Implementation of the Department of Veterans Affairs' first point-of-care clinical trial

Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Volumn 19, Issue E1, 2012, Pages

  D'Avolio, Leonard ^a,b   Ferguson, Ryan ^a   Goryachev, Sergey ^a   Woods, Patricia ^a   Sabin, Thomas ^a   O'Neil, Joseph ^a   Conrad, Chester ^a,c   Gillon, Joseph ^a   Escalera, Jasmine ^a   Brophy, Mary ^a,d   Lavori, Phillip ^e   Fiore, Louis ^a,d  

^a VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^c BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d BOSTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

INSULIN;

ARTICLE; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; FEASIBILITY STUDY; HEALTH CARE MANAGEMENT; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; INSULIN TREATMENT; MEDICAL INFORMATICS; PILOT OF A POINT OF CARE CLINICAL TRIAL; RANDOMIZATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); UNITED STATES; VETERANS HEALTH;

BAYES THEOREM; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH; DIABETES MELLITUS; HUMANS; INSULIN; MEDICAL ORDER ENTRY SYSTEMS; MEDICAL RECORDS SYSTEMS, COMPUTERIZED; PATIENT SELECTION; PILOT PROJECTS; POINT-OF-CARE SYSTEMS; RESEARCH DESIGN; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; WORKFLOW;

EID: 84863539781     PISSN: 10675027     EISSN: 1527974X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/amiajnl-2011-000623     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Institute of Medicine. Learning What Works Best; The Nation's Need for Evidence on Comparative Effectiveness in Health Care. Washington DC, USA: Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, 2007. http://www.iom.edu/ebm-effectiveness
2. Institute of Medicine. Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Washington DC, USA: Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, 2009. http://www.iom.edu/ebm-effectiveness
3. Congressional Budget Office. Research on the Comparative Effectiveness of Medical Treatments: Issues and Options for an Expanded Federal Role. Washington, DC, USA: Congress of the United States, Congressional Budget Office, 2007.
4. Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Report to the President and the Congress: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Washington DC, USA: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2009.
5. Fiore L, Brophy M, Ferguson R, et al. A point-of-care clinical trial comparing insulin administered using a sliding scale versus a weight-based regimen. Clin Trials 2011;0:1-13.
6. Chalmers T. Randomization of the first patient. Med Clin North Am 1975;59:1035-8.
7. Baum M. New approach for recruitment into randomized clinical trials. Lancet 1993;1:812-13.
8. Luce B, Kramer J, Goodman S, et al. Rethinking randomized clinical trials for comparative effectiveness research: the need for transformational change. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:206-9.
9. Vickers A, Scardino P. The clinical-integrated randomized trial: proposed novel method for conducting clinical trials at low cost. Trials 2009;10:14.
10. Byrne CM, Mercincavage LM, Pan EC, et al. The value from investments in health information technology at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Health Aff 2010;29:629-38.
11. D'Avolio L. Electronic medical records at a crossroads; impetus for change or missed opportunity. JAMA 2009;302:1109-10