Patient reports of cancer care coordination in rural Hawaii

PURPOSE

Rural residents experience disproportionate burdens of cancer, and poorer cancer health outcomes in rural populations are partly attributed to care delivery challenges. Cancer patients in rural areas often experience unique challenges with care coordination. In this study, we explored patient reports of care coordination among rural Hawaii patients with cancer and compared rural and urban patients' perceptions of cancer care coordination.

METHODS

80 patients receiving active treatment for cancer from rural Hawaii participated in a care coordination study in 2020-2021. Participants completed the Care Coordination Instrument, a validated oncology patient questionnaire.

FINDINGS

Mean age of rural cancer patients was 63.0 (SD = 12.1), and 57.7% were female. The most common cancer types were breast and GI. Overall, rural and urban patients' perceptions of care coordination were comparable (p > 0.05). There were statistically significant differences between rural and urban patients' perceptions in communication and navigation aspects of care coordination (p = 0.02 and 0.04, respectively). Specific differences included a second opinion consultation, clinical trial considerations, and after-hours care. 43% of rural patients reported traveling by air for part or all of their cancer treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that while overall perceptions of care coordination were similar between rural and urban patients, differential perceptions of specific care coordination areas between rural and urban patients may reflect limited access to care for rural patients. Improving access to cancer care may be a potential strategy to enhance care coordination for rural patients and ultimately address rural-urban cancer health disparities.

Electronic health record intervention to increase use of NSAIDs as analgesia for hospitalised patients: a cluster randomised controlled study

BACKGROUND

Prescribing non-opioid pain medications, such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAIDs) medications, has been shown to reduce pain and decrease opioid use, but it is unclear how to effectively encourage multimodal pain medication prescribing for hospitalised patients. Therefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of prechecking non-opioid pain medication orders on clinician prescribing of NSAIDs among hospitalised adults.

METHODS

This was a cluster randomised controlled trial of adult (≥18 years) hospitalised patients admitted to three hospital sites under one quaternary hospital system in the USA from 2 March 2022 to 3 March 2023. A multimodal pain order panel was embedded in the admission order set, with NSAIDs prechecked in the intervention group. The intervention group could uncheck the NSAID order. The control group had access to the same NSAID order. The primary outcome was an increase in NSAID ordering. Secondary outcomes include NSAID administration, inpatient pain scores and opioid use and prescribing and relevant clinical harms including acute kidney injury, new gastrointestinal bleed and in-hospital death.

RESULTS

Overall, 1049 clinicians were randomised. The study included 6239 patients for a total of 9595 encounters. Both NSAID ordering (36 vs 43%, p<0.001) and administering (30 vs 34%, p=0.001) by the end of the first full hospital day were higher in the intervention (prechecked) group. There was no statistically significant difference in opioid outcomes during the hospitalisation and at discharge. There was a statistically but perhaps not clinically significant difference in pain scores during both the first and last full hospital day.

CONCLUSIONS

This cluster randomised controlled trial showed that prechecking an order for NSAIDs to promote multimodal pain management in the admission order set increased NSAID ordering and administration, although there were no changes to pain scores or opioid use. While prechecking orders is an important way to increase adoption, safety checks should be in place.

Measuring concordance of data sources used for infectious disease research in the USA: a retrospective data analysis

OBJECTIVES

As highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic, researchers are eager to make use of a wide variety of data sources, both government-sponsored and alternative, to characterise the epidemiology of infectious diseases. The objective of this study is to investigate the strengths and limitations of sources currently being used for research.

DESIGN

Retrospective descriptive analysis.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Yearly number of national-level and state-level disease-specific case counts and disease clusters for three diseases (measles, mumps and varicella) during a 5-year study period (2013-2017) across four different data sources: Optum (health insurance billing claims data), HealthMap (online news surveillance data), Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Reports (official government reports) and National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System (government case surveillance data).

RESULTS

Our study demonstrated drastic differences in reported infectious disease incidence across data sources. When compared with the other three sources of interest, Optum data showed substantially higher, implausible standardised case counts for all three diseases. Although there was some concordance in identified state-level case counts and disease clusters, all four sources identified variations in state-level reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers should consider data source limitations when attempting to characterise the epidemiology of infectious diseases. Some data sources, such as billing claims data, may be unsuitable for epidemiological research within the infectious disease context.

