Decision Support Systems,ClinicalNCT02922738
The Impact of a Dermatology Information Source on Skin Problem Outcomes in Primary Care
A study testing VisualDx in people with Decision Support Systems,Clinical and Skin Diseases, run by University of Vermont.
Trial summary
Health care providers use a variety of computerized medical information sources to reduce knowledge gaps and support patient care decisions. Few studies have evaluated the impact of medical information sources on patient outcomes. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Decision Support Systems,Clinical, Skin Diseases
- What is being tested?
- VisualDx
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 465 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- Jun 2015to 15 Nov 2016
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Patients seen by a participating Primary Care Provider for a chronic or acute skin problem
Who cannot join
- Skin problems due to burns or lacerations
- Cognitively impaired, mentally ill, prisoners, non-English speaking
About this study
Health care providers use a variety of computerized medical information sources to reduce knowledge gaps and support patient care decisions. Few studies have evaluated the impact of medical information sources on patient outcomes. Skin problems are the reason for many visits to primary care providers and result in a high percentage of referrals to dermatologists and return visits to primary care for the same skin problem.
The objective is to evaluate the impact of primary care providers' use of a dermatology information source, VisualDx, on skin problems outcomes.
Read more
The study design is a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Participants include primary care providers as clusters and their patients with skin problems. Providers are randomized to intervention group that refers to VisualDx when seeing a patient with a skin problem, or to the control group who does not. Patients have the randomized group status of the doctor they saw for the problem.
Patients are interviewed to determine the problem status and how many follow-up visits they had for the problem at intervals after the index visit.
Read the detailed description
The research design is a cluster randomized controlled trial of a computerized dermatology information source. This is a two-level design in which primary care providers (PCPs) who see patients for skin problems are the subjects of randomization. Their patients are the subjects of the data collection and analysis. The cluster design examines how much variation in the outcomes is attributable to the providers, how much to patients within the clusters, and how much to the intervention information source itself.
Provider Level:
After completing a baseline questionnaire, providers are randomized to intervention or control groups. Intervention group providers have an orientation to the study protocol that includes how to access and use VisualDx. Control providers receive the protocol overview, but no orientation to the intervention.
Intervention providers agree to refer to VisualDx content when they have a patient with a skin complaint. Control group providers agree not use VisualDx as a reference but may use another medical information source or none.
Patient Level:
To identify eligible patients, authorized investigators reviewed information from the patient record sufficient to send a letter to them over the provider's signature to notify them about the study. The letter gives the option to refuse any contact.
At 30 days after the primary care visit, a study team investigator phones each eligible patients, explains the study, and obtains verbal consent. The investigators are blinded to the randomized group status of the patients.
The investigator proceeds with the interview questionnaire on consent. Age, sex is collected. Patients are asked whether the skin problem is resolved ("Is it all better?"). For every resolved problem, we ask when (date or days since visit) it was resolved. We also ask how many return visits the patient has had with any provider for that problem.
If not resolved, the patient is called again at 60 days and asked the same questions. If not resolved then, we call the patient again at 90 days. The last call to any patient is at 90 days from the index visit for the problem.
Data Analysis and Statistical Measures
The primary predictor variable for both aims is the use of the VisualDx information source by the primary care provider.
For the "days to resolution" outcome variable, the time unit (days) and the status of the problem after 90 days (resolved or not resolved) will be evaluated for each group with Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and the non-parametric log rank test of significance.
For the "number of follow-up visits" outcome variable, the binary predictor (intervention group) and discrete outcome variable (number of visits) will be evaluated with Wilcoxon-rank sum test for non-normal data. The first visit of a patient to a participating provider for a skin problem is considered the index visit and that provider considered the index provider regardless of the provider seen on any subsequent appointment. Analysis will adhere to the intention-to-treat principle with group assignment determined by randomization regardless of whether VisualDx was deployed for care or not. Problems unresolved at the last contact will be censored as unresolved for the Kaplan-Meier analysis.
For aim 1, the estimated sample size to detect an average difference of 8 days in time to resolution with a standard deviation of 20 and an intra-cluster correlation (ICC) of 0.025. With alpha .05 and beta .80, the study would need a minimum 26 providers enrolled with an average 10 patient participants in each provider's cluster for a total of 286 participants completing the study. We planned to enroll at least 30 providers and up to 500 patients to insure against loss to follow-up of, increased standard deviation, or larger than anticipated Intra-Cluster Correlation.
