Feasibility and impact of an evidence-based electronic decision support system for diabetes care in family medicine: protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial

BackgroundIn Belgium, the construction of the national electronic point-of-care information service, EBMPracticeNet, was initiated in 2011 to optimize quality of care by promoting evidence-based decision-making. The collaboration of the government, healthcare providers, Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) partners, and vendors of Electronic Health Records (EHR) is unique to this project. All Belgian healthcare professionals get free access to an up-to-date database of validated Belgian and nearly 1,000 international guidelines, incorporated in a portal that also provides EBM information from sources other than guidelines, including computerized clinical decision support that is integrated in the EHRs.The EBMeDS system is the electronic evidence-based decision support system of EBMPracticeNet. The EBMeDS system covers all clinical areas of diseases and could play a crucial role in response to the emerging challenge posed by chronic conditions. Diabetes was chosen as the analysis topic of interest. The objective of this study is to assess the effectiveness of EBMeDS use in improving diabetes care. This objective will be enhanced by a formal process evaluation to provide crucial information on the feasibility of using the system in daily Belgian family medicine.MethodsThe study is a cluster-randomized trial with before/after measurements conducted in Belgian family medicine. Physicians’ practices will be randomly assigned to the intervention or control group in a 1:1 ratio, to receive either the EBMeDS reminders or to follow the usual care process. Randomization will be performed by a statistical consultant with an electronic random list generator, anonymously for the researchers. The follow-up period of the study will be 12 months with interim analysis points at 3, 6 and 9 months. Primary outcome is the one-year pre- to post-implementation change in HbA1c. Patients will not be informed about the intervention. Data analysts will be kept blinded to the allocation.DiscussionThe knowledge obtained in this study will be useful for further integration in other Belgian software packages. Users’ perceptions and process evaluation will provide information for improving the feasibility of the system.Trial registrationThe trial is registered with the ClinicalTrials.gov registry: NCT01830569.

[1]  Douglas K Owens,et al.  Closing the Quality Gap: A Critical Analysis of Quality Improvement Strategies (Vol. 2: Diabetes Care) , 2004 .

[2]  Dirk Ramaekers,et al.  EBMPracticeNet: A Bilingual National Electronic Point-Of-Care Project for Retrieval of Evidence-Based Clinical Guideline Information and Decision Support , 2013, JMIR research protocols.

[3]  E. Balas,et al.  Improving clinical practice using clinical decision support systems: a systematic review of trials to identify features critical to success , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[4]  G. Piaggio,et al.  Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials , 2012, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[5]  Baptist Gallwitz,et al.  Diabetes mellitus Typ 2 , 2002, Monatsschrift Kinderheilkunde.

[6]  Karim Keshavjee,et al.  Individualized electronic decision support and reminders to improve diabetes care in the community: COMPETE II randomized trial , 2009, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[7]  R. Haynes,et al.  Effects of Computer-based Clinical Decision Support Systems on Clinician Performance and Patient Outcome: A Critical Appraisal of Research , 1994, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[8]  David Moher,et al.  Effectiveness of quality improvement strategies on the management of diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis , 2012, The Lancet.

[9]  A. While,et al.  Telephone follow‐up to improve glycaemic control in patients with Type 2 diabetes: systematic review and meta‐analysis of controlled trials , 2010, Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association.

[10]  Jeremy M Grimshaw,et al.  Selecting, presenting and delivering clinical guidelines: are there any “magic bullets”? , 2004, The Medical journal of Australia.

[11]  Dirk Ramaekers,et al.  Family Physicians’ Perceptions and Use of Electronic Clinical Decision Support During the First Year of Implementation , 2012, Journal of Medical Systems.

[12]  W. Scherbaum,et al.  Diabetes Mellitus Type 2 , 2007, Deutsche medizinische Wochenschrift.

[13]  R Brian Haynes,et al.  Computerized clinical decision support systems for chronic disease management: A decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review , 2011, Implementation science : IS.

[14]  Xueli Yang,et al.  Effect of mobile phone intervention for diabetes on glycaemic control: a meta‐analysis , 2011, Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association.

[15]  R B Haynes,et al.  Can computerized clinical decision support systems improve diabetes management? A systematic review and meta‐analysis , 2013, Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association.

[16]  R. Haynes,et al.  Effects of computer-based clinical decision support systems on physician performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. , 1998, JAMA.

[17]  M. Laurant,et al.  Process evaluation on quality improvement interventions , 2003, Quality & safety in health care.

[18]  G. Rutten,et al.  Combined Task Delegation, Computerized Decision Support, and Feedback Improve Cardiovascular Risk for Type 2 Diabetic Patients , 2008, Diabetes Care.

[19]  Kaveh G Shojania,et al.  Effect of point-of-care computer reminders on physician behaviour: a systematic review , 2010, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[20]  Geoffrey Norman,et al.  Sample size calculations: should the emperor’s clothes be off the peg or made to measure? , 2012, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[21]  William DuMouchel,et al.  A meta-analysis of 16 randomized controlled trials to evaluate computer-based clinical reminder systems for preventive care in the ambulatory setting. , 1996, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA.

[22]  D. Altman,et al.  CONSORT statement: extension to cluster randomised trials , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[23]  H. Mcdonald,et al.  Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. , 2005, JAMA.

[24]  N. Wilczynski,et al.  Computerized clinical decision support systems for acute care management: A decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review of effects on process of care and patient outcomes , 2011, Implementation science : IS.

[25]  Dirk Ramaekers,et al.  Implementation Science Effectiveness of Electronic Guideline-based Implementation Systems in Ambulatory Care Settings -a Systematic Review , 2022 .

[26]  R Brian Haynes,et al.  Computerized clinical decision support systems for primary preventive care: A decision-maker-researcher partnership systematic review of effects on process of care and patient outcomes , 2011, Implementation science : IS.

[27]  Amy N. Cohen,et al.  Review paper: Informatics Systems to Promote Improved Care for Chronic Illness: A Literature Review , 2007, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..