The National Clinical Care Commission Report to Congress: Leveraging Federal Policies and Programs to Prevent Diabetes in People With Prediabetes

Individuals with an elevated fasting glucose level, elevated glucose level after glucose challenge, or elevated hemoglobin A1c level below the diagnostic threshold for diabetes (collectively termed prediabetes) are at increased risk for type 2 diabetes. More than one-third of U.S. adults have prediabetes but fewer than one in five are aware of the diagnosis. Rigorous scientific research has demonstrated the efficacy of both intensive lifestyle interventions and metformin in delaying or preventing progression from prediabetes to type 2 diabetes. The National Clinical Care Commission (NCCC) was a federal advisory committee charged with evaluating and making recommendations to improve federal programs related to the prevention of diabetes and its complications. In this article, we describe the recommendations of an NCCC subcommittee that focused primarily on prevention of type 2 diabetes in people with prediabetes. These recommendations aim to improve current federal diabetes prevention activities by 1) increasing awareness of and diagnosis of prediabetes on a population basis; 2) increasing the availability of, referral to, and insurance coverage for the National Diabetes Prevention Program and the Medicare Diabetes Prevention Program; 3) facilitating Food and Drug Administration review and approval of metformin for diabetes prevention; and 4) supporting research to enhance the effectiveness of diabetes prevention. Cognizant of the burden of type 1 diabetes, the recommendations also highlight the importance of research to advance our understanding of the etiology of and opportunities for prevention of type 1 diabetes.

The National Clinical Care Commission Report to Congress: Summary and Next Steps

The U.S. is experiencing an epidemic of type 2 diabetes. Socioeconomically disadvantaged and certain racial and ethnic groups experience a disproportionate burden from diabetes and are subject to disparities in treatment and outcomes. The National Clinical Care Commission (NCCC) was charged with making recommendations to leverage federal policies and programs to more effectively prevent and control diabetes and its complications. The NCCC determined that diabetes cannot be addressed simply as a medical problem but must also be addressed as a societal problem requiring social, clinical, and public health policy solutions. As a result, the NCCC's recommendations address policies and programs of both non-health-related and health-related federal agencies. The NCCC report, submitted to the U.S. Congress on 6 January 2022, makes 39 specific recommendations, including three foundational recommendations that non-health-related and health-related federal agencies coordinate their activities to better address diabetes, that all federal agencies and departments ensure that health equity is a guiding principle for their policies and programs that impact diabetes, and that all Americans have access to comprehensive and affordable health care. Specific recommendations are also made to improve general population-wide policies and programs that impact diabetes risk and control, to increase awareness and prevention efforts among those at high risk for type 2 diabetes, and to remove barriers to access to effective treatments for diabetes and its complications. Finally, the NCCC recommends that an Office of National Diabetes Policy be established to coordinate the activities of health-related and non-health-related federal agencies to address diabetes prevention and treatment. The NCCC urges Congress and the Secretary of Health and Human Services to implement these recommendations to protect the health and well-being of the more than 130 million Americans at risk for and living with diabetes.

The National Clinical Care Commission Report to Congress: Leveraging Federal Policies and Programs to Improve Diabetes Treatment and Reduce Complications

The Treatment and Complications subcommittee of the National Clinical Care Commission focused on factors likely to improve the delivery of high-quality care to all people with diabetes. The gap between available resources and the needs of people living with diabetes adversely impacts both treatment and outcomes. The Commission's recommendations are designed to bridge this gap. At the patient level, the Commission recommends reducing barriers and streamlining administrative processes to improve access to diabetes self-management training, diabetes devices, virtual care, and insulin. At the practice level, we recommend enhancing programs that support team-based care and developing capacity to support technology-enabled mentoring interventions. At the health system level, we recommend that the Department of Health and Human Services routinely assess the needs of the health care workforce and ensure funding of training programs directed to meet those needs. At the health policy level, we recommend establishing a process to identify and ensure pre-deductible insurance coverage for high-value diabetes treatments and services and developing a quality measure that reduces risk of hypoglycemia and enhances patient safety. We also identified several areas that need additional research, such as studying the barriers to uptake of diabetes self-management education and support, exploring methods to implement team-based care, and evaluating the importance of digital connectivity as a social determinant of health. The Commission strongly encourages Congress, the Department of Health and Human Services, and other federal departments and agencies to take swift action to implement these recommendations to improve health outcomes and quality of life among people living with diabetes.