- Conditions
- Decision Support Systems,Clinical, Skin Diseases
- Being tested
- VisualDx
- Keywords
- Clinical Knowledge Systems, Decision support, Dermatology, Technology Assessment
- Medical subject headings
- Skin Diseases
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
VisualDxOther
VisualDx is a computerized clinical information technology with medical image and text content in dermatology.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention - VisualDx Arm | Experimental | Arm had 2 levels: provider (cluster) level and patient level. Providers, randomly assigned to the intervention arm, refer to VisualDx when they saw a patient who presented with a skin problem. Their patients were assigned to the intervention group and interviewed about the outcomes of their treatment. Receives: Other: VisualDx |
| Control - Usual Care Arm | No intervention | Arm had 2 levels: provider (cluster) level and patient level. Providers, randomly assigned to control, did not refer to VisualDx but could refer to other information sources or none per usual care. Their patients were assigned to the control group and interviewed about the outcomes of their treatment |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Number of Patients With Resolved Skin Problems
Resolved skin disease status was assessed by phone interview. Patient reported status. Patients were censored if "unresolved" at 90 days.
Measured: Period of assessment was up to 3 months (90 days) after index visit.
Number of Follow-Up Visits to Any Provider for the Same Problem
Follow-up visits count is assessed at each phone interview. Patients report return visits.
Measured: Period of Assessment is up to 90 days after index visit
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted4 Oct 2016 (estimated)
- Study startJun 2015
- Primary completionNov 2016
- Study completion15 Nov 2016
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (6)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Decision Support Systems,ClinicalStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Investigator
- Enrolment
- 465 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Vermont
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Vermont Medical Center
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Marianne Burke, University of Vermont
- Investigators
- Marianne D Burke, PhD, Principal investigator, University of VermontBenjamin Littenberg, MD, Study chair, University of Vermont
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02922738
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- CHRMS 15-413
- Status last verified
- Jul 2019
- First submitted
- 29 Sep 2016
- Last updated
- 30 Jul 2019
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Alper BS, White DS, Ge B. Physicians answer more clinical questions and change clinical decisions more often with synthesized evidence: a randomized trial in primary care. Ann Fam Med. 2005 Nov-Dec;3(6):507-13. doi: 10.1370/afm.370.
PubMed 16338914Del Fiol G, Haug PJ, Cimino JJ, Narus SP, Norlin C, Mitchell JA. Effectiveness of topic-specific infobuttons: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008 Nov-Dec;15(6):752-9. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M2725. Epub 2008 Aug 28.
PubMed 18755999Marshall JG, Sollenberger J, Easterby-Gannett S, Morgan LK, Klem ML, Cavanaugh SK, Oliver KB, Thompson CA, Romanosky N, Hunter S. The value of library and information services in patient care: results of a multisite study. J Med Libr Assoc. 2013 Jan;101(1):38-46. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.101.1.007.
PubMed 23418404Isaac T, Zheng J, Jha A. Use of UpToDate and outcomes in US hospitals. J Hosp Med. 2012 Feb;7(2):85-90. doi: 10.1002/jhm.944. Epub 2011 Nov 16.
PubMed 22095750Awadalla F, Rosenbaum DA, Camacho F, Fleischer AB Jr, Feldman SR. Dermatologic disease in family medicine. Fam Med. 2008 Jul-Aug;40(7):507-11.
PubMed 18928078Federman DG, Reid M, Feldman SR, Greenhoe J, Kirsner RS. The primary care provider and the care of skin disease: the patient's perspective. Arch Dermatol. 2001 Jan;137(1):25-9. doi: 10.1001/archderm.137.1.25.
