1
|
Persell SD, Petito LC, Lee JY, Meeker D, Doctor JN, Goldstein NJ, Fox CR, Rowe TA, Linder JA, Chmiel R, Peprah YA, Brown T. Reducing Care Overuse in Older Patients Using Professional Norms and Accountability : A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Intern Med 2024; 177:324-334. [PMID: 38315997 DOI: 10.7326/m23-2183] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Effective strategies are needed to curtail overuse that may lead to harm. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the effects of clinician decision support redirecting attention to harms and engaging social and reputational concerns on overuse in older primary care patients. DESIGN 18-month, single-blind, pragmatic, cluster randomized trial, constrained randomization. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04289753). SETTING 60 primary care internal medicine, family medicine and geriatrics practices within a health system from 1 September 2020 to 28 February 2022. PARTICIPANTS 371 primary care clinicians and their older adult patients from participating practices. INTERVENTION Behavioral science-informed, point-of-care, clinical decision support tools plus brief case-based education addressing the 3 primary clinical outcomes (187 clinicians from 30 clinics) were compared with brief case-based education alone (187 clinicians from 30 clinics). Decision support was designed to increase salience of potential harms, convey social norms, and promote accountability. MEASUREMENTS Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing in men aged 76 years and older without previous prostate cancer, urine testing for nonspecific reasons in women aged 65 years and older, and overtreatment of diabetes with hypoglycemic agents in patients aged 75 years and older and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) less than 7%. RESULTS At randomization, mean clinic annual PSA testing, unspecified urine testing, and diabetes overtreatment rates were 24.9, 23.9, and 16.8 per 100 patients, respectively. After 18 months of intervention, the intervention group had lower adjusted difference-in-differences in annual rates of PSA testing (-8.7 [95% CI, -10.2 to -7.1]), unspecified urine testing (-5.5 [CI, -7.0 to -3.6]), and diabetes overtreatment (-1.4 [CI, -2.9 to -0.03]) compared with education only. Safety measures did not show increased emergency care related to urinary tract infections or hyperglycemia. An HbA1c greater than 9.0% was more common with the intervention among previously overtreated diabetes patients (adjusted difference-in-differences, 0.47 per 100 patients [95% CI, 0.04 to 1.20]). LIMITATION A single health system limits generalizability; electronic health data limit ability to differentiate between overtesting and underdocumentation. CONCLUSION Decision support designed to increase clinicians' attention to possible harms, social norms, and reputational concerns reduced unspecified testing compared with offering traditional case-based education alone. Small decreases in diabetes overtreatment may also result in higher rates of uncontrolled diabetes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE National Institute on Aging.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephen D Persell
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago; and Center for Primary Care Innovation, Institute for Public Health and Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois (S.D.P., J.A.L.)
| | - Lucia C Petito
- Division of Biostatistics, Department of Preventive Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois (L.C.P.)
| | - Ji Young Lee
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois (J.Y.L., T.A.R., Y.A.P., T.B.)
| | | | - Jason N Doctor
- Department of Population and Public Health Sciences, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California (J.N.D.)
| | - Noah J Goldstein
- UCLA Anderson School of Management, UCLA Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California (N.J.G., C.R.F.)
| | - Craig R Fox
- UCLA Anderson School of Management, UCLA Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California (N.J.G., C.R.F.)
| | - Theresa A Rowe
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois (J.Y.L., T.A.R., Y.A.P., T.B.)
| | - Jeffrey A Linder
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago; and Center for Primary Care Innovation, Institute for Public Health and Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois (S.D.P., J.A.L.)
| | - Ryan Chmiel
- Information Services, Northwestern Memorial HealthCare, Chicago, Illinois (R.C.)
| | - Yaw Amofa Peprah
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois (J.Y.L., T.A.R., Y.A.P., T.B.)
| | - Tiffany Brown
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois (J.Y.L., T.A.R., Y.A.P., T.B.)
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Carlsson SV, Preston MA, Vickers A, Malhotra D, Ehdaie B, Healey MJ, Kibel AS. A Provider-Facing Decision Support Tool for Prostate Cancer Screening in Primary Care: A Pilot Study. Appl Clin Inform 2024; 15:274-281. [PMID: 38599618 PMCID: PMC11006556 DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1780511] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/12/2023] [Accepted: 01/19/2024] [Indexed: 04/12/2024] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Our objective was to pilot test an electronic health record-embedded decision support tool to facilitate prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening discussions in the primary care setting. METHODS We pilot-tested a novel decision support tool that was used by 10 primary care physicians (PCPs) for 6 months, followed by a survey. The tool comprised (1) a risk-stratified algorithm, (2) a tool for facilitating shared decision-making (Simple Schema), (3) three best practice advisories (BPAs: <45, 45-75, and >75 years), and (4) a health maintenance module for scheduling automated reminders about PSA rescreening. RESULTS All PCPs found the tool feasible, acceptable, and clear to use. Eight out of ten PCPs reported that the tool made PSA screening conversations somewhat or much easier. Before using the tool, 70% of PCPs felt confident in their ability to discuss PSA screening with their patient, and this improved to 100% after the tool was used by PCPs for 6 months. PCPs found the BPAs for eligible (45-75 years) and older men (>75 years) more useful than the BPA for younger men (<45 years). Among the 10 PCPs, 60% found the Simple Schema to be very useful, and 50% found the health maintenance module to be extremely or very useful. Most PCPs reported the components of the tool to be at least somewhat useful, with 10% finding them to be very burdensome. CONCLUSION We demonstrated the feasibility and acceptability of the tool, which is notable given the marked low acceptance of existing tools. All PCPs reported that they would consider continuing to use the tool in their clinic and were likely or very likely to recommend the tool to a colleague.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sigrid V. Carlsson
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States
- Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Division of Urological Cancers, Department of Translational Medicine, Medical Faculty, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| | - Mark A. Preston
- Division of Urological Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
| | - Andrew Vickers
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States
| | - Deepak Malhotra
- Negotiation, Organizations, and Markets Unit, Harvard Business School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
| | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States
| | - Michael J. Healey
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
| | - Adam S. Kibel
