Clinical Inertia in a Randomized Trial of Telemedicine-Based Chronic Disease Management: Lessons Learned.

Barton AB, Okorodudu DE, Bosworth HB, Crowley MJ. Clinical Inertia in a Randomized Trial of Telemedicine-Based Chronic Disease Management: Lessons Learned. Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association. 2018 Oct 1; 24(10):742-748.

Related HSR&D Project(s)

• CDA 13-261 – Tailored, eHealth-based Management for Persistent Poorly-Controlled Diabetes
• RCS 08-027 – Research Career Scientist Award

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Treatment nonadherence and clinical inertia perpetuate poor cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor control. Telemedicine interventions may counter both treatment nonadherence and clinical inertia. INTRODUCTION: We explored why a telemedicine intervention designed to reduce treatment nonadherence and clinical inertia did not improve CVD risk factor control, despite enhancing treatment adherence versus usual care. METHODS: In this analysis of a randomized trial, we studied recipients of the 12-month telemedicine intervention. This intervention comprised two nurse-administered components: (1) monthly self-management education targeting improved treatment adherence; and (2) quarterly medication management facilitation designed to support treatment intensification by primary care (thereby reducing clinical inertia). For each medication management facilitation encounter, we ascertained whether patients met treatment goals, and if not, whether primary care recommended treatment intensification following the encounter. We assessed disease control associated with encounters, where intensification was/was not recommended. RESULTS: We examined 455 encounters across 182 intervention recipients (100% African Americans with type 2 diabetes). Even after accounting for valid reasons for deferring intensification (e.g., treatment nonadherence), intensification was not recommended in 67.5% of encounters in which hemoglobin A1c was above goal, 72.5% in which systolic blood pressure was above goal, and 73.9% in which low-density lipoprotein cholesterol was above goal. In each disease state, treatment intensification was more likely with poorer control. CONCLUSIONS: Despite enhancing treatment adherence, this intervention was unsuccessful in countering clinical inertia, likely explaining its lack of effect on CVD risk factors. We identify several lessons learned that may benefit investigators and healthcare systems.