An initiative to promote value‐based stress test selection in primary care and cardiology clinics: A mixed methods evaluation

Abstract

ObjectivesExercise stress echocardiograms (stress echos) are overused, whereas exercise stress electrocardiograms (stress ECGs) can be an appropriate, lower‐cost substitute. In this post hoc, mixed methods evaluation, we assessed an initiative promoting value‐based, guideline‐concordant ordering practices in primary care (PC) and cardiology clinics.MethodsChange in percent of stress ECGs ordered of all exercise stress tests (stress ECGs and echos) was calculated between three periods: baseline (January 2019–February 2020); Period 1 with reduced stress ECG report turnaround time + PC‐targeted education (began June 2020); and Period 2 with the addition of electronic health record‐based alternative alert (AA) providing point‐of‐care clinical decision support. The AA was deployed in two of five PC clinics in July 2020, two additional PC clinics in January 2021, and one of four cardiology clinics in February 2021. Nineteen primary care providers (PCPs) and five cardiologists were interviewed in Period 2.ResultsClinicians reported reducing ECG report turnaround time was crucial for adoption. PCPs specifically reported that value‐based education helped change their practice. In PC, the percent of stress ECGs ordered increased by 38% ± 6% (SE) (p < 0.0001) from baseline to Period 1. Most PCPs identified the AA as the most impactful initiative, yet stress ECG ordering did not change (6% ± 6%; p = 0.34) between Periods 1 and 2. In contrast, cardiologists reportedly relied on their expertise rather than AAs, yet their stress ECGs orders increased from Period 1 to 2 to a larger degree in the cardiology clinic with the AA (12% ± 5%; p = 0.01) than clinics without the AA (6% ± 2%; p = 0.01). The percent of stress ECGs ordered was higher in Period 2 than baseline for both specialties (both p < 0.0001).ConclusionsThis initiative influenced ordering behaviour in PC and cardiology clinics. However, clinicians' perceptions of the initiative varied between specialties and did not always align with the observed behaviour change.