2021
DOI: 10.1186/s13063-021-05488-y
|View full text |Cite|
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Lessons learned from Integrated Management Program Advancing Community Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (IMPACT-AF): a pragmatic clinical trial of computerized decision support in primary care

Abstract: Background Integrated Management Program Advancing Community Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation (IMPACT-AF) was a pragmatic, cluster randomized trial assessing the effectiveness of a clinical decision support (CDS) tool in primary care, Nova Scotia, Canada. We evaluated if CDS software versus Usual Care could help primary care providers (PCPs) deliver individualized guideline-based AF patient care. Methods Key study challenges including CDS developme… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

1
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Another limitation of the study was the fact that only 3 in 4 providers in the CDS arm completed their training on how to use the CDS tool [ 7 ]. It was also suspected that only a proportion of those trained providers used the tool regularly due to implementation issues, including slow internet and operating speeds, lack of integration with key health datasets as well as the need for data entry and double login among other things [ 21 ]. This could explain the lack of any significant differences in costs and resource use between the CDS and usual care groups.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Another limitation of the study was the fact that only 3 in 4 providers in the CDS arm completed their training on how to use the CDS tool [ 7 ]. It was also suspected that only a proportion of those trained providers used the tool regularly due to implementation issues, including slow internet and operating speeds, lack of integration with key health datasets as well as the need for data entry and double login among other things [ 21 ]. This could explain the lack of any significant differences in costs and resource use between the CDS and usual care groups.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%