Rates of Downstream Procedures and Complications Associated With Lung Cancer Screening in Routine Clinical Practice : A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening (LCS) using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality but can lead to downstream procedures, complications, and other potential harms. Estimates of these events outside NLST (National Lung Screening Trial) have been variable and lacked evaluation by screening result, which allows more direct comparison with trials. OBJECTIVE: To identify rates of downstream procedures and complications associated with LCS. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: 5 U.S. health care systems. PATIENTS: Individuals who completed a baseline LDCT scan for LCS between 2014 and 2018. MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes included downstream imaging, invasive diagnostic procedures, and procedural complications. For each, absolute rates were calculated overall and stratified by screening result and by lung cancer detection, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated. RESULTS: Among the 9266 screened patients, 1472 (15.9%) had a baseline LDCT scan showing abnormalities, of whom 140 (9.5%) were diagnosed with lung cancer within 12 months (positive predictive value, 9.5% [95% CI, 8.0% to 11.0%]; negative predictive value, 99.8% [CI, 99.7% to 99.9%]; sensitivity, 92.7% [CI, 88.6% to 96.9%]; specificity, 84.4% [CI, 83.7% to 85.2%]). Absolute rates of downstream imaging and invasive procedures in screened patients were 31.9% and 2.8%, respectively. In patients undergoing invasive procedures after abnormal findings, complication rates were substantially higher than those in NLST (30.6% vs. 17.7% for any complication; 20.6% vs. 9.4% for major complications). LIMITATION: Assessment of outcomes was retrospective and was based on procedural coding. CONCLUSION: The results indicate substantially higher rates of downstream procedures and complications associated with LCS in practice than observed in NLST. Diagnostic management likely needs to be assessed and improved to ensure that screening benefits outweigh potential harms. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute and Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

The Perceived Usability of Virtual Visits Among Black Adults' Receiving Oncology Care: A Qualitative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: With the COVID-19 pandemic came rapid uptake in virtual oncology care. During this, sociodemographic inequities in access to virtual visits (VVs) have become apparent. To better understand these issues, we conducted a qualitative study to describe the perceived usability and acceptability of VVs among Black adults diagnosed with cancer. METHODS: Adults who self-identified as Black and had a diagnosis of prostate, multiple myeloma, or head and neck cancer were recruited from 2 academic medical centers, and their community affiliates to participate in a semi-structured interview, regardless of prior VV experience. A patient and family advisory board was formed to inform all components of the study. Interviews were conducted between September 2, 2021 and February 23, 2022. Transcripts were organized topically, and themes and subthemes were determined through iterative and interpretive immersion/crystallization cycles. RESULTS: Of the 49 adults interviewed, 29 (59%) had participated in at least one VV. Three overarching themes were derived: (1) VVs felt comfortable and convenient in the right contexts; (2) the technology required for VVs with video presented new challenges, which were often resolved by an audio-only telephone call; and (3) participants reported preferring in-person visits, citing concerns regarding gaps in nonverbal communication, trusting providers, and distractions during VV. CONCLUSION: While VVs were reported to be acceptable in specific circumstances, Black adults reported preferring in-person care, in part due to a perceived lack of interpersonal connectedness. Nonetheless, retaining reimbursement for audio-only options for VVs is essential to ensure equitable access for those with less technology savvy and/or limited device/internet capabilities.

Key Performance Indicators and Metrics for the Implementation of an Oral Chemotherapy Adherence Program.

