VA Integrated Medication Manager
IMM
Veterans Affairs Integrated Medication Manager
1 other identifier
interventional
58
1 country
1
Brief Summary
The purpose of this study is to advance the science of healthcare informatics and to improve medication management through the development of a new approach to the electronic medical record called the Integrated Medication Manager (IMM).
Trial Health
Trial Health Score
Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach
participants targeted
Target at P25-P50 for not_applicable
Started Oct 2007
Longer than P75 for not_applicable
1 active site
Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.
Trial Relationships
Click on a node to explore related trials.
Study Timeline
Key milestones and dates
Study Start
First participant enrolled
October 1, 2007
CompletedPrimary Completion
Last participant's last visit for primary outcome
March 1, 2011
CompletedStudy Completion
Last participant's last visit for all outcomes
March 1, 2011
CompletedFirst Submitted
Initial submission to the registry
January 22, 2013
CompletedFirst Posted
Study publicly available on registry
February 8, 2013
CompletedResults Posted
Study results publicly available
June 23, 2016
CompletedJune 23, 2016
May 1, 2016
3.4 years
January 22, 2013
January 3, 2014
May 17, 2016
Conditions
Keywords
Outcome Measures
Primary Outcomes (2)
Amount of Time to Complete Assessment and Plan
Each participant had 10 minutes maximum to review the patient case and write an Assessment and Plan.
10 minutes
Accuracy of Written Assessment and Plan in Terms of Control and Status
Each participant had 10 minutes maximum to review the patient case and write an Assessment and Plan. The primary outcome evaluated participants' recommendations for treatment of patient conditions. Participants reviewed a total of 10 patient cases and received a score between 0 and 3 points for each issue within each patient case. The final score for each participant was a proportion between 0 and 1. The proportion represented the sum of all points assigned to the participant, divided by the total number of points possible. Higher values on the scale represent greater accuracy of the written assessment and plan.
10 minutes
Secondary Outcomes (1)
Identification of Planned Monitoring and Follow up Encounters in Assessment and Plan
10 minutes
Study Arms (2)
Integrated Medication Manager
EXPERIMENTALExperienced providers that participated in the EHR simulations. Half of the providers were assigned to use the new Integrated Medication Manager (intervention) during the simulation. The other half were assigned the VA's CPRS to use (standard EHR). Providers were randomly assigned which system to use.
Standard EHR
NO INTERVENTIONExperienced providers that participated in the EHR simulations. Half of the providers were assigned to use the new Integrated Medication Manager (intervention) during the simulation. The other half were assigned the VA's CPRS to use (standard EHR). Providers were randomly assigned which system to use.
Interventions
A theory based electronic health record. Half of the provider participants were assigned the IMM to use. The other half were assigned the VA's CPRS EHR to use for the simulation. Providers were randomly assigned to a EHR to use.
Eligibility Criteria
You may qualify if:
- Practiced in primary care for at least two years
- Third year residents with two years of residency in internal medicine or family practice
- Do not have to be currently practicing
You may not qualify if:
- None
Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.
Sponsors & Collaborators
Study Sites (1)
VA SLC Health Care System
Salt Lake City, Utah, 84148, United States
Related Publications (19)
Asch SM, McGlynn EA, Hogan MM, Hayward RA, Shekelle P, Rubenstein L, Keesey J, Adams J, Kerr EA. Comparison of quality of care for patients in the Veterans Health Administration and patients in a national sample. Ann Intern Med. 2004 Dec 21;141(12):938-45. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-141-12-200412210-00010.
PMID: 15611491BACKGROUNDPerlin JB, Pogach LM. Improving the outcomes of metabolic conditions: managing momentum to overcome clinical inertia. Ann Intern Med. 2006 Apr 4;144(7):525-7. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-144-7-200604040-00012. No abstract available.
PMID: 16585667BACKGROUNDMorris AH. Developing and implementing computerized protocols for standardization of clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med. 2000 Mar 7;132(5):373-83. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-132-5-200003070-00007.
PMID: 10691588BACKGROUNDFox J, Alabassi A, Black E, Hurt C, Rose T. Modelling clinical goals: a corpus of examples and a tentative ontology. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2004;101:31-45.
PMID: 15537204BACKGROUNDXiao Y, Hunter WA, Mackenzie CF, Jefferies NJ, Horst RL. Task complexity in emergency medical care and its implications for team coordination. LOTAS Group. Level One Trauma Anesthesia Simulation. Hum Factors. 1996 Dec;38(4):636-45. doi: 10.1518/001872096778827206.
