↓ Skip to main content

Barriers and facilitators to reducing frequent laboratory testing for patients who are stable on warfarin: a mixed methods study of de-implementation in five anticoagulation clinics

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, July 2017
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 (87th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
26 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
120 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
Barriers and facilitators to reducing frequent laboratory testing for patients who are stable on warfarin: a mixed methods study of de-implementation in five anticoagulation clinics
Published in
Implementation Science, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13012-017-0620-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Geoffrey D. Barnes, Sevan Misirliyan, Scott Kaatz, Elizabeth A. Jackson, Brian Haymart, Eva Kline-Rogers, Jay Kozlowski, Gregory Krol, James B. Froehlich, Anne Sales

Abstract

Patients on chronic warfarin therapy require regular laboratory monitoring to safely manage warfarin. Recent studies have challenged the need for routine monthly blood draws in the most stable warfarin-treated patients, suggesting the safety of less frequent laboratory testing (up to every 12 weeks). De-implementation efforts aim to reduce the use of low-value clinical practices. To explore barriers and facilitators of a de-implementation effort to reduce the use of frequent laboratory tests for patients with stable warfarin management in nurse/pharmacist-run anticoagulation clinics, we performed a mixed-methods study conducted within a state-wide collaborative quality improvement collaborative. Using a mixed-methods approach, we conducted post-implementation semi-structured interviews with a total of eight anticoagulation nurse or pharmacist staff members at five participating clinic sites to assess barriers and facilitators to de-implementing frequent international normalized ratio (INR) laboratory testing among patients with stable warfarin control. Interview guides were based on the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Disease (TICD) framework. Informed by interview themes, a survey was developed and administered to all anticoagulation clinical staff (n = 62) about their self-reported utilization of less frequent INR testing and specific barriers to de-implementing the standard (more frequent) INR testing practice. From the interviews, four themes emerged congruent with TICD domains: (1) staff overestimating their actual use of less frequent INR testing (individual health professional factors), (2) barriers to appropriate patient engagement (incentives and resources), (3) broad support for an electronic medical record flag to identify potentially eligible patients (incentives and resources), and (4) the importance of personalized nurse/pharmacist feedback (individual health professional factors). In the survey (65% response rate), staff report offering less frequent INR testing to 56% (46-66%) of eligible patients. Most survey responders (n = 24; 60%) agreed that an eligibility flag in the electronic medical record would be very helpful. Twenty-four (60%) respondents agreed that periodic, personalized feedback on use of less frequent INR testing would also be helpful. Leveraging information system notifications, reducing additional work load burden for participating patients and providers, and providing personalized feedback are strategies that may improve adoption and utilization new policies in anticoagulation clinics that focus on de-implementation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 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 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 120 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 24 20%
Researcher 12 10%
Student > Master 10 8%
Student > Bachelor 8 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 7%
Other 20 17%
Unknown 38 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 24 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 9%
Social Sciences 6 5%
Psychology 5 4%
Other 20 17%
Unknown 42 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 08 December 2020.
All research outputs
#1,936,265
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#414
of 1,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,693
of 313,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#15
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 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 1,728 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
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 313,511 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its contemporaries.