BACKGROUND: Oral anticancer agents (OAAs) transformed cancer care for patients, extending survival and delaying progression in certain cases. There are multiple pharmacy-driven models to improve patient knowledge and adherence to OAAs. However, a lack of measurable key performance indicators (KPIs) has limited the adoption, implementation, and maintenance of these models. The objective of this study was to identify a set of KPIs, their metrics, and the target values that indicated improved patient care through an OAA adherence program. METHODS: A literature review was conducted to identify an initial list of defined KPIs, metrics of the KPIs, and targets for success. We assembled an advisory panel of clinicians (n=9), administrators (n=7), and patients (n=2) from across an academic and affiliated community cancer center to gauge agreement on identified KPIs for use within a structured adherence intervention. We used a Qualtrics survey consisting of questions measured using a 5-point Likert scale response that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and a subsequent consensus-building discussion with the advisory panel to identify agreeability with the definitions, metrics, and targets of identified KPIs. RESULTS: Eleven KPIs were identified: (1) time to intended OAA initiation; (2) adherence rate during active treatment; (3) adverse events; (4) medication-related financial toxicity; (5) patient satisfaction; (6) treatment-related emergency department visits; (7) treatment-related hospital admissions; (8) proportion of patients with adherence, toxicity, and financial barriers assessed; (9) proportion of patients referred to social work; (10) time spent by patient in each phase of care as defined by the intervention's standard operating procedure; and (11) revenue generated by billing for service. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified 11 KPIs that can be used in evaluating the success of an OAA adherence program. Use of these KPIs will be piloted after formal implementation of the program in both academic and community cancer centers.

Interpersonal communication-, education- and counselling-based interventions to support adherence to oral anticancer therapy: a systematic review.

Background. Many factors contribute to oral anti-cancer therapy adherence, including counselling and educational support. Objective. We systematically review the literature evaluating the effectiveness of interpersonal communication-, counselling- and education-based interventions on patient adherence to oral anticancer therapy. Methods. Using search terms pertaining to medication adherence, oral anticancer therapy, and communication, education, and counselling, we conducted a systematic search for full-text, original research articles prior to 3/13/20. Two reviewers independently reviewed each paper for inclusion and charted study information. Results. Twenty-four articles were included. All considered the use of oral anticancer therapy between two defined time points. Four studies also considered the length of time a patient persisted on therapy. Half (n = 12) of the studies reported a statistically significant relationship between the intervention and medication adherence, with no consistent pattern among intervention structure/content and effectiveness. Programmes offering in-person counselling and those targeting patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), tended to report positive findings. Most studies faced substantial risk of bias, and only two reported using a behavioural theory to guide interventional content. Conclusions. Findings highlight the infancy of evidence base and need for rigorous and large-scale studies grounded in established behavioural theories to advance patient-targeted educational and counselling practices supporting adherence to oral anti-cancer therapy.

Evaluation of Harms Reporting in U.S. Cancer Screening Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Cancer screening should be recommended only when the balance between benefits and harms is favorable. This review evaluated how U.S. cancer screening guidelines reported harms, within and across organ-specific processes to screen for cancer. OBJECTIVE: To describe current reporting practices and identify opportunities for improvement. DESIGN: Review of guidelines. SETTING: United States. PATIENTS: Patients eligible for screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer according to U.S. guidelines. MEASUREMENTS: Information was abstracted on reporting of patient-level harms associated with screening, diagnostic follow-up, and treatment. The authors classified harms reporting as not mentioned, conceptual, qualitative, or quantitative and noted whether literature was cited when harms were described. Frequency of harms reporting was summarized by organ type. RESULTS: Harms reporting was inconsistent across organ types and at each step of the cancer screening process. Guidelines did not report all harms for any specific organ type or for any category of harm across organ types. The most complete harms reporting was for prostate cancer screening guidelines and the least complete for colorectal cancer screening guidelines. Conceptualization of harms and use of quantitative evidence also differed by organ type. LIMITATIONS: This review considers only patient-level harms. The authors did not verify accuracy of harms information presented in the guidelines. CONCLUSION: The review identified opportunities for improving conceptualization, assessment, and reporting of screening process-related harms in guidelines. Future work should consider nuances associated with each organ-specific process to screen for cancer, including which harms are most salient and where evidence gaps exist, and explicitly explore how to optimally weigh available evidence in determining net screening benefit. Improved harms reporting could aid informed decision making, ultimately improving cancer screening delivery. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.

Understanding the multilevel determinants of clinicians' imaging decision-making: setting the stage for de-implementation of low-value imaging.