- Division of Urological Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Carlsson SV, Preston M, Vickers A, Malhotra D, Ehdaie B, Healey M, Kibel AS. Provider Perceptions of an Electronic Health Record Prostate Cancer Screening Tool. Appl Clin Inform 2024; 15:282-294. [PMID: 38599619 PMCID: PMC11006557 DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1782619] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/12/2023] [Accepted: 02/12/2024] [Indexed: 04/12/2024] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES We conducted a focus group to assess the attitudes of primary care physicians (PCPs) toward prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-screening algorithms, perceptions of using decision support tools, and features that would make such tools feasible to implement. METHODS A multidisciplinary team (primary care, urology, behavioral sciences, bioinformatics) developed the decision support tool that was presented to a focus group of 10 PCPs who also filled out a survey. Notes and audio-recorded transcripts were analyzed using Thematic Content Analysis. RESULTS The survey showed that PCPs followed different guidelines. In total, 7/10 PCPs agreed that engaging in shared decision-making about PSA screening was burdensome. The majority (9/10) had never used a decision aid for PSA screening. Although 70% of PCPs felt confident about their ability to discuss PSA screening, 90% still felt a need for a provider-facing platform to assist in these discussions. Three major themes emerged: (1) confirmatory reactions regarding the importance, innovation, and unmet need for a decision support tool embedded in the electronic health record; (2) issues around implementation and application of the tool in clinic workflow and PCPs' own clinical bias; and (3) attitudes/reflections regarding discrepant recommendations from various guideline groups that cause confusion. CONCLUSION There was overwhelmingly positive support for the need for a provider-facing decision support tool to assist with PSA-screening decisions in the primary care setting. PCPs appreciated that the tool would allow flexibility for clinical judgment and documentation of shared decision-making. Incorporation of suggestions from this focus group into a second version of the tool will be used in subsequent pilot testing.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sigrid V. Carlsson
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States
- Department of Urology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
- Division of Urological Cancers, Department of Translational Medicine, Medical Faculty, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| | - Mark Preston
- Division of Urological Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
| | - Andrew Vickers
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States
| | - Deepak Malhotra
- Organizations, and Markets Unit, Harvard Business School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
| | - Behfar Ehdaie
- Urology Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States
| | - Michael Healey
- Brigham and Women's Hospital Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
| | - Adam S. Kibel
- Division of Urological Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Harper J, Hunt T, Choudry M, Kapron AL, Cooney KA, Martin C, Ambrose J, O'Neil B. Clinician interest in clinical decision support for PSA-based prostate cancer screening. Urol Oncol 2023; 41:145.e17-145.e23. [PMID: 36610816 PMCID: PMC9992103 DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2022.11.015] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/29/2022] [Revised: 11/13/2022] [Accepted: 11/21/2022] [Indexed: 01/07/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the interest of primary care clinicians in utilizing CDS for PSA screening. Evidence suggests that electronic clinical decision support (CDS) may decrease low-value prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing. However, physician attitudes towards CDS for PSA screening are largely unknown. METHODS A survey was sent to 201 primary care clinicians, including both physicians and Advanced Practice Providers (APP), within a large academic health system. Eligible clinicians cared for male patients aged 40 to 80 years and ordered ≥5 PSA tests in the past year. Respondents were stratified into 3 groups, appropriate screeners, low-value screeners, or rare-screeners, based on responses to survey questions assessing PSA screening practices. The degree of interest in electronic CDS was determined via a composite Likert score comprising relevant survey items. RESULTS Survey response rate was 29% (59/201) consisting of 85% MD/DO and 15% APP respondents. All clinicians surveyed were interested in CDS (P < 0.001) without significant difference between screener groups. Clinicians agreed most uniformly that CDS be evidence-based. Clinicians disagreed on whether CDS would decrease professional discretion over patient decisions. CONCLUSIONS Primary care clinicians are interested in CDS for PSA screening regardless of their current screening practices. Prioritizing CDS features that clinicians value, such as ensuring CDS recommendations are evidence-based, may increase the likelihood of successful implementation, whereas perceived threat to autonomy may be a hinderance to utilization.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jonathan Harper
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Trevor Hunt
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT; Department of Urology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY
| | - Mouneeb Choudry
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Ashley L Kapron
- Utah Clinical & Translational Science Institute, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Kathleen A Cooney
- Department of Medicine, Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC
| | - Christopher Martin
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Jacob Ambrose
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT
| | - Brock O'Neil
- Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Peters S, Sukumar K, Blanchard S, Ramasamy A, Malinowski J, Ginex P, Senerth E, Corremans M, Munn Z, Kredo T, Remon LP, Ngeh E, Kalman L, Alhabib S, Amer YS, Gagliardi A. Trends in guideline implementation: an updated scoping review. Implement Sci 2022; 17:50. [PMID: 35870974 PMCID: PMC9308215 DOI: 10.1186/s13012-022-01223-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/07/2022] [Accepted: 07/11/2022] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Guidelines aim to support evidence-informed practice but are inconsistently used without implementation strategies. Our prior scoping review revealed that guideline implementation interventions were not selected and tailored based on processes known to enhance guideline uptake and impact. The purpose of this study was to update the prior scoping review. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, CINAHL, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for studies published from 2014 to January 2021 that evaluated guideline implementation interventions. We screened studies in triplicate and extracted data in duplicate. We reported study and intervention characteristics and studies that achieved impact with summary statistics. Results We included 118 studies that implemented guidelines on 16 clinical topics. With regard to implementation planning, 21% of studies referred to theories or frameworks, 50% pre-identified implementation barriers, and 36% engaged stakeholders in selecting or tailoring interventions. Studies that employed frameworks (n=25) most often used the theoretical domains framework (28%) or social cognitive theory (28%). Those that pre-identified barriers (n=59) most often consulted literature (60%). Those that engaged stakeholders (n=42) most often consulted healthcare professionals (79%). Common interventions included educating professionals about guidelines (44%) and information systems/technology (41%). Most studies employed multi-faceted interventions (75%). A total of 97 (82%) studies achieved impact (improvements in one or more reported outcomes) including 10 (40% of 25) studies that employed frameworks, 28 (47.45% of 59) studies that pre-identified barriers, 22 (52.38% of 42) studies that engaged stakeholders, and 21 (70% of 30) studies that employed single interventions. Conclusions Compared to our prior review, this review found that more studies used processes to select and tailor interventions, and a wider array of types of interventions across the Mazza taxonomy. Given that most studies achieved impact, this might reinforce the need for implementation planning. However, even studies that did not plan implementation achieved impact. Similarly, even single interventions achieved impact. Thus, a future systematic review based on this data is warranted to establish if the use of frameworks, barrier identification, stakeholder engagement, and multi-faceted interventions are associated with impact. Trial registration The protocol was registered with Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/4nxpr) and published in JBI Evidence Synthesis. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-022-01223-6.
