Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital, Bedford, MA
Bedford, Massachusetts, 01730, United States
NCT Number: NCT01653405
Over 100,000 VHA patients receive anticoagulants (blood thinners) each year to prevent blood clots (including strokes). Too much anticoagulation increases the risk of serious or even fatal bleeding, and too little anticoagulation fails to protect the patient against blood clots. VHA anticoagulation clinics vary widely on how much time their patients spend in the therapeutic range, the range within which they are protected from clots but not at excessive risk of bleeding. Anticoagulation clinics can improve anticoagulation control by following several relatively simple procedures, including following-up promptly when patients are out of range and focusing on educating and supporting patients with poor control. In this study, the investigators will promote these practices at the anticoagulation clinics of the New England VA region, with a goal of improving anticoagulation control.
Looking for future studies?
Notify Me21 year and older
All sexes
Interventional
Not applicable
Bedford, Massachusetts, 01730, United States
Background: Over 100,000 VA patients receive oral anticoagulation (AC) each year to prevent blood clots, including strokes. AC is safer and more effective when it is managed skillfully and therefore well-controlled. AC control can be measured using percent time in therapeutic range (TTR), the proportion of time when patients are sufficiently anticoagulated to prevent clots but not excessively anticoagulated (which increases the risk of bleeding). The investigators have shown that the anticoagulation clinics (ACCs) of the VA vary widely on TTR, from 40% (very poor control) to 70% (excellent control). Improving TTR in the VA would prevent thousands of adverse events, including strokes, major hemorrhages, and deaths. The investigators have further investigated the structures and processes of care that contribute to these wide disparities in TTR performance.
Objectives: We applied proven methods to change provider behavior. The goal was to facilitate the adoption of these evidence-based practices in order to improve TTR in VISN 1. We utilized educational outreach, audit and feedback, internal facilitation, and external facilitation to promote improvements in three evidence-based processes of care; namely, follow-up within 7 days after deranged INR values, minimizing loss to follow-up, and use of guideline concordant INR targets.
Methods: Our clinician-focused intervention used a Dashboard to measure site-level TTR and processes of care and an Algorithm for routine AC management. Both the Dashboard and the Algorithm are concrete representations of our main evidence-based recommendations to improve AC management. We promoted their use through quarterly visits to the sites, at which we delivered audit and feedback and educational outreach, and also provided external facilitation to address ways to improve these performance measures. Our main outcome was change in site TTR over time, which was compared between VISN 1 and non-VISN 1 sites using an interrupted time series. Secondary outcomes included site-level changes in processes of anticoagulation care (measured using automated data). We used a difference-in-differences (DID) model to examine changes in anticoagulation control, measured as percent time in target range (TTR), as well as process measures, and compared VISN 1 sites to 116 VA sites located outside VISN 1. The pre-intervention period was from 5/1/10-5/1/13, while the post-intervention period was from 5/2/13-5/10/16.
Healthy volunteers accepted: No
Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion criteria
The intervention included access to a system to measure processes of care relevant to warfarin management, along with targeted audit and feedback.
Time frame: Baseline and 4 years
We compared TTR after the intervention to before the intervention. We used a difference in differences analysis to compare the absolute percentage change over time in the intervention group vs. the control group.
Time frame: Baseline and 4 years
We compared the rate of 56-day gaps per patient year in the pre-intervention and post-intervention period. We used a difference in differences analysis to compare the intervention and control group. We are reporting absolute change.
Time frame: Baseline and 4 years
We compared the percentage of patients with follow-up within 7 days before and after the intervention. We used a difference in differences analysis to compare the intervention and control groups.
Time frame: Baseline and 4 years
We compared the percentage of patients before and after the intervention. We used a difference in differences analysis to compare the intervention and control groups. Absolute percentage is reported.
Time frame: Baseline and 4 years
We compared the absolute percentage of patients with a mean INR of 2.3 - 2.7 before and after the intervention. We used a difference in differences analysis to compare the intervention and control groups.
VA Office of Research and Development
Fed
OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.
View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.
Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.
NCT04681482
Anticoagulants, Arrhythmias, Cardiac
New York, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT03583008
Anticoagulants, Arrhythmias, Cardiac
Worcester, Massachusetts, United States
View Trial DetailsNCT02904499
Anticoagulants, Arrhythmias, Cardiac
Saint-Denis, Reunion Island, France
View Trial DetailsNCT00769938
Anticoagulants, Arrhythmias, Cardiac
Leuven, Belgium
View Trial Details