BACKGROUND: De-implementation requires understanding and targeting multilevel determinants of low-value care. The objective of this study was to identify multilevel determinants of imaging for prostate cancer (PCa) and asymptomatic microhematuria (AMH), two common urologic conditions that have contributed substantially to the annual spending on unnecessary imaging in the US. METHODS: We used a convergent mixed-methods approach involving survey and interview data. Using a survey, we asked 33 clinicians (55% response-rate) to indicate their imaging approach to 8 clinical vignettes designed to elicit responses that would demonstrate guideline-concordant/discordant imaging practices for patients with PCa or AMH. A subset of survey respondents (N = 7) participated in semi-structured interviews guided by a combination of two frameworks that offered a comprehensive understanding of multilevel determinants. We analyzed the interviews using a directed content analysis approach and identified subthemes to better understand the differences and similarities in the imaging determinants across two clinical conditions. RESULTS: Survey results showed that the majority of clinicians chose guideline-concordant imaging behaviors for PCa; guideline-concordant imaging intentions were more varied for AMH. Interview results informed what influenced imaging decisions and provided additional context to the varying intentions for AMH. Five subthemes touching on multiple levels were identified from the interviews: National Guidelines, Supporting Evidence and Information Exchange, Organization of the Imaging Pathways, Patients' Clinical and Other Risk Factors, and Clinicians' Beliefs and Experiences Regarding Imaging. Imaging decisions for both PCa and AMH were often driven by national guidelines from major professional societies. However, when clinicians felt guidelines were inadequate, they reported that their decision-making was influenced by their knowledge of recent scientific evidence, past clinical experiences, and the anticipated benefits of imaging (or not imaging) to both the patient and the clinician. In particular, clinicians referred to patients' anxiety and uncertainty or patients' clinical factors. For AMH patients, clinicians additionally expressed concerns regarding legal liability risk. CONCLUSION: Our study identified comprehensive multilevel determinants of imaging to inform development of de-implementation interventions to reduce low-value imaging, which we found useful for identifying determinants of de-implementation. De-implementation interventions should be tailored to address the contextual determinants that are specific to each clinical condition.

Health Care Providers' and Professionals' Experiences With Telehealth Oncology Implementation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Rapid implementation of telehealth for cancer care during COVID-19 required innovative and adaptive solutions among oncology health care providers and professionals (HPPs). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this qualitative study was to explore oncology HPPs' experiences with telehealth implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This study was conducted at Moffitt Cancer Center (Moffitt), an NCI (National Cancer Institute)-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. Prior to COVID-19, Moffitt piloted telehealth visits on a limited basis. After COVID-19, Moffitt rapidly expanded telehealth visits. Telehealth visits included real-time videoconferencing between HPPs and patients and virtual check-ins (ie, brief communication with an HPP by telephone only). We conducted semistructured interviews with 40 oncology HPPs who implemented telehealth during COVID-19. The interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed for themes using Dedoose software (version 4.12). RESULTS: Approximately half of the 40 participants were physicians (n=22, 55%), and one-quarter of the participants were advanced practice providers (n=10, 25%). Other participants included social workers (n=3, 8%), psychologists (n=2, 5%), dieticians (n=2, 5%), and a pharmacist (n=1, 3%). Five key themes were identified: (1) establishing and maintaining patient-HPP relationships, (2) coordinating care with other HPPs and informal caregivers, (3) adapting in-person assessments for telehealth, (4) developing workflows and allocating resources, and (5) future recommendations. Participants described innovative strategies for implementing telehealth, such as coordinating interdisciplinary visits with multiple HPPs and inviting informal caregivers (eg, spouse) to participate in telehealth visits. Health care workers discussed key challenges, such as workflow integration, lack of physical exam and biometric data, and overcoming the digital divide (eg, telehealth accessibility among patients with communication-related disabilities). Participants recommended policy advocacy to support telehealth (eg, medical licensure policies) and monitoring how telehealth affects patient outcomes and health care delivery. CONCLUSIONS: To support telehealth growth, implementation strategies are needed to ensure that HPPs and patients have the tools necessary to effectively engage in telehealth. At the same time, cancer care organizations will need to engage in advocacy to ensure that policies are supportive of oncology telehealth and develop systems to monitor the impact of telehealth on patient outcomes, health care quality, costs, and equity.

