Top

Published in:

01-08-2015 | Original Research

Reducing PSA-Based Prostate Cancer Screening in Men Aged 75 Years and Older with the Use of Highly Specific Computerized Clinical Decision Support

Authors: Jeremy B. Shelton, MD, MSHS, Lee Ochotorena, RN, Carol Bennett, MD, Paul Shekelle, MD, PhD, Lorna Kwan, MPH, Ted Skolarus, MD, MPH, Caroline Goldzweig, MD, MSHS

Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine | Issue 8/2015

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

In 2012, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) implemented guidelines seeking to reduce PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in men aged 75 years and older.

OBJECTIVES

To reduce the use of inappropriate PSA-based prostate cancer screening among men aged 75 and over.

SETTING

The Veterans Affairs Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System (VA GLA)

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

We developed a highly specific computerized clinical decision support (CCDS) alert to remind providers, at the moment of PSA screening order entry, of the current guidelines and institutional policy. We implemented the tool in a prospective interrupted time series study design over 15 months, and compared the trends in monthly PSA screening rate at baseline to the CCDS on and off periods of the intervention.

RESULTS

A total of 30,150 men were at risk, or eligible, for screening, and 2,001 men were screened. The mean monthly screening rate during the 15-month baseline period was 8.3 %, and during the 15-month intervention period, was 4.6 %. The screening rate declined by 38 % during the baseline period and by 40 % and 30 %, respectively, during the two periods when the CCDS tool was turned on. The screening rate ratios for the baseline and two periods when the CCDS tool was on were 0.97, 0.78, and 0.90, respectively, with a significant difference between baseline and the first CCDS-on period (p < 0.0001), and a trend toward a difference between baseline and the second CCDS-on period (p = 0.056).

CONCLUSION

Implementation of a highly specific CCDS tool alone significantly reduced inappropriate PSA screening in men aged 75 years and older in a reproducible fashion. With this simple intervention, evidence-based guidelines were brought to bear at the point of care, precisely for the patients and providers for whom they were most helpful, resulting in more appropriate use of medical resources.

Daskivich T, et al. Severity of comorbidity and non-prostate cancer mortality in men with early-stage prostate cancer. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(15):1396–1397.PubMedCrossRef

USPSTF (US Preventive Services Task Force). Screening for prostate cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149(3):185–191.CrossRef

Greene KL, et al. Prostate Specific Antigen Best Practice Statement: 2009 Update. J Urol. 2009;182(5):2232–2241.PubMedCrossRef

National Comprehensive Cancer Network. National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Guidelines in Oncology: Prostate Cancer Early Detection V1.2012. 2012 [cited 2015 February 9th]; Available from: http://www.nccn.org/about/permissions/request_form.asp.

National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology: Prostate Cancer Early Detection V1.2014 2014 [cited 2015 February 9th]; Available from: http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/prostate_detection.pdf.

American Urological Association. EARLY DETECTION OF PROSTATE CANCER GUIDELINE. 2013 [cited 2015 February, 9th]; Available from: http://www.auanet.org/education/guidelines/prostate-cancer-detection.cfm.

Prasad SM, et al. 2008 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations and prostate cancer screening rates. JAMA. 2012;307(16):1692–1694.PubMedCrossRef

Walter LC, et al. PSA screening among elderly men with limited life expectancies. JAMA. 2006;296(19):2336–2342.PubMedCrossRef

Walter LC, et al. Five-year downstream outcomes following prostate-specific antigen screening in older men. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(10):866–873.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

10.

VHA Office of Healthcare Transformation. VHA T21 Implementation Guidance: FY2012, 2012: VHA Intranet.

11.

McGlynn EA, et al. The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(26):2635–2645.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Ryoo JJ, Malin JL. Reconsidering the Veterans Health Administration: A Model and a Moment for Publicly Funded Health Care Delivery. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154(11):772–773.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Rubenstein LV, et al. A Patient-Centered Primary Care Practice Approach Using Evidence-Based Quality Improvement: Rationale, Methods, and Early Assessment of Implementation. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29:S589–S597.PubMedCrossRef

14.

Yano EM, et al. Patient Aligned Care Teams (PACT): VA’s Journey to Implement Patient-Centered Medical Homes. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29:S547–S549.PubMedCrossRef

15.

USPSTF (US Preventive Services Task Force). Screening for Prostate Cancer. 2012 May, 2012 [cited 2015 February 9th]; Available from: http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Topic/recommendation-summary/prostate-cancer-screening?ds=1&s=prostate.