PubMed 11176657
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 30 Jul 2019. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- The Impact of a Dermatology Information Source on Skin Problem Outcomes in Primary Care
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02922738
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- CHRMS 15-413
- Conditions
- Decision Support Systems,Clinical, Skin Diseases
- Keywords
- Clinical Knowledge Systems, Decision support, Dermatology, Technology Assessment
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 465 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of VermontUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- University of Vermont Medical Center
- Study start
- Jun 2015
- Primary completion
- Nov 2016 (actual)
- Study completion
- 15 Nov 2016 (actual)
- First posted
- 4 Oct 2016 (estimated)
- Results
- Posted 30 Jul 2019
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Health care providers use a variety of computerized medical information sources to reduce knowledge gaps and support patient care decisions. Few studies have evaluated the impact of medical information sources on patient outcomes. Skin problems are the reason for many visits to primary care providers and result in a high percentage of referrals to dermatologists and return visits to primary care for the same skin problem.
The objective is to evaluate the impact of primary care providers' use of a dermatology information source, VisualDx, on skin problems outcomes.
The study design is a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Participants include primary care providers as clusters and their patients with skin problems. Providers are randomized to intervention group that refers to VisualDx when seeing a patient with a skin problem, or to the control group who does not. Patients have the randomized group status of the doctor they saw for the problem.
Patients are interviewed to determine the problem status and how many follow-up visits they had for the problem at intervals after the index visit.
Detailed description
The research design is a cluster randomized controlled trial of a computerized dermatology information source. This is a two-level design in which primary care providers (PCPs) who see patients for skin problems are the subjects of randomization. Their patients are the subjects of the data collection and analysis. The cluster design examines how much variation in the outcomes is attributable to the providers, how much to patients within the clusters, and how much to the intervention information source itself.
Provider Level:
After completing a baseline questionnaire, providers are randomized to intervention or control groups. Intervention group providers have an orientation to the study protocol that includes how to access and use VisualDx. Control providers receive the protocol overview, but no orientation to the intervention.
Intervention providers agree to refer to VisualDx content when they have a patient with a skin complaint. Control group providers agree not use VisualDx as a reference but may use another medical information source or none.
Patient Level:
To identify eligible patients, authorized investigators reviewed information from the patient record sufficient to send a letter to them over the provider's signature to notify them about the study. The letter gives the option to refuse any contact.
At 30 days after the primary care visit, a study team investigator phones each eligible patients, explains the study, and obtains verbal consent. The investigators are blinded to the randomized group status of the patients.
The investigator proceeds with the interview questionnaire on consent. Age, sex is collected. Patients are asked whether the skin problem is resolved ("Is it all better?"). For every resolved problem, we ask when (date or days since visit) it was resolved. We also ask how many return visits the patient has had with any provider for that problem.
If not resolved, the patient is called again at 60 days and asked the same questions. If not resolved then, we call the patient again at 90 days. The last call to any patient is at 90 days from the index visit for the problem.
Data Analysis and Statistical Measures
The primary predictor variable for both aims is the use of the VisualDx information source by the primary care provider.
For the "days to resolution" outcome variable, the time unit (days) and the status of the problem after 90 days (resolved or not resolved) will be evaluated for each group with Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and the non-parametric log rank test of significance.
For the "number of follow-up visits" outcome variable, the binary predictor (intervention group) and discrete outcome variable (number of visits) will be evaluated with Wilcoxon-rank sum test for non-normal data. The first visit of a patient to a participating provider for a skin problem is considered the index visit and that provider considered the index provider regardless of the provider seen on any subsequent appointment. Analysis will adhere to the intention-to-treat principle with group assignment determined by randomization regardless of whether VisualDx was deployed for care or not. Problems unresolved at the last contact will be censored as unresolved for the Kaplan-Meier analysis.