Collapse
|
6
|
Ho VT, Aikens RC, Tso G, Heidenreich PA, Sharp C, Asch SM, Chen JH, Shah NK. Interruptive Electronic Alerts for Choosing Wisely Recommendations: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2022; 29:1941-1948. [PMID: 36018731 PMCID: PMC10161518 DOI: 10.1093/jamia/ocac139] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/07/2022] [Revised: 07/13/2022] [Accepted: 08/17/2022] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To assess the efficacy of interruptive electronic alerts in improving adherence to the American Board of Internal Medicine's Choosing Wisely recommendations to reduce unnecessary laboratory testing. MATERIALS AND METHODS We administered 5 cluster randomized controlled trials simultaneously, using electronic medical record alerts regarding prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, acute sinusitis treatment, vitamin D testing, carotid artery ultrasound screening, and human papillomavirus testing. For each alert, we assigned 5 outpatient clinics to an interruptive alert and 5 were observed as a control. Primary and secondary outcomes were the number of postalert orders per 100 patients at each clinic and number of triggered alerts divided by orders, respectively. Post hoc analysis evaluated whether physicians experiencing interruptive alerts reduced their alert-triggering behaviors. RESULTS Median postalert orders per 100 patients did not differ significantly between treatment and control groups; absolute median differences ranging from 0.04 to 0.40 for PSA testing. Median alerts per 100 orders did not differ significantly between treatment and control groups; absolute median differences ranged from 0.004 to 0.03. In post hoc analysis, providers receiving alerts regarding PSA testing in men were significantly less likely to trigger additional PSA alerts than those in the control sites (Incidence Rate Ratio 0.12, 95% CI [0.03-0.52]). DISCUSSION Interruptive point-of-care alerts did not yield detectable changes in the overall rate of undesired orders or the order-to-alert ratio between active and silent sites. Complementary behavioral or educational interventions are likely needed to improve efforts to curb medical overuse. CONCLUSION Implementation of interruptive alerts at the time of ordering was not associated with improved adherence to 5 Choosing Wisely guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION NCT02709772.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vy T Ho
- Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA
| | - Rachael C Aikens
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA
| | - Geoffrey Tso
- Division of Primary Care and Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, USA
| | - Paul A Heidenreich
- Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA
- Center for Innovation to Implementation, VA Palo Alto Healthcare System, Palo Alto, California, USA
| | - Christopher Sharp
- Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA
| | - Steven M Asch
- Division of Primary Care and Population Health, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California, USA
- Center for Innovation to Implementation, VA Palo Alto Healthcare System, Palo Alto, California, USA
| | - Jonathan H Chen
- Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA
| | - Neil K Shah
- Department of Pathology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Bade B, Gwin M, Triplette M, Wiener RS, Crothers K. Comorbidity and life expectancy in shared decision making for lung cancer screening. Semin Oncol 2022; 49:220-231. [PMID: 35940959 DOI: 10.1053/j.seminoncol.2022.07.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/14/2022] [Revised: 07/02/2022] [Accepted: 07/03/2022] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
Shared decision making (SDM) is an important part of lung cancer screening (LCS) that includes discussing the risks and benefits of screening, potential outcomes, patient eligibility and willingness to participate, tobacco cessation, and tailoring a strategy to an individual patient. More than other cancer screening tests, eligibility for LCS is nuanced, incorporating the patient's age as well as tobacco use history and overall health status. Since comorbidities and multimorbidity (ie, 2 or more comorbidities) impact the risks and benefits of LCS, these topics are a fundamental part of decision-making. However, there is currently little evidence available to guide clinicians in addressing comorbidities and an individual's "appropriateness" for LCS during SDM visits. Therefore, this literature review investigates the impact of comorbidities and multimorbidity among patients undergoing LCS. Based on available evidence and guideline recommendations, we identify comorbidities that should be considered during SDM conversations and review best practices for navigating SDM conversations in the context of LCS. Three conditions are highlighted since they concomitantly portend higher risk of developing lung cancer, potentially increase risk of screening-related evaluation and treatment complications and can be associated with limited life expectancy: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, and human immunodeficiency virus infection.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Brett Bade
- Veterans Affairs (VA) Connecticut Healthcare System, Section of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, West Haven, CT, United States of America (USA); Yale University School of Medicine, Section of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
| | - Mary Gwin
- University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Matthew Triplette
- University of Washington School of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Clinical Research Division, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Renda Soylemez Wiener
- Center for Healthcare Organization & Implementation Research and Medical Service, VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA; The Pulmonary Center, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Kristina Crothers
- University of Washington School of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA; VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Section of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Alishahi Tabriz A, Turner K, Clary A, Hong YR, Nguyen OT, Wei G, Carlson RB, Birken SA. De-implementing low-value care in cancer care delivery: a systematic review. Implement Sci 2022; 17:24. [PMID: 35279182 PMCID: PMC8917720 DOI: 10.1186/s13012-022-01197-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/26/2021] [Accepted: 02/14/2022] [Indexed: 01/10/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Accumulating evidence suggests that interventions to de-implement low-value services are urgently needed. While medical societies and educational campaigns such as Choosing Wisely have developed several guidelines and recommendations pertaining to low-value care, little is known about interventions that exist to de-implement low-value care in oncology settings. We conducted this review to summarize the literature on interventions to de-implement low-value care in oncology settings. METHODS We systematically reviewed the published literature in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Plus, and Scopus from 1 January 1990 to 4 March 2021. We screened the retrieved abstracts for eligibility against inclusion criteria and conducted a full-text review of all eligible studies on de-implementation interventions in cancer care delivery. We used the framework analysis approach to summarize included studies' key characteristics including design, type of cancer, outcome(s), objective(s), de-implementation interventions description, and determinants of the de-implementation interventions. To extract the data, pairs of authors placed text from included articles into the appropriate cells within our framework. We analyzed extracted data from each cell to describe the studies and findings of de-implementation interventions aiming to reduce low-value cancer care. RESULTS Out of 2794 studies, 12 met our inclusion criteria. The studies covered several cancer types, including prostate cancer (n = 5), gastrointestinal cancer (n = 3), lung cancer (n = 2), breast cancer (n = 2), and hematologic cancers (n = 1). Most of the interventions (n = 10) were multifaceted. Auditing and providing feedback, having a clinical champion, educating clinicians through developing and disseminating new guidelines, and developing a decision support tool are the common components of the de-implementation interventions. Six of the de-implementation interventions were effective in reducing low-value care, five studies reported mixed results, and one study showed no difference across intervention arms. Eleven studies aimed to de-implement low-value care by changing providers' behavior, and 1 de-implementation intervention focused on changing the patients' behavior. Three studies had little risk of bias, five had moderate, and four had a high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS This review demonstrated a paucity of evidence in many areas of the de-implementation of low-value care including lack of studies in active de-implementation (i.e., healthcare organizations initiating de-implementation interventions purposefully aimed at reducing low-value care).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amir Alishahi Tabriz
- Department of Health Outcomes and Behavior, Moffitt Cancer Center, 4115 E. Fowler Avenue, Tampa, FL 33617 USA