The National Clinical Care Commission Report to Congress: Recommendations to Better Leverage Federal Policies and Programs to Prevent and Control Diabetes

The National Clinical Care Commission (NCCC) was established by Congress to make recommendations to leverage federal policies and programs to more effectively prevent and treat diabetes and its complications. The NCCC developed a guiding framework that incorporated elements of the Socioecological and Chronic Care Models. It surveyed federal agencies and conducted follow-up meetings with representatives from 10 health-related and 11 non-health-related federal agencies. It held 12 public meetings, solicited public comments, met with numerous interested parties and key informants, and performed comprehensive literature reviews. The final report, transmitted to Congress in January 2022, contained 39 specific recommendations, including 3 foundational recommendations that addressed the necessity of an all-of-government approach to diabetes, health equity, and access to health care. At the general population level, the NCCC recommended that the federal government adopt a health-in-all-policies approach so that the activities of non-health-related federal agencies that address agriculture, food, housing, transportation, commerce, and the environment be coordinated with those of health-related federal agencies to affirmatively address the social and environmental conditions that contribute to diabetes and its complications. For individuals at risk for type 2 diabetes, including those with prediabetes, the NCCC recommended that federal policies and programs be strengthened to increase awareness of prediabetes and the availability of, referral to, and insurance coverage for intensive lifestyle interventions for diabetes prevention and that data be assembled to seek approval of metformin for diabetes prevention. For people with diabetes and its complications, the NCCC recommended that barriers to proven effective treatments for diabetes and its complications be removed, the size and competence of the workforce to treat diabetes and its complications be increased, and new payment models be implemented to support access to lifesaving medications and proven effective treatments for diabetes and its complications. The NCCC also outlined an ambitious research agenda. The NCCC strongly encourages the public to support these recommendations and Congress to take swift action.

The National Clinical Care Commission Report to Congress: Leveraging Federal Policies and Programs for Population-Level Diabetes Prevention and Control: Recommendations From the National Clinical Care Commission

The etiology of type 2 diabetes is rooted in a myriad of factors and exposures at individual, community, and societal levels, many of which also affect the control of type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Not only do such factors impact risk and treatment at the time of diagnosis but they also can accumulate biologically from preconception, in utero, and across the life course. These factors include inadequate nutritional quality, poor access to physical activity resources, chronic stress (e.g., adverse childhood experiences, racism, and poverty), and exposures to environmental toxins. The National Clinical Care Commission (NCCC) concluded that the diabetes epidemic cannot be treated solely as a biomedical problem but must also be treated as a societal problem that requires an all-of-government approach. The NCCC determined that it is critical to design, leverage, and coordinate federal policies and programs to foster social and environmental conditions that facilitate the prevention and treatment of diabetes. This article reviews the rationale, scientific evidence base, and content of the NCCC's population-wide recommendations that address food systems; consumption of water over sugar-sweetened beverages; food and beverage labeling; marketing and advertising; workplace, ambient, and built environments; and research. Recommendations relate to specific federal policies, programs, agencies, and departments, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration, the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental Protection Agency, and others. These population-level recommendations are transformative. By recommending health-in-all-policies and an equity-based approach to governance, the NCCC Report to Congress has the potential to contribute to meaningful change across the diabetes continuum and beyond. Adopting these recommendations could significantly reduce diabetes incidence, complications, costs, and inequities. Substantial political resolve will be needed to translate recommendations into policy. Engagement by diverse members of the diabetes stakeholder community will be critical to such efforts.

Documentation of hospitalization risk factors in electronic health records (EHRs): a qualitative study with home healthcare clinicians

OBJECTIVE

To identify the risk factors home healthcare (HHC) clinicians associate with patient deterioration and understand how clinicians respond to and document these risk factors.

METHODS

We interviewed multidisciplinary HHC clinicians from January to March of 2021. Risk factors were mapped to standardized terminologies (eg, Omaha System). We used directed content analysis to identify risk factors for deterioration. We used inductive thematic analysis to understand HHC clinicians' response to risk factors and documentation of risk factors.

RESULTS

Fifteen HHC clinicians identified a total of 79 risk factors that were mapped to standardized terminologies. HHC clinicians most frequently responded to risk factors by communicating with the prescribing provider (86.7% of clinicians) or following up with patients and caregivers (86.7%). HHC clinicians stated that a majority of risk factors can be found in clinical notes (ie, care coordination (53.3%) or visit (46.7%)).

DISCUSSION

Clinicians acknowledged that social factors play a role in deterioration risk; but these factors are infrequently studied in HHC. While a majority of risk factors were represented in the Omaha System, additional terminologies are needed to comprehensively capture risk. Since most risk factors are documented in clinical notes, methods such as natural language processing are needed to extract them.