16.

Andriole GL, et al. Mortality results from a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(13):1310–1319.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

17.

Schröder FH, et al. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(13):1320–1328.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Wright A, et al. A Description and Functional Taxonomy of Rule-based Decision Support Content at a Large Integrated Delivery Network. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007;14(4):489–496.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

19.

Hoffmann TC, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ. 2014;348:g1687.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Brook RH. The role of physicians in controlling medical care costs and reducing waste. JAMA. 2011;306(6):650–651.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Cassel CK, Guest JA. Choosing wisely: helping physicians and patients make smart decisions about their care. JAMA. 2012;307(17):1801–1802.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Goldzweig CL, et al. Costs and benefits of health information technology: new trends from the literature. Health Aff (Millwood). 2009;28(2):w282–w293.CrossRef

23.

Buntin MB, et al. The benefits of health information technology: a review of the recent literature shows predominantly positive results. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30(3):464–471.CrossRef

24.

Shojania KG, et al. The effects of on-screen, point of care computer reminders on processes and outcomes of care. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;3, CD001096.PubMed

25.

van der Sijs H, et al. Overriding of drug safety alerts in computerized physician order entry. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13(2):138–147.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

26.

Kesselheim AS, et al. Clinical decision support systems could be modified to reduce 'alert fatigue' while still minimizing the risk of litigation. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011;30(12):2310–2317.CrossRef

27.

Spina JR, et al. Clinical relevance of automated drug alerts from the perspective of medical providers. Am J Med Qual. 2005;20(1):7–14.PubMedCrossRef

28.

Eppenga WL, et al. Comparison of a basic and an advanced pharmacotherapy-related clinical decision support system in a hospital care setting in the Netherlands. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012;19(1):66–71.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

29.

Woods AD, et al. Clinical decision support for atypical orders: detection and warning of atypical medication orders submitted to a computerized provider order entry system. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013;21:569–573.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

30.

Russ AL, et al. A human factors investigation of medication alerts: barriers to prescriber decision-making and clinical workflow. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2009;2009:548–552.PubMedCentralPubMed

31.

Harinstein LM, et al. Use of an abnormal laboratory value-drug combination alert to detect drug-induced thrombocytopenia in critically Ill patients. J Crit Care. 2012;27(3):242–249.PubMedCrossRef

32.

Shah NR, et al. Improving acceptance of computerized prescribing alerts in ambulatory care. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13(1):5–11.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

33.

Starmer JM, Talbert DA, Miller RA. Experience using a programmable rules engine to implement a complex medical protocol during order entry. Proc AMIA Symp. 2000:829–32.

34.

Brouwers MC, et al. The landscape of knowledge translation interventions in cancer control: what do we know and where to next? A review of systematic reviews. Implement Sci. 2011;6:130.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

35.

Rothschild JM, et al. Assessment of education and computerized decision support interventions for improving transfusion practice. Transfusion. 2007;47(2):228–239.PubMedCrossRef

Title: Reducing PSA-Based Prostate Cancer Screening in Men Aged 75 Years and Older with the Use of Highly Specific Computerized Clinical Decision Support
Authors: Jeremy B. Shelton, MD, MSHS
Lee Ochotorena, RN
Carol Bennett, MD
Paul Shekelle, MD, PhD
Lorna Kwan, MPH
Ted Skolarus, MD, MPH
Caroline Goldzweig, MD, MSHS
Publication date: 01-08-2015
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine / Issue 8/2015
Print ISSN: 0884-8734
Electronic ISSN: 1525-1497
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-015-3249-y

Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Reserve your place

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin

Prof. Florian Limbourg

Prof. Anoop Chauhan

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

OBJECTIVES

SETTING

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION

RESULTS

CONCLUSION

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 8/2015

Pharmaceutical Cost-Saving Strategies and their Association with Medication Adherence in a Medicare Supplement Population

Capsule Commentary for Tsilimingras et al., Post-Discharge Adverse Events Among Urban and Rural Patients of an Urban Community Hospital: A Prospective Cohort Study

Yelp for Prescribers: A Quasi-Experimental Study of Providing Antibiotic Cost Data and Prescription of High-Cost Antibiotics in an Academic and Tertiary Care Hospital

Capsule Commentary on Clair et al., The Effect of Cigarette Smoking on Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Caring for the Complex Patient: The Next Hurdle for Information Technology Is Care Coordination

A Case of Subacute Ataxia in the Summertime: Tick Paralysis

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

At a glance: The STEP trials