- Department of Oncological Sciences, University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine, 560 Channelside Dr, Tampa, FL 33602 USA
| | - Kea Turner
- Department of Health Outcomes and Behavior, Moffitt Cancer Center, 4115 E. Fowler Avenue, Tampa, FL 33617 USA
- Department of Oncological Sciences, University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine, 560 Channelside Dr, Tampa, FL 33602 USA
| | - Alecia Clary
- The Reagan-Udall Foundation for the FDA, 1900 L Street, NW, Suite 835, Washington, DC, 20036 USA
| | - Young-Rock Hong
- UF Health Cancer Center, Gainesville, FL USA
- Department of Health Services Research, Management and Policy, College of Public Health and Health Professions, University of Florida, HPNP Building, Room 3111, Gainesville, FL 32610 USA
| | - Oliver T. Nguyen
- Department of Community Health & Family Medicine, University of Florida, P.O. Box 100211, Gainesville, FL 32610 USA
- Department of Health Services Administration, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL USA
| | - Grace Wei
- Department of Oncological Sciences, University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine, 560 Channelside Dr, Tampa, FL 33602 USA
| | - Rebecca B. Carlson
- Health Sciences Library, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 335 S. Columbia Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 USA
| | - Sarah A. Birken
- Department of Implementation Science, Wake Forest School of Medicine, 525@Vine Room 5219, Medical Center Boulevard, Winston-Salem, NC 27157 USA
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Makarov DV, Ciprut S, Kelly M, Walter D, Shedlin MG, Braithwaite RS, Tenner CT, Gold HT, Zeliadt S, Sherman SE. Protocol: A multi-modal, physician-centered intervention to improve guideline-concordant prostate cancer imaging. Trials 2021; 22:711. [PMID: 34663435 PMCID: PMC8522153 DOI: 10.1186/s13063-021-05645-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/27/2020] [Accepted: 09/19/2021] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Almost half of Veterans with localized prostate cancer receive inappropriate, wasteful staging imaging. Our team has explored the barriers and facilitators of guideline-concordant prostate cancer imaging and found that (1) patients with newly diagnosed prostate cancer have little concern for radiographic staging but rather focus on treatment and (2) physicians trust imaging guidelines but are apt to follow their own intuition, fear medico-legal consequences, and succumb to influence from imaging-avid colleagues. We used a theory-based approach to design a multi-level intervention strategy to promote guideline-concordant imaging to stage incident prostate cancer. METHODS We designed the Prostate Cancer Imaging Stewardship (PCIS) intervention: a multi-site, stepped wedge, cluster-randomized trial to determine the effect of a physician-focused behavioral intervention on Veterans Health Administration (VHA) prostate cancer imaging use. The multi-level intervention, developed according to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and Behavior Change Wheel, combines traditional physician behavior change methods with novel methods of communication and data collection. The intervention consists of three components: (1) a system of audit and feedback to clinicians informing individual clinicians and their sites about how their behavior compares to their peers' and to published guidelines, (2) a program of academic detailing with the goal to educate providers about prostate cancer imaging, and (3) a CPRS Clinical Order Check for potentially guideline-discordant imaging orders. The intervention will be introduced to 10 participating geographically distributed study sites. DISCUSSION This study is a significant contribution to implementation science, providing VHA an opportunity to ensure delivery of high-quality care at the lowest cost using a theory-based approach. The study is ongoing. Preliminary data collection and recruitment have started; analysis has yet to be performed. TRIAL REGISTRATION CliniclTrials.gov NCT03445559. Prospectively registered on February 26, 2018.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Danil V Makarov
- Department of Urology, New York University School of Medicine, 227 E 30th St, 617 L, New York, NY, 10016, USA
- Department of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, 227 E 30th St, 617 L, New York, NY, 10016, USA
- VA New York Harbor Healthcare System, New York, USA
- Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, New York University, New York, USA
- Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York University School of Medicine, New York, USA
| | - Shannon Ciprut
- Department of Urology, New York University School of Medicine, 227 E 30th St, 617 L, New York, NY, 10016, USA
- Department of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, 227 E 30th St, 617 L, New York, NY, 10016, USA
- VA New York Harbor Healthcare System, New York, USA
| | - Matthew Kelly
- Department of Urology, New York University School of Medicine, 227 E 30th St, 617 L, New York, NY, 10016, USA.
- Department of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, 227 E 30th St, 617 L, New York, NY, 10016, USA.
- VA New York Harbor Healthcare System, New York, USA.
| | - Dawn Walter
- Department of Urology, New York University School of Medicine, 227 E 30th St, 617 L, New York, NY, 10016, USA
- Department of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, 227 E 30th St, 617 L, New York, NY, 10016, USA
| | | | - Ronald Scott Braithwaite
- Department of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, 227 E 30th St, 617 L, New York, NY, 10016, USA
| | - Craig T Tenner
- VA New York Harbor Healthcare System, New York, USA
- Department of Medicine - General Internal Medicine, New York University, New York, NY, USA
| | - Heather T Gold
- Department of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, 227 E 30th St, 617 L, New York, NY, 10016, USA
- VA New York Harbor Healthcare System, New York, USA
- Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, New York University, New York, USA
| | - Steven Zeliadt
- Health Services Research and Development, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA
- Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA
| | - Scott E Sherman
- Department of Urology, New York University School of Medicine, 227 E 30th St, 617 L, New York, NY, 10016, USA
- VA New York Harbor Healthcare System, New York, USA
- Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York University School of Medicine, New York, USA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Kjelle E, Andersen ER, Soril LJJ, van Bodegom-Vos L, Hofmann BM. Interventions to reduce low-value imaging - a systematic review of interventions and outcomes. BMC Health Serv Res 2021; 21:983. [PMID: 34537051 PMCID: PMC8449221 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-021-07004-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 37] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/09/2021] [Accepted: 09/02/2021] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND It is estimated that 20-50% of all radiological examinations are of low value. Many attempts have been made to reduce the use of low-value imaging. However, the comparative effectiveness of interventions to reduce low-value imaging is unclear. Thus, the objective of this systematic review was to provide an overview and evaluate the outcomes of interventions aimed at reducing low-value imaging. METHODS An electronic database search was completed in Medline - Ovid, Embase-Ovid, Scopus, and Cochrane Library for citations between 2010 and 2020. The search was built from medical subject headings for Diagnostic imaging/Radiology, Health service misuse or medical overuse, and Health planning. Keywords were used for the concept of reduction and avoidance. Reference lists of included articles were also hand-searched for relevant citations. Only articles written in English, German, Danish, Norwegian, Dutch, and Swedish were included. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to appraise the quality of the included articles. A narrative synthesis of the final included articles was completed. RESULTS The search identified 15,659 records. After abstract and full-text screening, 95 studies of varying quality were included in the final analysis, containing 45 studies found through hand-searching techniques. Both controlled and uncontrolled before-and-after studies, time series, chart reviews, and cohort studies were included. Most interventions were aimed at referring physicians. Clinical practice guidelines (n = 28) and education (n = 28) were most commonly evaluated interventions, either alone or in combination with other components. Multi-component interventions were often more effective than single-component interventions showing a reduction in the use of low-value imaging in 94 and 74% of the studies, respectively. The most addressed types of imaging were musculoskeletal (n = 26), neurological (n = 23) and vascular (n = 16) imaging. Seventy-seven studies reported reduced low-value imaging, while 3 studies reported an increase. CONCLUSIONS Multi-component interventions that include education were often more effective than single-component interventions. The contextual and cultural factors in the health care systems seem to be vital for successful reduction of low-value imaging. Further research should focus on assessing the impact of the context in interventions reducing low-value imaging and how interventions can be adapted to different contexts.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Elin Kjelle
