-of-care testing (POCT) device in primary care.METHODS: All 213 family practices that use the Elective Laboratory of the Capital Region, Denmark, and regularly conduct INR POCT were randomly allocated into two similarly sized groups. During the 4-month intervention, these practices were sent either computer reminders (ComRem) or computer-generated postal reminders (Postal) if they did not perform a split test to check the quality of their INR POCT for each calendar month. The adherence of the practices was tracked during the subsequent 8 months subdivided into two 4-month periods both without intervention. Outcomes were measures of split test procedure adherence.RESULTS: Both interventions were associated with an increase in adherence to the split test procedure - a factor 6.00 [95% confidence interval (CI) 4.46-7.72] and 8.22 [95% CI 5.87-11.52] for ComRem and Postal, respectively - but there is no evidence that one of the interventions was more effective than the other. In the ComRem group, the expected number of split tests (out of four) was 2.54 (95% CI 2.33-2.76) versus 2.44 (95% CI 2.24-2.65) in the Postal group, P = 0.14. There was a slight decrease in adherence over the two follow-ups, but neither intervention was better than the other in achieving a lasting improvement in adherence.CONCLUSION: Computer reminders are as efficient as postal reminders in increasing adherence to a quality assurance programme for the INR POCT device in primary care.

KW - Aged

KW - Computers

KW - Denmark

KW - Female

KW - Humans

KW - International Normalized Ratio

KW - Male

KW - Middle Aged

KW - Point-of-Care Systems

KW - Postal Service

KW - Primary Health Care

KW - Quality Improvement

KW - Reminder Systems

U2 - 10.1111/jep.12210

DO - 10.1111/jep.12210

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 24953533

VL - 21

SP - 13

EP - 20

JO - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice Online

JF - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice Online

SN - 1365-2753

IS - 1

ER -