Lower Adherence: A Description of Colorectal Cancer Screening Barrier Talk.

Understanding how patients and physicians discuss screening barriers may illuminate reasons for non-adherence to recommended colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The goal of the present study was to describe patients' reporting of and physicians' responses to CRC screening barriers and examine their associations with patients' CRC screening behaviors. Audio-recorded primary care consultations (N = 413) with patients due for CRC screening were used to identify CRC screening-related barrier talk and physician responses. Presence of barrier talk was associated with less patient adherence to CRC screening (OR = 0.568, p = 0.007). Neither CRC screening talk (n = 413) nor physician responses (n = 151) were associated with patients' CRC screening. Among the consultations in which barrier talk occurred (n = 151), patients most often reported test-related (28.9%) and psychological (26.1%) barriers. Barriers were most often reported in the context of CRC screening discussions (45.7%) or in direct response to a physician's question about CRC screening (48.6%). Results indicated that patients rarely raised CRC screening barriers unprompted and that presence of barrier talk was predictive of CRC screening behavior. These findings may help improve future clinical practice by highlighting that patients may benefit from physicians initiating and facilitating discussions of CRC screening barriers and directly helping patients overcome known barriers to CRC screening.

Trust of social media content and risk of making misinformed decisions: Survey of people affected by cancer and their caregivers.

Background: This study explores social media (SM) usage and trust in information among cancer patients and their caregivers. We compare socio-demographic characteristics to identify groups more likely to rely on social media for treatment decisions and those less inclined to validate social media information with their provider. Methods: A national survey of people diagnosed with cancer and those who were caregivers to people diagnosed with cancer was conducted via online survey in November-December 2021. Socio-demographic factors associated with respondents' use of SM and comfort disclosing SM use were assessed using logistic regression. Findings: Out of 262 respondents, 65% were likely to use SM to make decisions about lifestyle changes, cancer screening, vaccination, cancer treatment, medical testing, or choosing a provider. SM users were younger (ORadj = 0.11, p < 0.01), identified as Black (ORadj = 10.19, p < 0.01), and had less education (ORadj = 0.86, p = 0.02). Those with less education reported not being comfortable discussing SM with their providers (ORadj = 1.25, padj = 0.01). Discussion: Results contribute new understanding of the digital divide, highlighting the need for not only improving access to digital information but also the need for a supportive environment that provides patients with dependable methods to verify the authenticity of the information they encounter.

Assessing the Validity of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Measure in Identifying Potentially Preventable Emergency Department Visits by Patients With Cancer.

PURPOSE: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) implemented chemotherapy measures (OP-35) to reduce potentially preventable emergency department visits (PPEDVs) and hospitalizations. This study evaluated the validity of the OP-35 measure in identifying PPEDVs among patients with cancer. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional study, which used data from the 2012-2022 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey. ED visits are assessed and compared on the basis of three measures: immediacy using Emergency Severity Index (ESI), disposition (discharge v hospitalization), and OP-35 criteria. RESULTS: Between 2012 and 2022, a weighted sample of 46,723,524 ED visits were made by patients with cancer. Among reported ESI cases, 25.2% (8,346,443) was high urgency. In addition, 30.3% (14,135,496) of ED visits among patients with cancer led to hospitalizations. Using the OP-35 measure, it was found that 20.85% (9,743,977) was PPEDVs. A 21.9% (10,232,102) discrepancy between discharge diagnosis (CMS billing codes) and chief complaints was identified. Further analysis showed that 19.2% (1,872,556) of potentially preventable ED visits (CMS OP-35) were high urgency and 32.6% (3,181,280) resulted in hospitalization. CONCLUSION: The CMS approach to identifying PPEDVs has limitations. First, it may overcount preventable visits by including high-urgency or hospitalization-requiring cases. Second, relying on final diagnoses for retrospective preventability judgment can be misleading as they may not reflect the initial reason for the visit. In addition, differentiating causes for ED visits in patients with cancer undergoing various treatments is challenging as the approach does not distinguish between chemotherapy-related complications and others. Identification inconsistencies arise because of varying coding practices and chosen preventable conditions, lacking consensus and alignment with specific hospital or patient needs. Finally, the model fails to consider crucial nonclinical factors like social support, economic barriers, and alternative care access, potentially unfairly penalizing hospitals serving underserved populations.