- Institute for the Health Sciences at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) at Gjøvik, NTNU Gjøvik, Postbox 191, 2802 Gjøvik, Norway
| | - Eivind Richter Andersen
- Institute for the Health Sciences at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) at Gjøvik, NTNU Gjøvik, Postbox 191, 2802 Gjøvik, Norway
| | - Lesley J. J. Soril
- Department of Community Health Sciences and The Health Technology Assessment Unit, O’Brien Institute for Public Health, University of Calgary, 3280 Hospital Dr NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N 4Z6 Canada
| | - Leti van Bodegom-Vos
- Medical Decision making, Department of Biomedical Data Sciences, Leiden University Medical Center, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | - Bjørn Morten Hofmann
- Institute for the Health Sciences at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) at Gjøvik, NTNU Gjøvik, Postbox 191, 2802 Gjøvik, Norway
- Centre of Medical Ethics, University of Oslo, Postbox 1130, Blindern, 0318 Oslo, Norway
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Rude T, Walter D, Ciprut S, Kelly MD, Wang C, Fagerlin A, Langford AT, Lepor H, Becker DJ, Li H, Loeb S, Ravenell J, Leppert JT, Makarov DV. Interaction between race and prostate cancer treatment benefit in the Veterans Health Administration. Cancer 2021; 127:3985-3990. [PMID: 34184271 DOI: 10.1002/cncr.33643] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/07/2021] [Revised: 03/09/2021] [Accepted: 04/06/2021] [Indexed: 11/07/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Studies have demonstrated that Black men may undergo definitive prostate cancer (CaP) treatment less often than men of other races, but it is unclear whether they are avoiding overtreatment of low-risk disease or experiencing a reduction in appropriate care. The authors' aim was to assess the role of race as it relates to treatment benefit in access to CaP treatment in a single-payer population. METHODS The authors used the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Corporate Data Warehouse to perform a retrospective cohort study of veterans diagnosed with low- or intermediate-risk CaP between 2011 and 2017. RESULTS The authors identified 35,427 men with incident low- or intermediate-risk CaP. When they controlled for covariates, Black men had 1.05 times the odds of receiving treatment in comparison with non-Black men (P < .001), and high-treatment-benefit men had 1.4 times the odds of receiving treatment in comparison with those in the low-treatment-benefit group (P < .001). The interaction of race and treatment benefit was significant, with Black men in the high-treatment-benefit category less likely to receive treatment than non-Black men in the same treatment category (odds ratio, 0.89; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS Although race does appear to influence the receipt of definitive treatment in the VHA, this relationship varies in the context of the patient's treatment benefit, with Black men receiving less definitive treatment in high-benefit situations. The influence of patient race at high treatment benefit levels invites further investigation into the driving forces behind this persistent disparity in this consequential group.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Temitope Rude
- Department of Urology, New York University, New York, New York
| | - Dawn Walter
- Department of Urology, New York University, New York, New York.,Department of Population Health, New York University, New York, New York.,Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York University, New York, New York.,VA New York Harbor Healthcare System, New York, New York
| | - Shannon Ciprut
- Department of Urology, New York University, New York, New York.,Department of Population Health, New York University, New York, New York.,Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York University, New York, New York.,VA New York Harbor Healthcare System, New York, New York
| | - Matthew D Kelly
- Department of Urology, New York University, New York, New York.,Department of Population Health, New York University, New York, New York.,Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York University, New York, New York.,VA New York Harbor Healthcare System, New York, New York
| | - Chan Wang
- Department of Population Health, New York University, New York, New York
| | - Angela Fagerlin
- Salt Lake City VA Informatics Decision-Enhancement and Analytic Sciences Center for Innovation, Salt Lake City, Utah.,Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Aisha T Langford
- Department of Population Health, New York University, New York, New York
| | - Herbert Lepor
- Department of Urology, New York University, New York, New York.,Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York University, New York, New York
| | - Daniel J Becker
- Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York University, New York, New York.,VA New York Harbor Healthcare System, New York, New York
| | - Huilin Li
- Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York University, New York, New York
| | - Stacy Loeb
- Department of Urology, New York University, New York, New York.,Department of Population Health, New York University, New York, New York.,Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York University, New York, New York.,VA New York Harbor Healthcare System, New York, New York
| | - Joseph Ravenell
- Department of Population Health, New York University, New York, New York
| | - John T Leppert
- Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California.,Department of Urology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California.,Division of Nephrology, Department of Urology, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California
| | - Danil V Makarov
- Department of Urology, New York University, New York, New York.,Department of Population Health, New York University, New York, New York.,Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York University, New York, New York.,VA New York Harbor Healthcare System, New York, New York.,Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, New York University, New York, New York
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Check DK, Zullig LL, Davis MM, Davies L, Chambers D, Fleisher L, Kaplan SJ, Proctor E, Ramanadhan S, Schroeck FR, Stover AM, Koczwara B. Improvement Science and Implementation Science in Cancer Care: Identifying Areas of Synergy and Opportunities for Further Integration. J Gen Intern Med 2021; 36:186-195. [PMID: 32869193 PMCID: PMC7859137 DOI: 10.1007/s11606-020-06138-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/02/2019] [Accepted: 08/11/2020] [Indexed: 12/30/2022]
Abstract
Efforts to improve cancer care primarily come from two fields: improvement science and implementation science. The two fields have developed independently, yet they have potential for synergy. Leveraging that synergy to enhance alignment could both reduce duplication and, more importantly, enhance the potential of both fields to improve care. To better understand potential for alignment, we examined 20 highly cited cancer-related improvement science and implementation science studies published in the past 5 years, characterizing and comparing their objectives, methods, and approaches to practice change. We categorized studies as improvement science or implementation science based on authors' descriptions when possible; otherwise, we categorized studies as improvement science if they evaluated efforts to improve the quality, value, or safety of care, or implementation science if they evaluated efforts to promote the implementation of evidence-based interventions into practice. All implementation studies (10/10) and most improvement science studies (6/10) sought to improve uptake of evidence-based interventions. Improvement science and implementation science studies employed similar approaches to change practice. For example, training was employed in 8/10 implementation science studies and 4/10 improvement science studies. However, improvement science and implementation science studies used different terminology to describe similar concepts and emphasized different methodological aspects in reporting. Only 4/20 studies (2 from each category) described using a formal theory or conceptual framework to guide program development. Most studies were multi-site (10/10 implementation science and 6/10 improvement science) and a minority (2 from each category) used a randomized design. Based on our review, cancer-related improvement science and implementation science studies use different terminology and emphasize different methodological aspects in reporting but share similarities in purpose, scope, and methods, and are at similar levels of scientific development. The fields are well-positioned for alignment. We propose that next steps include harmonizing language and cross-fertilizing methods of program development and evaluation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Devon K Check
- Department of Population Health Sciences and Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
| | - Leah L Zullig
