This information is for reference purposes only. It was current when produced and may now be outdated. Archive material is no longer maintained, and some links may not work. Persons with disabilities having difficulty accessing this information should contact us at: https://info.ahrq.gov. Let us know the nature of the problem, the Web address of what you want, and your contact information.
Please go to www.ahrq.gov for current information.
Computerized alerts and reminders improve primary care for
HIV-infected patients
Computerized alerts and reminders to health care providers can
significantly improve care of HIV-infected patients and speed
adoption of practice guidelines for HIV care, according to a
recent study. Charles Safran, M.D., and other researchers from
Beth Israel Hospital and Harvard Medical School divided
clinicians at the hospital's general medicine clinic into two
groups. They delivered HIV practice recommendations via computer
alerts and reminders to one group (the intervention group) and
compared their care for HIV-infected patients with the care
provided by a control group of doctors who did not receive alerts
and reminders.
The 18-month study, which was conducted in 1992 and 1993, was
supported in part by the Agency for Health Care Policy and
Research (HS06288 and HS08749). The computer generated and
transmitted 303 alerts for 191 patients in the intervention group
and generated but did not transmit 388 alerts for 158 patients in
the control group. Physicians receiving the alerts responded to
the associated medical condition nearly five times faster than
physicians who did not receive the alerts (11 vs. 52 days). Also,
1 month after the computer generated an alert, 29 percent more of
the patients in the intervention group had received appropriate
care.
For example, for patients in the intervention group in whom CD4
lymphocyte counts were suggested, the estimated median time until
the test was performed was 24 days, compared with 70 days for
patients in the control group. When a patient's CD4 count dropped
below 500 and the intervention physician received the alert
recommending antiviral therapy, the physician began therapy
within a median 7 days, compared with 43 days for physicians in
the control group. Finally, physicians who did not receive alerts
took more than ten times as long as those who did (122 days vs.
11 days) to begin prophylaxis against Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia in patients whose CD4 count had fallen below 200.
Reminders, which appeared only when the physician looked at the
patient's medical record online, also improved HIV care. The
median time between generation of the reminder and the suggested
action (for example, to send the patient for an eye exam) was 114
days in the intervention group and more than 500 days in the
control group.
Details are in "Effects of a knowledge-based electronic patient
record on adherence to practice guidelines," by Dr. Safran, David
M. Rind, M.D., Roger B. Davis, Sc.D., and others, in the
January-February 1996 issue of M.D. Computing 13(1), pp.
55-63.
National information superhighway should benefit health
care
The White House's National Information Infrastructure (NII)
initiative, which essentially links high-speed computers,
broad-band networks, community networks, supporting software, and
human interface nationwide, holds much promise for modern health
care, according to J. Michael Fitzmaurice, Ph.D., Director of the
Center for Information Technology, Agency for Health Care Policy
and Research. He envisions that the NII will provide
point-of-care information systems, clinical decision-support
systems, access to the most current medical knowledge and
experts for rural and inner-city practitioners and their
patients, comparative information about health care plans and
providers, public access to general health care information,
information support of medical technology choices, and data to
assess community public health status.
To achieve this vision, the United States will need to develop
medical information standards for patient care data, develop and
implement a system for unique personal identification, produce
models to guide the flow of patient care data and information,
enact Federal confidentiality and privacy laws to protect
personal health data, experiment with repositories of health data
to learn their benefits and drawbacks, undertake health care
computer laboratory (test bed) development, and fund pilot tests
and system evaluations.
Already, the United States and Europe have exchanged information
via the Advanced Informatics in Medicine (AIM) program in the
areas of telemedicine and computer-based patient records and
cooperated in developing standards of clinical patient
information. Two important reasons for these collaborative
efforts in health care informatics, communications, and
telemedicine are the expansion of business market opportunities
and improved patient outcomes, according to Dr. Fitzmaurice. He
concludes that although the government can provide substantial
leadership and some funding, the development and application of
health information systems will be predominantly a private-sector
responsibility.
See "Information society challenges in the U.S.A." and "The
American perspective for the future," two new book chapters by
Dr. Fitzmaurice, which are published in Health in the New
Communications Age, edited by M.F. Laires, M.J. Ladeira, and
J.P. Christensen. Amsterdam, Netherlands: IOS Press, pp. 34-37
and 646-650, 1995.
Return to Contents
Proceed to Next Section