The feasibility and equity of text messaging to determine patient eligibility for lung cancer screening.

OBJECTIVES: Text messaging could be effective for determining patient eligibility for lung cancer screening (LCS). We explored people's willingness to share their tobacco use history via text message among diverse groups. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. METHODS: In 2020, we conducted a cross-sectional survey asking respondents about cellular phone usage, smoking habits, sociodemographic characteristics, and the likelihood of responding to a text message from their health care provider's office about tobacco use. We used χ² and analysis of variance tests for comparisons. RESULTS: Among 745 respondents, 90% used text messaging casually. Overall, 54% never smoked, 33% currently smoked, and 13% previously smoked. Six percent were LCS eligible, and 20% used both cigarettes and e-cigarettes (dual users). Current smokers were significantly younger, less likely to be female, and more likely to use text messaging. LCS-eligible respondents were older and less likely to have a high income. Dual users were younger, less likely to report female gender and live in rural areas, and more likely to have a college education and high income. Most respondents (83%) indicated they were likely to respond to text message inquiries regarding smoking status. Middle-aged respondents (mean age, 37 years) were significantly more willing to report smoking status than younger or older respondents (91% vs 84% and 84%, respectively). Respondents with no college education (83% vs 88%) or with a low income vs a middle or high income (81% vs 86% and 88%, respectively) were significantly less willing to report smoking status via text messages. CONCLUSIONS: Text messaging showed promise for evaluating smoking history and for simplifying the process of identifying LCS-eligible individuals. However, achieving equity in identifying eligibility for LCS requires the implementation of multimodal strategies.

When does an episode of care for cancer begin?

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the medical care resources devoted to diagnosing and treating cancer-related symptoms before a definitive cancer diagnosis. Previous research using SEER-Medicare data to measure incremental costs and utilization associated with cancer started with the date of diagnosis. We hypothesized that health care use increases before diagnosis of a new primary cancer. METHODS: We used a longitudinal case-control design to estimate incremental medical care utilization rates. Cases were 121,293 persons enrolled between January 2000 and December 2008 with ≥1 primary cancers. We selected 522,839 controls randomly from among all health plan members who had no tumor registry evidence of cancer before January 2009, and we frequency matched controls to cancer cases on a 5:1 ratio by age group, sex, and having health plan eligibility in the year of diagnosis of the index cancer case. Utilization data were extracted for all cases and controls for the period 2000 to 2008 from standardized distributed data warehouses. To determine when and the extent to which patterns of medical care use change preceding a cancer diagnosis, we compute hospitalization rates, hospital days, emergency department visits, same-day surgical procedures, ambulatory medical office visits, imaging procedures, laboratory tests, and ambulatory prescription dispensings per 1000 persons per month within integrated delivery systems. RESULTS: One- to 3-fold increases in monthly utilization rates were observed during the 3 to 5 months before a cancer diagnosis, compared with matched noncancer control groups. This pattern was consistent for both aged and nonaged cancer patients. Aged cancer patients had higher utilization rates than nonaged cancer patients throughout the year before a cancer diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: The prediagnosis phase is a resource-intensive component of cancer care episodes and should be included in cost of cancer estimates. More research is needed to determine whether reliable prognostic markers can be identified as the start of a cancer episode before a pathology-based diagnosis.

Validation of electronic data on chemotherapy and hormone therapy use in HMOs.