- Department of Population Health Sciences and Duke Cancer Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.,Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation (ADAPT), Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Melinda M Davis
- Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network and Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.,School of Public Health, Oregon Health & Science University and Portland State University, Portland, OR, USA
| | - Louise Davies
- The VA Outcomes Group, White River Junction VA Medical Center, Hartford, VT, USA.,The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA.,Department of Surgery - Otolaryngology Head & Neck Surgery, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH, USA
| | - David Chambers
- Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD, USA
| | | | - Samantha J Kaplan
- Duke University Medical Center Library & Archives, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Enola Proctor
- The Brown School at Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA
| | - Shoba Ramanadhan
- Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Florian R Schroeck
- The VA Outcomes Group, White River Junction VA Medical Center, Hartford, VT, USA.,The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA.,Section of Urology and Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, PA, USA
| | - Angela M Stover
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Gillings School of Global Public Health, Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
13
|
Changing Provider PSA Screening Behavior Using Best Practice Advisories: Interventional Study in a Multispecialty Group Practice. J Gen Intern Med 2020; 35:796-801. [PMID: 33107000 PMCID: PMC7652982 DOI: 10.1007/s11606-020-06097-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/09/2019] [Accepted: 07/30/2020] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Most guidelines recommend against PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in men ≥ 70 years of age. Adherence to these guidelines is variable. OBJECTIVE To determine whether the use of a "Best Practice Advisory" (BPA) intervention within the electronic medical record (EMR) system can alter the rate of PSA screening in men ≥ 70 years of age. DESIGN This is an interventional study spanning the years 2013 through 2017, in men ≥ 70 years of age in Kaiser Permanente Northern California with no prior history of prostate cancer. The BPA intervention was activated in the EMR system on October 15, 2015, with no prior notice or education. SETTING Integrated healthcare system including all Kaiser Permanente Northern California facilities. PARTICIPANTS A population-based sample that included all male members ≥ 70 years of age without a history of prostate cancer. MAIN MEASURES The main outcome was the rate of PSA testing in men ≥ 70 years of age. We compared the rates of PSA testing between the pre-BPA period (January 1, 2013-October 14, 2015) and the post-BPA period (October 15, 2015-December 31, 2017). An interrupted time series analysis of PSA ordering rates was performed. KEY RESULTS Following the 2015 BPA intervention, screening rates substantially declined from 36.0 per 100 person-years to 14.9 per 100 person-years (rate ratio = 0.415; 95% CI: 0.410-0.419). The effect of the BPA was comparable among all patient races and ordering provider specialties. The interrupted time series analysis showed a rapid, large, and sustained drop in the rate of PSA ordering, and much less temporal variation in test ordering after activation of the BPA. CONCLUSION Following activation of a BPA within the EMR, the rates of inappropriate PSA testing significantly declined by 58.5% in men ≥ 70 years of age and temporal variation was reduced.
Collapse
|
14
|
Ciprut SE, Kelly MD, Walter D, Hoffman R, Becker DJ, Loeb S, Sedlander E, Tenner CT, Sherman SE, Zeliadt SB, Makarov DV. A Clinical Reminder Order Check Intervention to Improve Guideline-concordant Imaging Practices for Men With Prostate Cancer: A Pilot Study. Urology 2020; 145:113-119. [PMID: 32721517 DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2020.05.101] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/13/2020] [Revised: 04/19/2020] [Accepted: 05/11/2020] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To understand how to potentially improve inappropriate prostate cancer imaging rates we used National Comprehensive Cancer Network's guidelines to design and implement a Clinical Reminder Order Check (CROC) that alerts ordering providers of potentially inappropriate imaging orders in real-time based on patient features of men diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer. METHODS We implemented the CROC at VA New York Harbor Healthcare System from April 2, 2015 to November 15, 2017. We then used VA administrative claims from the VA's Corporate Data Warehouse to analyze imaging rates among men with low-risk prostate cancer at VA New York Harbor Healthcare System before and after CROC implementation. We also collected and cataloged provider responses in response to overriding the CROC in qualitative analysis. RESULTS FIFTY SEVEN PERCENT: (117/205) of Veterans before CROC installation and 73% (61/83) of Veterans post-intervention with low-risk prostate cancer received guideline-concordant care. CONCLUSION While the decrease in inappropriate imaging during our study window was almost certainly due to many factors, a Computerized Patient Record System-based CROC intervention is likely associated with at least moderate improvement in guideline-concordant imaging practices for Veterans with low-risk prostate cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shannon E Ciprut
- VA New York Harbor Healthcare System, New York, NY; Department of Urology, New York University, New York, NY; Department of Population Health, New York University, New York, NY
| | - Matthew D Kelly
- VA New York Harbor Healthcare System, New York, NY; Department of Urology, New York University, New York, NY; Department of Population Health, New York University, New York, NY.
| | - Dawn Walter
- VA New York Harbor Healthcare System, New York, NY; Department of Urology, New York University, New York, NY; Department of Population Health, New York University, New York, NY
| | | | - Daniel J Becker
- VA New York Harbor Healthcare System, New York, NY; Department of Oncology, New York University, New York, NY; Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York University, New York, NY
| | - Stacy Loeb
- VA New York Harbor Healthcare System, New York, NY; Department of Urology, New York University, New York, NY; Department of Population Health, New York University, New York, NY
| | - Erica Sedlander
- Department of Prevention and Community Health, George Washington University, Milken Institute School of Public Health, Washington, DC
| | - Craig T Tenner
- VA New York Harbor Healthcare System, New York, NY; Department of Medicine - General Internal Medicine, New York University, New York, NY
| | - Scott E Sherman
- VA New York Harbor Healthcare System, New York, NY; Department of Population Health, New York University, New York, NY
| | - Steven B Zeliadt
- Health Services Research and Development, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Seattle, Washington; Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA
| | - Danil V Makarov
- VA New York Harbor Healthcare System, New York, NY; Department of Urology, New York University, New York, NY; Department of Population Health, New York University, New York, NY; Perlmutter Cancer Center, New York University, New York, NY; Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, New York University, New York, NY
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Beauchemin M, Murray MT, Sung L, Hershman DL, Weng C, Schnall R. Clinical decision support for therapeutic decision-making in cancer: A systematic review. Int J Med Inform 2019; 130:103940. [PMID: 31450082 PMCID: PMC7024607 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.07.019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/20/2019] [Revised: 07/05/2019] [Accepted: 07/31/2019] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
Abstract
Cancer management, including supportive care, is complex and requires availability and synthesis of published and patient-specific data to make appropriate therapeutic decisions. Clinical decision support (CDS) may be an effective implementation strategy to support complex decision making although it is unclear whether it improves process outcomes, patient outcomes or both in cancer settings. We therefore conducted a systematic review to identify CDS that have been used to support therapeutic decision making in clinical cancer settings. Outcomes of interest included the effect of CDS on the process, such as clinician's decision making and effect on patient outcomes. Ten studies met inclusion criteria, with variability in the study design, setting, and intervention. Of the nine studies that measured process outcomes, five demonstrated significant improvement; and of the six that measured patient outcomes, four demonstrated significant improvement. All included studies utilized CDS that were informed by clinical practice guidelines. In conclusion, CDS to guide cancer therapeutic decision making is an understudied but promising area. Further research is needed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Melissa Beauchemin
- School of Nursing, Columbia University, New York, NY, 10032, United States; Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032, United States.
