Compared with the pretemplate period, activation of the testosterone ordering template in the posttemplate period (Figure 4) had little effect on documented clinical symptoms and discussion of risks and benefits of testosterone treatment. However, the percentage of veterans who had ≥ 2 low testosterone levels and gonadotropins tested was higher in the posttemplate period (41%) vs both the pretemplate period and OIG report.
After removing alternative ordering pathways of testosterone, the percentages of veterans who had documented clinical symptoms, discussion of risks and benefits of testosterone, and ≥ 2 low testosterone levels and gonadotropin tests performed were similar in the posttemplate/no alternative ordering pathways vs posttemplate period.
Excluding veterans who had previously received a former testosterone prescription at any time prior to chart review periods, this subgroup analysis resulted in greater adherence to Endocrine Society guidelines for testosterone treatment with introduction of the testosterone order template, particularly after removal of alternative ordering pathway (Figure 5). With the exclusion of veterans who formerly received testosterone prescriptions, the percentages of veterans who had documented clinical symptoms, discussion of risks and benefits, and ≥ 2 low testosterone levels with gonadotropin tests were higher (100%, 57%, and 71%, respectively) in the posttemplate/no alternative ordering pathways period, compared with the pretemplate period (86%, 30%, and 32%, respectively).
Discussion
The 2018 OIG report found that VA practitioners demonstrated poor adherence to evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for testosterone treatment in men with hypogonadism. Based on OIG recommendations, we developed a PADR testosterone ordering template to help HCPs improve practice by better adherence to guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of hypogonadism in veterans. Before implementation of the PADR template, the percentage of veterans at VAPSHCS who had biochemical confirmation of hypogonadism was higher than that in the OIG report. Activation of the PADR testosterone ordering template (with or without removal of options for alternative ordering pathways of testosterone) resulted only in an improvement of laboratory confirmation and evaluation of etiology of hypogonadism. This is when we reasoned that clinicians may have access to prior records and laboratory testing beyond just the past year, and this information may have influenced their use of the PADR template. Subsequently, with exclusion of veterans who were previously prescribed testosterone, implementation of the PADR testosterone order template improved documentation of symptoms of testosterone deficiency, discussion of risks and benefits of testosterone therapy, and biochemical diagnosis and evaluation of hypogonadism relative to the period before implementation.
The lack of effects of implementing the testosterone order template on documentation of symptoms of testosterone deficiency and discussion of risks and benefits of testosterone therapy may be due to local expertise resulting in the relatively high adherence to these guideline recommendations at VAPSHCS before activation of the template vs that in the OIG report. The template improved documentation of the diagnosis and evaluation of hypogonadism for genuinely new testosterone prescriptions in veterans without a history of testosterone prescriptions; while those with a previous prescription had limited improvement. It is possible that in veterans who had testosterone prescribed previously, HCPs may have assumed or had bias that the diagnosis and evaluation of hypogonadism originally made was adequate. This finding underscores the need to develop strategies for reviewing PADR requests where there is historical testosterone use. Perhaps a clinical team member, such as a clinical pharmacist, with the background and training in guidelines for the evaluation of hypogonadism could review PADR requests in veterans with previous testosterone use.
Removal of alternative ordering pathways for testosterone increased the completion rate of PADR requests and the testosterone ordering template, although the latter was not completed in one-third of veterans. Possible reasons for HCPs’ suboptimal completion of the testosterone template despite the PADR initiation include clinicians’ lack of willingness to read the PADR completely and familiarize themselves with the clinical guidelines due to workload demands of PCPs. In addition there maybe pressure from patients to receive testosterone for age-related symptoms due to heavy marketing. In addition, there may have been pharmacists who reviewed the PADR and approved the incomplete testosterone template. At VAPSHCS there were up to 40 pharmacists during different periods reviewing the testosterone PADRs. Likely, not everyone was completely familiar with this implementation process, and a possible future consideration would be further education to staff pharmacists who are verifying these prescriptions. There were several advantages to using this new testosterone order template when HCPs attempted to order a prescription. First, they were prompted to complete the PADR. Subsequently, a pharmacist reviewed the template and approved or rejected the prescription if the template was incomplete. The completed template served as documentation in the electronic health record for the prescribing HCP. The template was constructed to populate the required laboratory tests for ease of use and documentation. In addition, educational information regarding the symptoms and signs of testosterone deficiency, laboratory tests needed to confirm and evaluate hypogonadism, contraindications to testosterone treatment, and risks and benefits of therapy were incorporated into the template to assist HCPs in understanding the requirements for a complete diagnosis and evaluation. Finally, on completion of the template, HCPs were able to order testosterone via link to various testosterone formulations.
Before its implementation, the PADR testosterone order template was introduced to PCPs and internal medicine residents at 2 case-based conferences aimed at the diagnosis and treatment of male hypogonadism. These conferences were well received and helped launch the testosterone PADR template at VAPSHCS. Similar outreach to HCPs who prescribe testosterone is highly recommended in other VA facilities before implementation of the testosterone ordering template. It is possible that more targeted education to other HCPs would have resulted in greater use of the testosterone ordering template and adherence to clinical practice guidelines.
The VAPSHCS multidisciplinary workgroup was essential for the development, implementation, evaluation, and revision of the PADR and testosterone ordering template. The workgroup met routinely to follow up on the ease of installation in CPRS and discuss technical corrections that were needed. This was an essential for quality improvement, as loopholes in CPRS were identified where the HCP could order testosterone without being prompted to use the new PADR testosterone order template (alternative ordering pathways). The workgroup swiftly informed the IT specialist and HPS team to remove alternative ordering pathways of testosterone. Continuous quality improvement evaluations are highly recommended during implementation of the template in other facilities to accommodate specific local modifications that might be needed.