PMID: 8976626BACKGROUNDPhillips LS, Branch WT, Cook CB, Doyle JP, El-Kebbi IM, Gallina DL, Miller CD, Ziemer DC, Barnes CS. Clinical inertia. Ann Intern Med. 2001 Nov 6;135(9):825-34. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-135-9-200111060-00012.
PMID: 11694107BACKGROUNDNebeker JR, Hurdle JF, Bair BD. Future history: medical informatics in geriatrics. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2003 Sep;58(9):M820-5. doi: 10.1093/gerona/58.9.m820.
PMID: 14528038BACKGROUNDCrosson JC, Stroebel C, Scott JG, Stello B, Crabtree BF. Implementing an electronic medical record in a family medicine practice: communication, decision making, and conflict. Ann Fam Med. 2005 Jul-Aug;3(4):307-11. doi: 10.1370/afm.326.
PMID: 16046562BACKGROUNDHayward RA, Asch SM, Hogan MM, Hofer TP, Kerr EA. Sins of omission: getting too little medical care may be the greatest threat to patient safety. J Gen Intern Med. 2005 Aug;20(8):686-91. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.0152.x.
PMID: 16050875BACKGROUNDTinetti ME, Bogardus ST Jr, Agostini JV. Potential pitfalls of disease-specific guidelines for patients with multiple conditions. N Engl J Med. 2004 Dec 30;351(27):2870-4. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsb042458. No abstract available.
PMID: 15625341BACKGROUNDGarg AX, Adhikari NK, McDonald H, Rosas-Arellano MP, Devereaux PJ, Beyene J, Sam J, Haynes RB. Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review. JAMA. 2005 Mar 9;293(10):1223-38. doi: 10.1001/jama.293.10.1223.
PMID: 15755945BACKGROUNDShekelle PG. Invited commentary: Implementation of health information technology: an important but challenging field of inquiry. Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent). 2006 Oct;19(4):313. doi: 10.1080/08998280.2006.11928190. No abstract available.
PMID: 17106490BACKGROUNDWeir CR, Nebeker JJ, Hicken BL, Campo R, Drews F, Lebar B. A cognitive task analysis of information management strategies in a computerized provider order entry environment. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2007 Jan-Feb;14(1):65-75. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M2231. Epub 2006 Oct 26.
PMID: 17068345BACKGROUNDBerg CA, Strough JN, Calderone KS, Sansone C, Weir C. The role of problem definitions in understanding age and context effects on strategies for solving everyday problems. Psychol Aging. 1998 Mar;13(1):29-44. doi: 10.1037//0882-7974.13.1.29.
PMID: 9533188BACKGROUNDWeir CR. Linking information needs with evaluation: the role of task identification. Proc AMIA Symp. 1998:310-4.
PMID: 9929232BACKGROUNDTaatz H. [The problem of the time factor in orthodontic treatment]. Stomatol DDR. 1976 Feb;26(2):102-5. No abstract available. German.
PMID: 1065968BACKGROUNDCampbell M, Grimshaw J, Steen N. Sample size calculations for cluster randomised trials. Changing Professional Practice in Europe Group (EU BIOMED II Concerted Action). J Health Serv Res Policy. 2000 Jan;5(1):12-6. doi: 10.1177/135581960000500105.
PMID: 10787581BACKGROUNDMiller RH, Sim I. Physicians' use of electronic medical records: barriers and solutions. Health Aff (Millwood). 2004 Mar-Apr;23(2):116-26. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.23.2.116.
PMID: 15046136BACKGROUNDBradley EH, Bogardus ST Jr, Tinetti ME, Inouye SK. Goal-setting in clinical medicine. Soc Sci Med. 1999 Jul;49(2):267-78. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(99)00107-0.
PMID: 10414834BACKGROUND
Limitations and Caveats
We were not able to evaluate a system-wide deployment of the resulting graphical user interface (GUI) (IMM) in terms of patient outcomes (Aim 3). We were unable to conduct Aim 3, which would have evaluated IMM in a cluster-randomized trial.
Results Point of Contact
- Title
- Dr. Jonathan Nebeker
- Organization
- University of Utah Health Care System
Study Officials
- PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Jonathan Nebeker, MD, MS
University of Utah
Publication Agreements
- PI is Sponsor Employee
- Yes
Study Design
- Study Type
- interventional
- Phase
- not applicable
- Allocation
- RANDOMIZED
- Masking
- NONE
- Purpose
- HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH
- Intervention Model
- PARALLEL
- Sponsor Type
- OTHER
- Responsible Party
- SPONSOR
Study Record Dates
First Submitted
January 22, 2013
First Posted
February 8, 2013
Study Start
October 1, 2007
Primary Completion
March 1, 2011
Study Completion
March 1, 2011
Last Updated
June 23, 2016
Results First Posted
June 23, 2016
Record last verified: 2016-05