| | - Meghan T Murray
- School of Nursing, Columbia University, New York, NY, 10032, United States
| | | | - Dawn L Hershman
- Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032, United States
| | - Chunhua Weng
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, Columbia University, New York, NY 10032, United States
| | - Rebecca Schnall
- School of Nursing, Columbia University, New York, NY, 10032, United States
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Blecker S, Austrian JS, Horwitz LI, Kuperman G, Shelley D, Ferrauiola M, Katz SD. Interrupting providers with clinical decision support to improve care for heart failure. Int J Med Inform 2019; 131:103956. [PMID: 31525580 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2019.103956] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/23/2019] [Revised: 08/01/2019] [Accepted: 08/21/2019] [Indexed: 10/26/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Evidence-based therapy for heart failure remains underutilized at hospital discharge, particularly for patients with heart failure who are hospitalized for another cause. We developed clinical decision support (CDS) to recommend an angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor during hospitalization to promote its continuation at discharge. The CDS was designed to be implemented in both interruptive and non-interruptive versions. OBJECTIVES To compare the effectiveness and implementation of interruptive and non-interruptive versions of a CDS to improve care for heart failure. METHODS Hospitalizations of patients with reduced ejection fraction were pseudo-randomized to deliver interruptive or non-interruptive CDS alerts to providers based on even or odd medical record number. We compared discharge utilization of an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) for these two implementation approaches. We also assessed adoption and implementation fidelity of the CDS. RESULTS Of 958 hospitalizations, interruptive alert hospitalizations had higher rates of discharge utilization of ACE inhibitors or ARBs than non-interruptive alert hospitalizations (79.6% vs. 74.2%, p = 0.05). Utilization was higher for interruptive alert versus non-interruptive alert hospitalizations which were principally for causes other than heart failure (79.8% vs. 73.4%; p = 0.05) but no difference was observed among hospitalizations with a principal heart failure diagnosis (85.9% vs.81.7%; p = 0.49). As compared to non-interruptive hospitalizations, interruptive alert hospitalizations were more likely to have had: an alert with any response (40.6% vs. 13.1%, p < 0.001), contraindications reported (33.1% vs 11.3%, p < 0.001), and an ACE inhibitor ordered within twelve hours of the alert (17.6% vs 10.3%, p < 0.01). The response rate for the interruptive alert was 1.7%, and a median (25th, 75th percentile) of 14 (5,32) alerts were triggered per hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS A CDS implemented as an interruptive alert was associated with improved quality of care for heart failure. Whether the potential benefits of CDS in improving cardiovascular care were worth the high burden of interruptive alerts deserves further consideration. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER NCT02858674.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Saul Blecker
- Department of Population Health, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States; Department of Medicine, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States; Center for Healthcare Innovation and Delivery Science, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, United States.
| | - Jonathan S Austrian
- Department of Medicine, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States; Medical Center Information Technology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, United States
| | - Leora I Horwitz
- Department of Population Health, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States; Department of Medicine, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States; Center for Healthcare Innovation and Delivery Science, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, United States
| | - Gilad Kuperman
- Memorial Sloane Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, United States
| | - Donna Shelley
- Department of Population Health, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States; Department of Medicine, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States
| | - Meg Ferrauiola
- Medical Center Information Technology, NYU Langone Health, New York, NY, United States
| | - Stuart D Katz
- Department of Medicine, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY, United States
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Vassy JL, Brunette CA, Majahalme N, Advani S, MacMullen L, Hau C, Zimolzak AJ, Miller SJ. The Integrating Pharmacogenetics in Clinical Care (I-PICC) Study: Protocol for a point-of-care randomized controlled trial of statin pharmacogenetics in primary care. Contemp Clin Trials 2018; 75:40-50. [PMID: 30367991 PMCID: PMC8119226 DOI: 10.1016/j.cct.2018.10.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/11/2018] [Revised: 10/04/2018] [Accepted: 10/16/2018] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The association between the SLCO1B1 rs4149056 variant and statin-associated muscle symptoms (SAMS) is well validated, but the clinical utility of its implementation in patient care is unknown. DESIGN The Integrating Pharmacogenetics in Clinical Care (I-PICC) Study is a pseudo-cluster randomized controlled trial of SLCO1B1 genotyping among statin-naïve primary care and women's health patients across the Veteran Affairs Boston Healthcare System. Eligible patients of enrolled primary care providers are aged 40-75 and have elevated risk of cardiovascular disease by American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines. Patients give consent by telephone in advance of an upcoming appointment, but they are enrolled only if and when their provider co-signs an order for SLCO1B1 testing, performed on a blood sample already collected in clinical care. Enrolled patients are randomly allocated to have their providers receive results through the electronic health record at baseline (PGx + arm) versus after 12 months (PGx- arm). The primary outcome is the change in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) after one year. Secondary outcomes are concordance with Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guidelines for simvastatin prescribing, concordance with ACC/AHA guidelines for statin use, and incidence of SAMS. With 408 patients, the study has >80% power to exclude a between-group LDL-C difference of 10 mg/dL (non-inferiority design) and to detect between-group differences of 15% in CPIC guideline concordance (superiority design). CONCLUSION The outcomes of the I-PICC Study will inform the clinical utility of preemptive SLCO1B1 testing in the routine practice of medicine, including its proposed benefits and unforeseen risks.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jason L Vassy
- VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Division of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | - Cynthia Hau
- VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Andrew J Zimolzak
- VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA; Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|
18
|
Designing a theory-based intervention to improve the guideline-concordant use of imaging to stage incident prostate cancer. Urol Oncol 2018; 36:246-251. [DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2017.12.019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/14/2017] [Revised: 12/11/2017] [Accepted: 12/24/2017] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
|
19
|
Jasuja GK, Bhasin S, Rose AJ, Reisman JI, Hanlon JT, Miller DR, Morreale AP, Pogach LM, Cunningham FE, Park A, Wiener RS, Gifford AL, Berlowitz DR. Provider and Site-Level Determinants of Testosterone Prescribing in the Veterans Healthcare System. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2017; 102:3226-3233. [PMID: 28911150 PMCID: PMC5587071 DOI: 10.1210/jc.2017-00468] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/19/2017] [Accepted: 05/26/2017] [Indexed: 01/05/2023]
Abstract
