OBJECTIVE
To compare computer-based with manual health maintenance tracking systems to determine whether (1) a computer-based system will result in better provider compliance with the practice health maintenance protocol, (2) the incremental cost of operating a computer-based vs a manual health maintenance tracking system differs, and (3) inactive patients will respond to health maintenance reminders.
DESIGN
Two-year prospective, randomized, controlled trial.
SETTING
Rural, multiple-office, nonprofit, fee-for-service family practice.
PATIENTS
Adult members of families in which at least one member had been seen by the practice within the past 2 years.
INTERVENTION
A computer-based health maintenance tracking system that generated annual provider and patient reminders for all patients regardless of appointment status compared with a manual flowchart-based tracking system in which patient reminders were triggered by provider request.
OUTCOME MEASURES
Provider compliance with the health maintenance protocol determined by preintervention and postintervention chart audits, costs of computer-based tracking, and response of inactive patients to health maintenance reminders.
RESULTS
Overall provider compliance with the health maintenance protocol increased 15 percentage points in the computer-based tracking group and four percentage points in the manual group. The computer-based tracking group had significantly higher provider compliance than the manual group for eight of 11 procedures. The computer-based tracking system cost 78 cents per patient per year to operate. It was not associated with increased office visits or patient billings.
CONCLUSIONS
Computer-based health maintenance tracking improved provider health maintenance compliance compared with a manual system. The finding that health maintenance compliance improved without a significant increase in patient visits or billings requires confirmation in other settings but suggests that considerable health maintenance can be incorporated into ongoing patient care.