BACKGROUND: Most data regarding medical care for cancer patients in the United States comes from Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-linked Medicare analyses of individuals aged 65 years or older and typically excludes Medicare Advantage enrollees. OBJECTIVES: To assess the accuracy of chemotherapy and hormone therapy treatment data available through the Cancer Research Network's Virtual Data Warehouse (VDW). RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective, longitudinal cohort study. Medical record-abstracted, tumor registry-indicated treatments (gold standard) were compared with VDW-indicated treatments derived from health maintenance organization pharmacy, electronic medical record, and claim-based data systems. SUBJECTS: Enrollees aged 18 years and older diagnosed with incident breast, colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer from 2000 through 2007. MEASURES: Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value were computed at 6 and 12 months after cancer diagnosis. RESULTS: Approximately 45% of all cancer cases (total N=23,800) were aged 64 years or younger. Overall chemotherapy sensitivity/specificities across the 3 health plans for incident breast, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer cases were 95%/90%, 95%/93%, 93%/93%, and 85%/77%, respectively. With the exception of prostate cancer cases, overall positive predictive value ranged from 86% to 89%. Small variations in chemotherapy data accuracy existed due to cancer site and data source, whereas greater variation existed in hormone therapy capture across sites. CONCLUSIONS: Strong concordance exists between gold standard tumor registry measures of chemotherapy receipt and Cancer Research Network VDW data. Health maintenance organization VDW data can be used for a variety of studies addressing patterns of cancer care and comparative effectiveness research that previously could only be conducted among elderly Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare populations.

Initial antihyperglycemic drug therapy among 241 327 adults with newly identified diabetes from 2005 through 2010: a surveillance, prevention, and management of diabetes mellitus (SUPREME-DM) study.

BACKGROUND: Among adults with incident diabetes, data are lacking about first antihyperglycemic initiation and whether medication choice aligns with recommendations. OBJECTIVE: To identify predictors of initiating any antihyperglycemic, and specifically sulfonylurea versus metformin. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 241 327 patients from 11 US health systems, 2005 through 2010. Assessments included antihyperglycemic initiation within 6 months of diabetes identification, first medication initiated, and initiation predictors. RESULTS: Only 40.3% (n = 97 350) started any antihyperglycemic; 75.2% (n = 73 221) started metformin. Glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) predicted initiating any antihyperglycemic (HbA1c >9%, relative risk [RR] = 3.94, 95% CI = 3.82, 4.07, vs HbA1c >6.5%-7%). Age modified the HbA1c effect: at higher HbA1c, likelihood of starting antihyperglycemics differed little across ages; at lower HbA1c, older patients were less likely to start antihyperglycemics (P < .001). Individuals with elevated serum creatinine (SCr) were more likely to started on sulfonylurea (SCr = 1.4-2, RR = 2.21 [2.05, 2.39]; SCr >2, RR = 2.75 [2.30, 3.29] vs normal SCr), particularly as HbA1c increased: patients with HbA1c 8%-9% and SCr >2 were 5.59 times (2.94, 10.65) more likely to start sulfonylurea versus those with HbA1c >6.5%-7% and normal SCr. Age predicted sulfonylurea initiation (20-39 years, RR = 0.87 [0.79, 0.95]; ≥ 80 years, RR = 2.41 [2.20, 2.65] vs 50-59 years). CONCLUSIONS: Among adults with incident diabetes, metformin was generally the first antihyperglycemic initiated. However, 59.7% did not start any antihyperglycemic at diabetes identification. HbA1c and age predict antihyperglycemic initiation; SCr and age predict sulfonylurea initiation.

Predicting Acute Care Events Among Patients Initiating Chemotherapy: A Practice-Based Validation and Adaptation of the PROACCT Model.