For aim 1, the estimated sample size to detect an average difference of 8 days in time to resolution with a standard deviation of 20 and an intra-cluster correlation (ICC) of 0.025. With alpha .05 and beta .80, the study would need a minimum 26 providers enrolled with an average 10 patient participants in each provider's cluster for a total of 286 participants completing the study. We planned to enroll at least 30 providers and up to 500 patients to insure against loss to follow-up of, increased standard deviation, or larger than anticipated Intra-Cluster Correlation.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (investigator)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Intervention - VisualDx Arm | Experimental | Other: VisualDxArm had 2 levels: provider (cluster) level and patient level. Providers, randomly assigned to the intervention arm, refer to VisualDx when they saw a patient who presented with a skin problem. Their patients were assigned to the intervention group and interviewed about the outcomes of their treatment. |
| Control - Usual Care Arm | No intervention | –Arm had 2 levels: provider (cluster) level and patient level. Providers, randomly assigned to control, did not refer to VisualDx but could refer to other information sources or none per usual care. Their patients were assigned to the control group and interviewed about the outcomes of their treatment |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Patients seen by a participating Primary Care Provider for a chronic or acute skin problem
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Skin problems due to burns or lacerations
- Cognitively impaired, mentally ill, prisoners, non-English speaking
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| VisualDxVisualDx is a computerized clinical information technology with medical image and text content in dermatology. | Other | Intervention - VisualDx Arm |
Primary outcome
Number of Patients With Resolved Skin Problems
Time frame: Period of assessment was up to 3 months (90 days) after index visit.
Resolved skin disease status was assessed by phone interview. Patient reported status. Patients were censored if "unresolved" at 90 days.
Number of Follow-Up Visits to Any Provider for the Same Problem
Time frame: Period of Assessment is up to 90 days after index visit
Follow-up visits count is assessed at each phone interview. Patients report return visits.
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 30 Jul 2019.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Background: PubMed 16338914Alper BS, White DS, Ge B. Physicians answer more clinical questions and change clinical decisions more often with synthesized evidence: a randomized trial in primary care. Ann Fam Med. 2005 Nov-Dec;3(6):507-13. doi: 10.1370/afm.370.
- Background: PubMed 18755999Del Fiol G, Haug PJ, Cimino JJ, Narus SP, Norlin C, Mitchell JA. Effectiveness of topic-specific infobuttons: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2008 Nov-Dec;15(6):752-9. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M2725. Epub 2008 Aug 28.
- Background: PubMed 23418404Marshall JG, Sollenberger J, Easterby-Gannett S, Morgan LK, Klem ML, Cavanaugh SK, Oliver KB, Thompson CA, Romanosky N, Hunter S. The value of library and information services in patient care: results of a multisite study. J Med Libr Assoc. 2013 Jan;101(1):38-46. doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.101.1.007.
- Background: PubMed 22095750Isaac T, Zheng J, Jha A. Use of UpToDate and outcomes in US hospitals. J Hosp Med. 2012 Feb;7(2):85-90. doi: 10.1002/jhm.944. Epub 2011 Nov 16.
- Background: PubMed 18928078Awadalla F, Rosenbaum DA, Camacho F, Fleischer AB Jr, Feldman SR. Dermatologic disease in family medicine. Fam Med. 2008 Jul-Aug;40(7):507-11.
- Background: PubMed 11176657Federman DG, Reid M, Feldman SR, Greenhoe J, Kirsner RS. The primary care provider and the care of skin disease: the patient's perspective. Arch Dermatol. 2001 Jan;137(1):25-9. doi: 10.1001/archderm.137.1.25.
- VisualDx \[Internet\]. Logical Images, Inc. . Available by individual and institutional license.Link provided by the sponsor.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Decision Support Systems,Clinical
Recruiting
CirrhosisRx CDS System
Cirrhosis, Decision Support Systems, Clinical
Recruiting
GenAI-Assisted Rheumatoid Arthritis Bone Erosion Risk Assessment and DMARD Selection
Rheumatoid Arthritis
Not yet recruiting
EHR Nudges: Optimizing a Clinical Decision Support System for Evidence-Based Statin Medication Prescribing to Reduce the Risk of Cardiovascular Disease
Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease
Recruiting
Clinical Decision Support for SGLT2i After AKI in Type 2 Diabetes
Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus, Acute Kidney Injury
Not yet recruiting
Precision-Medicine Diagnostic Support in Hospitalized Veterans With Acute Kidney Injury
Acute Kidney Injury (AKI)
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Marianne D Burke, PhD principal investigator
University of Vermont
Benjamin Littenberg, MD study chair
University of Vermont
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing VisualDx in people with Decision Support Systems,Clinical and Skin Diseases, run by University of Vermont.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 30 Jul 2019. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 30 Jul 2019). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Number of Patients With Resolved Skin Problems (time frame: Period of assessment was up to 3 months (90 days) after index visit.). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02922738, which also lists 6 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 30 Jul 2019.