↓ Skip to main content

Assessment of a Best Practice Alert and Referral Process for Preprocedure Antithrombotic Medication Management for Patients Undergoing Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Procedures

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Network Open, February 2020
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
14 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Assessment of a Best Practice Alert and Referral Process for Preprocedure Antithrombotic Medication Management for Patients Undergoing Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Procedures
Published in
JAMA Network Open, February 2020
DOI 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.20548
Pubmed ID
Authors

Geoffrey D. Barnes, Elizabeth Spranger, Emily Sippola, Elizabeth Renner, Allison Ruff, Anne E. Sales, Jacob E. Kurlander

Abstract

Management of antithrombotic medications presents a challenge for many clinicians and patients before procedures. Anticoagulation clinic involvement may improve preprocedure coordination, satisfaction on the part of patients and clinicians, last-minute procedure cancellations, and patient safety. To assess the implementation of an electronic medical record (EMR) best practice alert (BPA) and anticoagulation clinic referral process to assist with management of antithrombotic medication before gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. This multimodal evaluation of a quality improvement intervention using EMRs and survey data included patients using oral antithrombotic medications who were scheduled for elective gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures at an academic medical center along with the clinicians who ordered these procedures. Data were collected from November 1, 2017, through December 19, 2018. Data were analyzed in September 2019. Following a multidisciplinary intervention, a BPA and referral process for periprocedural antithrombotic medication management was implemented in November 2017. The following implementation outcomes were assessed through EMR review and surveys through December 2018: use of BPAs, patient and clinician satisfaction with preprocedure anticoagulation management, procedure cancelation rates, reach, and spread by patient and clinician characteristics. Multilevel logistic regression was used to estimate variance in BPA use at the clinician level. A total of 2082 patients (mean [SD] age, 64.1 [11.9] years) and 144 clinicians were included in the analysis. The BPA was used broadly across the health system, resulting in anticoagulation clinic referral for 1389 patients (66.7%). Referral was more common for patients using anticoagulant vs antiplatelet medications (1041 of 1524 [68.3%] vs 346 of 556 [62.2%]; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.51; 95% CI, 1.15-1.98) and for procedures ordered by gastroenterologists vs primary care clinicians (933 of 1241 [75.2%] vs 365 of 618 [59.1%]; aOR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.46-3.17). Individual clinician behavior patterns explained 26.5% (95% CI, 18.7%-36.1%) of variation in anticoagulation clinic referrals. Implementation of the intervention was associated with high patient satisfaction and improvements in multidimensional measures of clinician satisfaction (clinician response rate, 44.2% [144 of 326]). In multivariable analysis, the odds of altered or canceled procedures because of medication mismanagement declined after implementation (8 of 50 [16.0%] vs 1 of 52 [1.9%]; aOR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.01-0.96; P = .02). A newly implemented BPA and anticoagulation clinic referral process was broadly adopted and used, had high satisfaction by patients and clinicians, and was associated with fewer disruptions to planned procedures caused by medication mismanagement.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 9%
Student > Master 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 6%
Other 12 18%
Unknown 30 45%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 13%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 6%
Psychology 2 3%
Unspecified 2 3%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 29 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 May 2020.
All research outputs
#1,989,905
of 23,191,112 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Network Open
#5,166
of 7,364 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,064
of 449,685 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Network Open
#192
of 291 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,191,112 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,364 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 127.1. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 449,685 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 291 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.