PURPOSE: Acute care events (ACEs), comprising emergency department visits and hospitalizations, are a priority area for reduction in oncology. Prognostic models are a compelling strategy to identify high-risk patients and target preventive services, but have yet to be broadly implemented, partly because of challenges with electronic health record (EHR) integration. To facilitate EHR integration, we adapted and validated the previously published PRediction Of Acute Care use during Cancer Treatment (PROACCT) model to identify patients at highest risk for ACEs after systemic anticancer treatment. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of adults with a cancer diagnosis starting systemic therapy at a single center between July and November 2021 was divided into development (70%) and validation (30%) sets. Clinical and demographic variables were extracted, limited to those in structured format in the EHR, including cancer diagnosis, age, drug category, and ACE in prior year. Three logistic regression models of increasing complexity were developed to predict risk of ACEs. RESULTS: Five thousand one hundred fifty-three patients were evaluated (3,603 development and 1,550 validation). Several factors were predictive of ACEs: age (in decades), receipt of cytotoxic chemotherapy or immunotherapy, thoracic, GI or hematologic malignancy, and ACE in the prior year. We defined high-risk as the top 10% of risk scores; this population had 33.6% ACE rate compared with 8.3% for the remaining 90% in the low-risk group. The simplest Adapted PROACCT model had a C-statistic of 0.79, sensitivity of 0.28, and specificity of 0.93. CONCLUSION: We present three models designed for EHR integration that effectively identify oncology patients at highest risk for ACE after initiation of systemic anticancer treatment. By limiting predictors to structured data fields and including all cancer types, these models offer broad applicability for cancer care organizations and may offer a safety net to identify and target resources to this high risk.

Preferences for Electronic Modes of Communication Among Older Primary Care Patients: Cross-sectional Survey.

BACKGROUND: Health information delivered via daily modes of communication such as email, text, or telephone reportedly supports improved health behavior and outcomes. While different modes of communication beyond clinical visits have proven successful for patient outcomes, preferences for communication modes have not been comprehensively studied among older primary care patients. We addressed this gap by assessing patient preferences for receiving cancer screening and other information from their doctors' offices. OBJECTIVE: We explored stated preferences by communication modes through the lens of social determinants of health (SDOH) to gauge acceptability and equity implications for future interventions. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was mailed to primary care patients aged 45-75 years, in 2020-2021, which assessed respondents' use of telephones, computers, or tablets in daily life and their preferred modes of communication for different types of health information, including educational materials about cancer screening, tips for taking prescription medication, and protection from respiratory diseases from their doctors' offices. Respondents indicated their willingness to receive messages from their doctors' offices via each of the provided modes of communication, including telephone, text, email, patient portals, websites, and social media, on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "unwilling" to "willing." We present the percentage of respondents who indicated that they were "willing" to receive information via specific electronic mode. Chi-square tests were used to compare participants' willingness by social characteristics. RESULTS: In total, 133 people completed the survey (response rate 27%). The average respondent age was 64 years, 82 (63%) respondents were female, 106 (83%) were White, 20 (16%) were Black, and 1 (1%) was Asian. In total, 75 (58%) respondents had a bachelor's degree or higher; 26 (20%) resided in rural areas, 37 (29%) in suburban areas, 50 (39%) in a town, and 15 (12%) in a city. The majority, 73 (57%), reported being comfortable with their income. Preferences of respondents for electronic communication about cancer screening were distributed as follows: 100 (75%) respondents were willing to receive information from their doctor's office via their patient portal, 98 (74%) via email, 75 (56%) via text, 60 (45%) via the hospital website, 50 (38%) via telephone, and 14 (11%) via social media. About 6 (5%) respondents were unwilling to receive any communication via electronic modes. Preferences were distributed similarly for other types of information. Respondents reporting lesser income and education consistently preferred receiving telephone calls relative to other communication modes. CONCLUSIONS: To optimize health communication and reach a socioeconomically diverse population, telephone calls should be added to electronic communication, especially for people with less income and education. Further research needs to identify the underlying reasons for the observed differences and how best to ensure that socioeconomically diverse groups of older adults can access reliable health information and health care services.

Health Information and Misinformation: A Framework to Guide Research and Practice.

