Cited by 354Clinical practice guidelines implementationElectronic Health Records SystemsHealth Sciences Research and Education

Effect of computerised evidence based guidelines on management of asthma and angina in adults in primary care: cluster randomised controlled trial

Open access
Eccles, M.·2002·BMJ

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the use of a computerised support system for decision making for implementing evidence based clinical guidelines for the management of asthma and angina in adults in primary care. DESIGN: A before and after pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial utilising a two by two incomplete block design. SETTING: 60 general practices in north east England. PARTICIPANTS: General practitioners and practice nurses in the study practices and their patients aged 18 or over with angina or asthma. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adherence to the guidelines, based on review of case notes and patient reported generic and condition specific outcome measures. RESULTS: The computerised decision support system had no significant effect on consultation rates, process of care measures (including prescribing), or any patient reported outcomes for either condition. Levels of use of the software were low. CONCLUSIONS: No effect was found of computerised evidence based guidelines on the management of asthma or angina in adults in primary care. This was probably due to low levels of use of the software, despite the system being optimised as far as was technically possible. Even if the technical problems of producing a system that fully supports the management of chronic disease were solved, there remains the challenge of integrating the systems into clinical encounters where busy practitioners manage patients with complex, multiple conditions.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.325.7370.941

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 24 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. *Effect sizes; estimates of ratio of mean number of consultations for participants in practices that received computerised decision support system to mean number of consultations for participants in control practices based on Poisson regression model. †Patients who consulted after intervention and had not had variable recorded anywhere in their clinical record during period before intervention. Primary care page 4 of 7 BMJ VOLUME 325 26 OCTOBER 2002 bmj.com on 17 July 2023 by guest. Protected by copyright. http://www.bmj.com/ BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.325.7370.941 on 26 October 2002. Downloaded from All patients 516 (43); 511 (43) 492 (42); 517 (45) 0.94 (0.67 to 1.33) Patients who consulted 515 (45); 510 (45) 491 (45); 516 (47) 0.94 (0.66 to 1.34) Compliance checked: All patients 426 (36); 442 (37) 446 (38); 471 (41) 0.82 (0.58 to 1.15) Patients who consulted 425 (37); 441 (39) 445 (40); 470 (43) 0.82 (0.58 to 1.16) Inhaler technique assessed: All patients 203 (17); 224 (19) 234 (20); 262 (23) 0.8 (0.5 to 1.28) Patients who consulted 203 (18); 224 (20) 233 (21); 262 (24) 0.81 (0.5 to 1.28) Asthma education, action plan, or both: All patients 79 (7); 60 (5) 108 (9); 78 (7) 0.84 (0.4 to 1.74) Patients who consulted 79 (7); 60 (5) 108 (10); 78 (7) 0.81 (0.39 to 1.67) Smoking status known: All patients 285 (24); 370 (32) 305 (26); 367 (32) 0.97 (0.65 to 1.45) Patients who consulted 285 (25); 369 (33) 303 (28); 367 (33) 0.98 (0.66 to 1.46) Smoking cessation advice or nicotine replacement therapy: All patients 57 (5); 81 (7) 68 (6); 103 (9) 0.75 (0.45 to 1.26) Patients who consulted 57 (5); 81 (8) 68 (6); 103 (9) 0.76 (0.46 to 1.27)
  2. *Guideline specifically recommended not using these combinations. Table 5 Drugs prescribed for patients with asthma before and after introduction of computerised decision support system. Values are numbers (percentages) unless stated otherwise Computerised system (n=1391) Controls (n=1385) Odds ratio (95% CI) Short acting 2 agonists 1138 (82); 1112 (80) 1160 (84); 1108 (80) 1.04 (0.83 to 1.31) Inhaled corticosteroids 1065 (77); 1001 (72) 1004 (73); 975 (70) 0.95 (0.78 to 1.16) Long acting 2 agonists 181 (13); 198 (14) 164 (12); 183 (13) 0.84 (0.59 to 1.20) Oral steroids 317 (23); 316 (23) 286 (21); 297 (21) 1.0 (0.82 to 1.22) Oral bronchodilators 100 (7); 95 (7) 120 (9); 119 (9) 1.38 (0.56 to 3.39) Primary care page 5 of 7 BMJ VOLUME 325 26 OCTOBER 2002 bmj.com on 17 July 2023 by guest. Protected by copyright. http://www.bmj.com/ BMJ: first published as 10.1136/bmj.325.7370.941 on 26 October 2002. Downloaded from

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Eccles, M.
Affiliations
Newcastle University (GB)
Corresponding author
Eccles, M.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2002-10-26
Volume
325
Issue
7370
Pages
941-941
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W1996469473
Cited by
354
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 14
FWCI
29.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
Keywords
computerised decision support, clinical guidelines, asthma management, angina management, guideline adherence, primary care, general practitioners, practice nurses, drug prescribing, patient-reported outcomes, chronic disease management
MeSH terms
Angina Pectoris, Asthma, Decision Making, Computer-Assisted, Family Practice, Humans, Treatment Outcome, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Evidence-Based Medicine, Guideline Adherence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review