The effectiveness of computer reminders versus postal reminders for improving quality assessment for point-of-care testing in primary care: a randomized controlled trial

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelfagfællebedømt

Standard

The effectiveness of computer reminders versus postal reminders for improving quality assessment for point-of-care testing in primary care : a randomized controlled trial. / Siersma, Volkert; Kousgaard, Marius Brostrøm; Reventlow, Susanne; Ertmann, Ruth; Felding, Peter; Waldorff, Frans Boch.

I: Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, Bind 21, Nr. 1, 02.2015, s. 13-20.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelfagfællebedømt

Harvard

Siersma, V, Kousgaard, MB, Reventlow, S, Ertmann, R, Felding, P & Waldorff, FB 2015, 'The effectiveness of computer reminders versus postal reminders for improving quality assessment for point-of-care testing in primary care: a randomized controlled trial', Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, bind 21, nr. 1, s. 13-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12210

APA

Siersma, V., Kousgaard, M. B., Reventlow, S., Ertmann, R., Felding, P., & Waldorff, F. B. (2015). The effectiveness of computer reminders versus postal reminders for improving quality assessment for point-of-care testing in primary care: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 21(1), 13-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12210

Vancouver

Siersma V, Kousgaard MB, Reventlow S, Ertmann R, Felding P, Waldorff FB. The effectiveness of computer reminders versus postal reminders for improving quality assessment for point-of-care testing in primary care: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 2015 feb.;21(1):13-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12210

Author

Siersma, Volkert ; Kousgaard, Marius Brostrøm ; Reventlow, Susanne ; Ertmann, Ruth ; Felding, Peter ; Waldorff, Frans Boch. / The effectiveness of computer reminders versus postal reminders for improving quality assessment for point-of-care testing in primary care : a randomized controlled trial. I: Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 2015 ; Bind 21, Nr. 1. s. 13-20.

Bibtex

@article{411d041e30e64df1a870a618ae25441b,
title = "The effectiveness of computer reminders versus postal reminders for improving quality assessment for point-of-care testing in primary care: a randomized controlled trial",
abstract = "Rationale, aims and objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the relative effectiveness of electronic and postal reminders for increasing adherence to the quality assurance programme for the international normalized ratio (INR) point-of-care testing (POCT) device inprimary care.Methods: All 213 family practices that use the Elective Laboratory of the Capital Region, Denmark, and regularly conduct INR POCT were randomly allocated into two similarly sized groups. During the 4-month intervention, these practices were sent either computer reminders (ComRem) or computer generated postal reminders (Postal) if they did not perform a split test to check the quality of their INR POCT for each calendar month. The adherence of the practices was tracked during the subsequent 8 months subdivided into two 4-month periods both without intervention. Outcomes were measures of split test procedure adherence.Results: Both interventions were associated with an increase in adherence to the split test procedure – a factor 6.00 [95% confidence interval (CI) 4.46–7.72] and 8.22 [95% CI5.87–11.52] for ComRem and Postal, respectively – but there is no evidence that one of the interventions was more effective than the other. In the ComRem group, the expected number of split tests (out of four) was 2.54 (95% CI 2.33–2.76) versus 2.44 (95% CI2.24–2.65) in the Postal group, P = 0.14. There was a slight decrease in adherence over the two follow-ups, but neither intervention was better than the other in achieving a lasting improvement in adherence.Conclusion: Computer reminders are as efficient as postal reminders in increasing adherence to a quality assurance programme for the INR POCT device in primary care.",
keywords = "care, PRIMARY-CARE, semrap-2014-2",
author = "Volkert Siersma and Kousgaard, {Marius Brostr{\o}m} and Susanne Reventlow and Ruth Ertmann and Peter Felding and Waldorff, {Frans Boch}",
year = "2015",
month = feb,
doi = "10.1111/jep.12210",
language = "English",
volume = "21",
pages = "13--20",
journal = "Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice",
issn = "1356-1294",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The effectiveness of computer reminders versus postal reminders for improving quality assessment for point-of-care testing in primary care

T2 - a randomized controlled trial

AU - Siersma, Volkert

AU - Kousgaard, Marius Brostrøm

AU - Reventlow, Susanne

AU - Ertmann, Ruth

AU - Felding, Peter

AU - Waldorff, Frans Boch

PY - 2015/2

Y1 - 2015/2

N2 - Rationale, aims and objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the relative effectiveness of electronic and postal reminders for increasing adherence to the quality assurance programme for the international normalized ratio (INR) point-of-care testing (POCT) device inprimary care.Methods: All 213 family practices that use the Elective Laboratory of the Capital Region, Denmark, and regularly conduct INR POCT were randomly allocated into two similarly sized groups. During the 4-month intervention, these practices were sent either computer reminders (ComRem) or computer generated postal reminders (Postal) if they did not perform a split test to check the quality of their INR POCT for each calendar month. The adherence of the practices was tracked during the subsequent 8 months subdivided into two 4-month periods both without intervention. Outcomes were measures of split test procedure adherence.Results: Both interventions were associated with an increase in adherence to the split test procedure – a factor 6.00 [95% confidence interval (CI) 4.46–7.72] and 8.22 [95% CI5.87–11.52] for ComRem and Postal, respectively – but there is no evidence that one of the interventions was more effective than the other. In the ComRem group, the expected number of split tests (out of four) was 2.54 (95% CI 2.33–2.76) versus 2.44 (95% CI2.24–2.65) in the Postal group, P = 0.14. There was a slight decrease in adherence over the two follow-ups, but neither intervention was better than the other in achieving a lasting improvement in adherence.Conclusion: Computer reminders are as efficient as postal reminders in increasing adherence to a quality assurance programme for the INR POCT device in primary care.

AB - Rationale, aims and objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the relative effectiveness of electronic and postal reminders for increasing adherence to the quality assurance programme for the international normalized ratio (INR) point-of-care testing (POCT) device inprimary care.Methods: All 213 family practices that use the Elective Laboratory of the Capital Region, Denmark, and regularly conduct INR POCT were randomly allocated into two similarly sized groups. During the 4-month intervention, these practices were sent either computer reminders (ComRem) or computer generated postal reminders (Postal) if they did not perform a split test to check the quality of their INR POCT for each calendar month. The adherence of the practices was tracked during the subsequent 8 months subdivided into two 4-month periods both without intervention. Outcomes were measures of split test procedure adherence.Results: Both interventions were associated with an increase in adherence to the split test procedure – a factor 6.00 [95% confidence interval (CI) 4.46–7.72] and 8.22 [95% CI5.87–11.52] for ComRem and Postal, respectively – but there is no evidence that one of the interventions was more effective than the other. In the ComRem group, the expected number of split tests (out of four) was 2.54 (95% CI 2.33–2.76) versus 2.44 (95% CI2.24–2.65) in the Postal group, P = 0.14. There was a slight decrease in adherence over the two follow-ups, but neither intervention was better than the other in achieving a lasting improvement in adherence.Conclusion: Computer reminders are as efficient as postal reminders in increasing adherence to a quality assurance programme for the INR POCT device in primary care.

KW - care

KW - PRIMARY-CARE

KW - semrap-2014-2

U2 - 10.1111/jep.12210

DO - 10.1111/jep.12210

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 24953533

VL - 21

SP - 13

EP - 20

JO - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

JF - Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

SN - 1356-1294

IS - 1

ER -

ID: 123736320