CONTEXT Testosterone prescribing rates have increased substantially in the past decade. However, little is known about the context within which such prescriptions occur. OBJECTIVE We evaluated provider- and site-level determinants of receipt of testosterone and of guideline-concordant testosterone prescribing. DESIGN This study was cross-sectional in design. SETTING This study was conducted at the Veterans Health Administration (VA). PARTICIPANTS Study participants were a national cohort of male patients who had received at least one outpatient prescription within the VA during fiscal year (FY) 2008 to FY 2012. A total of 38,648 providers and 130 stations were associated with these patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE This study measured receipt of testosterone and guideline-concordant testosterone prescribing. RESULTS Providers ranging in age from 31 to 60 years, with less experience in the VA [all adjusted odds ratio (AOR), <2; P < 0.01] and credentialed as medical doctors in endocrinology (AOR, 3.88; P < 0.01) and urology (AOR, 1.48; P < 0.01) were more likely to prescribe testosterone compared with older providers, providers of longer VA tenure, and primary care providers, respectively. Sites located in the West compared with the Northeast [AOR, 1.75; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.45-2.11] and care received at a community-based outpatient clinic compared with a medical center (AOR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.20-1.24) also predicted testosterone use. Although they were more likely to prescribe testosterone, endocrinologists were also more likely to obtain an appropriate workup before prescribing compared with primary care providers (AOR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.54-2.97). CONCLUSIONS Our results highlight the opportunity to intervene at both the provider and the site levels to improve testosterone prescribing. This study also provides a useful example of how to examine contributions to prescribing variation at different levels of the health care system.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Guneet K. Jasuja
- Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research (CHOIR), ENRM VAMC, Bedford, Massachusetts 01730
- Department of Health Law, Policy, and Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts 02118
| | - Shalender Bhasin
- Research Program in Men’s Health, Aging and Metabolism, Boston Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School Boston, Boston, Massachusetts 02115
| | - Adam J. Rose
- Department of Medicine, Section of General Internal Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts 02118
| | - Joel I. Reisman
- Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research (CHOIR), ENRM VAMC, Bedford, Massachusetts 01730
| | - Joseph T. Hanlon
- Division of Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
- Department of Pharmacy and Therapeutics, School of Pharmacy, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
- Center for Health Equity Research and Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
- Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213
| | - Donald R. Miller
- Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research (CHOIR), ENRM VAMC, Bedford, Massachusetts 01730
| | - Anthony P. Morreale
- Clinical Pharmacy Services and Healthcare Services Research, VA Pharmacy Benefits Management Services VACO, San Diego, California 92161
| | - Leonard M. Pogach
- Department of Veterans Affairs, New Jersey Healthcare System, East Orange, New Jersey 07018
| | | | - Angela Park
- New England Veterans Engineering Resource Center, Boston, Massachusetts 02130
| | - Renda S. Wiener
- Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research (CHOIR), ENRM VAMC, Bedford, Massachusetts 01730
- Department of Medicine, The Pulmonary Center, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts 02118
| | - Allen L. Gifford
- Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research (CHOIR), ENRM VAMC, Bedford, Massachusetts 01730
- Department of Health Law, Policy, and Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts 02118
- Department of Medicine, Section of General Internal Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts 02118
| | - Dan R. Berlowitz
- Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research (CHOIR), ENRM VAMC, Bedford, Massachusetts 01730
- Department of Health Law, Policy, and Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts 02118
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Urologist Use of Cystoscopy for Patients Presenting With Hematuria in the United States. Urology 2016; 100:20-26. [PMID: 27645524 DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2016.09.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/22/2016] [Revised: 08/17/2016] [Accepted: 09/08/2016] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To evaluate the prevalence of cystoscopy and factors associated with use among hematuria patients presenting to urologists, based on results from a nationally representative survey. METHODS Using the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (2006-2012), we identified outpatient visits to urologists for hematuria, and excluded visits associated with benign diagnoses (eg, urinary tract infection). Our primary outcome was performed or planned cystoscopy. We hypothesized that major risk factors (ie, gross hematuria, tobacco use, age >50, male gender) would be associated with increased cystoscopy use. We used multivariable logistic regression to evaluate the relationship between available patient, provider, and practice setting factors and use of cystoscopy. RESULTS Among an estimated 10.8 million hematuria visits to urologists, cystoscopy was planned or performed after 34.7% of visits (95% confidence interval [CI] 30.7-39.0). Patients with gross hematuria (adjusted odds ratio 2.17, 95% CI 1.28-3.69) and current tobacco users (adjusted odds ratio 2.48, 95% CI 1.40-4.39) had over twice the odds of undergoing cystoscopy compared to patients without those risk factors. We estimated that there are over 20,000 missed cancer cases annually among moderate- and high-risk hematuria patients, and nearly 230,000 excess cystoscopy cases annually for patients with near-zero cancer risk. CONCLUSION Despite guidelines emphasizing the importance of cystoscopy in hematuria evaluations, just over one-third of patients diagnosed with hematuria by urologists undergo this procedure. There also appears to be considerable misallocation of cystoscopy for hematuria patients, with excessive use among low-risk patients and significant potential for missed cancer cases among those at higher risk of malignancy.
Collapse
|
21
|
Guo F, He D. The Roles of Providers and Patients in the Overuse of Prostate-Specific Antigen Screening in the United States. Ann Intern Med 2015; 163:650-1. [PMID: 26502132 PMCID: PMC4898184 DOI: 10.7326/l15-5150] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Fangjian Guo
- From Center for Interdisciplinary Research in Women's Health, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas; and David Eccles School of Business, The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah
| | - Di He
- From Center for Interdisciplinary Research in Women's Health, The University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas; and David Eccles School of Business, The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Kravitz RL. Caring for the Complex Patient: The Next Hurdle for Information Technology Is Care Coordination. J Gen Intern Med 2015; 30:1043-4. [PMID: 26080750 PMCID: PMC4510232 DOI: 10.1007/s11606-015-3412-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/23/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Richard L Kravitz
- Division of General Medicine, University of California Davis, 4150 V. Street, Suite 2400 PSSB, Sacramento, CA, 95817, USA,
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Slight SP. Capsule Commentary on Shelton et al., Reducing PSA-Based Prostate Cancer Screening in Men ≥ 75 Years Old with Highly Specific Computerized Clinical Decision Support. J Gen Intern Med 2015; 30:1187. [PMID: 25805504 PMCID: PMC4510239 DOI: 10.1007/s11606-015-3286-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah Patricia Slight
- Center for Patient Safety Research and Practice, Division of General Internal Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 1620 Tremont St. 3rd floor, Boston, MA, 02120, USA,
| |
Collapse
|