CONCLUSION

This study engaged clinicians to understand risk for deterioration during HHC. The results of our study support the development of an early warning system by providing a comprehensive list of risk factors grounded in clinician expertize and mapped to standardized terminologies.

'Trying to fly the plane while we were building it'. Applying a learning health systems approach to evaluate early-stage barriers and facilitators to implementing primary care transformation: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

A learning health system (LHS) uses data to generate evidence and answer questions required to continually improve system performance and patient care. Given the complexities of practice transformation, an area where LHS is particularly important is the study of primary care transformation (PCT) as PCT generates several practice-level questions that require study where the findings can be readily implemented. In May 2019, a large integrated health delivery system in Minnesota began implementation of a population management PCT in two of its 40 primary care clinics. In this model of care, patients are grouped into one of five service bundles based on their complexity of care; patient appointment lengths and services provided are then tailored to each service bundle. The objective of this study was to examine the use of a LHS in PCT by utilising the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to categorise implementation lessons from the initial two PCT clinics to inform further implementation of the PCT within the health system.

DESIGN

This was a formative evaluation in which semistructured qualitative interviews were carried out. Observational field notes were also taken. Inductive coding of the data was performed and resultant codes were mapped to the CFIR.

SETTING

Two suburban primary care clinics in the Twin Cities, Minnesota.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-two care team members from the first two clinics to adopt the PCT.

RESULTS

Seventeen codes emerged to describe care team members' perceived implementation influences. Codes occurred in each of the five CFIR domains (intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of individuals and process), with most codes occurring in the 'inner setting' domain.

CONCLUSIONS

Using an LHS approach to determine early-stage implementation influences is key to guiding further PCT implementation, understanding modifications that need to be made and additional research that needs to occur.

OUP accepted manuscript

Appropriate models of survivorship care for the growing number of adult survivors of childhood cancer are unclear. We conducted a realist review to describe how models of care that include primary care and relevant resources (eg, tools, training) could be effective for adult survivors of childhood cancer. We first developed an initial program theory based on qualitative literature (studies, commentaries, opinion pieces) and stakeholder consultations. We then reviewed quantitative evidence and consulted stakeholders to refine the program theory and develop and refine context-mechanism-outcome hypotheses regarding how models of care that include primary care could be effective for adult survivors of childhood cancer. Effectiveness for both resources and models is defined by survivors living longer and feeling better through high-value care. Intermediate measures of effectiveness evaluate the extent to which survivors and providers understand the survivor’s history, risks, symptoms and problems, health-care needs, and available resources. Thus, the models of care and resources are intended to provide information to survivors and/or primary care providers to enable them to obtain/deliver appropriate care. The variables from our program theory found most consistently in the literature include oncology vs primary care specialty, survivor and provider knowledge, provider comfort treating childhood cancer survivors, communication and coordination between and among providers and survivors, and delivery/receipt of prevention and surveillance of late effects. In turn, these variables were prominent in our context-mechanism-outcome hypotheses. The findings from this realist review can inform future research to improve childhood cancer survivorship care and outcomes.

Adaptive learning algorithms to optimize mobile applications for behavioral health: guidelines for design decisions

OBJECTIVE

Providing behavioral health interventions via smartphones allows these interventions to be adapted to the changing behavior, preferences, and needs of individuals. This can be achieved through reinforcement learning (RL), a sub-area of machine learning. However, many challenges could affect the effectiveness of these algorithms in the real world. We provide guidelines for decision-making.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using thematic analysis, we describe challenges, considerations, and solutions for algorithm design decisions in a collaboration between health services researchers, clinicians, and data scientists. We use the design process of an RL algorithm for a mobile health study "DIAMANTE" for increasing physical activity in underserved patients with diabetes and depression. Over the 1.5-year project, we kept track of the research process using collaborative cloud Google Documents, Whatsapp messenger, and video teleconferencing. We discussed, categorized, and coded critical challenges. We grouped challenges to create thematic topic process domains.

RESULTS

Nine challenges emerged, which we divided into 3 major themes: 1. Choosing the model for decision-making, including appropriate contextual and reward variables; 2. Data handling/collection, such as how to deal with missing or incorrect data in real-time; 3. Weighing the algorithm performance vs effectiveness/implementation in real-world settings.

CONCLUSION

The creation of effective behavioral health interventions does not depend only on final algorithm performance. Many decisions in the real world are necessary to formulate the design of problem parameters to which an algorithm is applied. Researchers must document and evaulate these considerations and decisions before and during the intervention period, to increase transparency, accountability, and reproducibility.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03490253.