When facing a health decision, people tend to seek and access web-based information and other resources. Unfortunately, this exposes them to a substantial volume of misinformation. Misinformation, when combined with growing public distrust of science and trust in alternative medicine, may motivate people to make suboptimal choices that lead to harmful health outcomes and threaten public safety. Identifying harmful misinformation is complicated. Current definitions of misinformation either have limited capacity to define harmful health misinformation inclusively or present a complex framework with information characteristics that users cannot easily evaluate. Building on previous taxonomies and definitions, we propose an information evaluation framework that focuses on defining different shapes and forms of harmful health misinformation. The framework aims to help health information users, including researchers, clinicians, policy makers, and lay individuals, to detect misinformation that threatens truly informed health decisions.

Trends and Characteristics of Potentially Preventable Emergency Department Visits Among Patients With Cancer in the US.

Importance: An initial step to reducing emergency department (ED) visits among patients with cancer is to identify the characteristics of patients visiting the ED and examine which of those visits could be prevented. Objective: To explore nationwide trends and characteristics of ED visits and examine factors associated with potentially preventable ED visits and unplanned hospitalizations among patients with cancer in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data on ED visits from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2019; US Cancer Statistics reports were used to estimate new cancer cases each year. Frequencies and trends among 35 510 014 ED visits by adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with cancer were calculated. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was potentially preventable ED visits, and secondary outcomes were unplanned hospitalizations and the immediacy of the ED visits. Potentially preventable ED visits were identified using the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services definition. The Emergency Severity Index, a triage algorithm that ranks patients based on the urgency of their health care condition, was used to measure the immediacy of ED visits (immediate [most urgent], emergent, urgent, less urgent, and nonurgent), with the categories of immediate and emergent classified as high acuity. The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to calculate trends in ED visits among patients with cancer over time. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to examine the associations of patient, hospital, and temporal factors with potentially preventable ED use and ED use resulting in hospitalization. Results: Among 854 911 106 ED visits, 35 510 014 (4.2%) were made by patients with cancer (mean [SD] age, 66.2 [16.2] years); of those, 55.2% of visits were among women, 73.2% were among non-Hispanic White individuals, 89.8% were among patients living in a private residence, and 54.3% were among Medicare enrollees. A total of 18 316 373 ED visits (51.6%) were identified as potentially preventable, and 5 770 571 visits (21.3%) were classified as high acuity. From 2012 to 2019, potentially preventable ED visits increased from 1 851 692 to 3 214 276. Pain (36.9%) was the most common reason for potentially preventable ED visits. The number of patients who visited an ED because of pain increased from 1 192 197 in 2012 to 2 405 849 in 2019 (a 101.8% increase). Overall, 28.9% of ED visits resulted in unplanned hospitalizations, which did not change significantly over time (from 32.2% in 2012 to 26.6% in 2019; P = .78 for trend). Factors such as residence in a nursing home (odds ratio, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.25-2.41) were positively associated with having a potentially preventable ED visit, and factors such as the presence of more than 1 comorbidity (odds ratio, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.43-2.32) were positively associated with having an unplanned hospitalization. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, 51.6% of ED visits among patients with cancer were identified as potentially preventable, and the absolute number of potentially preventable ED visits increased substantially between 2012 and 2019. These findings highlight the need for cancer care programs to implement evidence-based interventions to better manage cancer treatment complications, such as uncontrolled pain, in outpatient and ambulatory settings.

"Mm-hm," "Uh-uh": are non-lexical conversational sounds deal breakers for the ambient clinical documentation technology?

OBJECTIVES: Ambient clinical documentation technology uses automatic speech recognition (ASR) and natural language processing (NLP) to turn patient-clinician conversations into clinical documentation. It is a promising approach to reducing clinician burden and improving documentation quality. However, the performance of current-generation ASR remains inadequately validated. In this study, we investigated the impact of non-lexical conversational sounds (NLCS) on ASR performance. NLCS, such as Mm-hm and Uh-uh, are commonly used to convey important information in clinical conversations, for example, Mm-hm as a "yes" response from the patient to the clinician question "are you allergic to antibiotics?" MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, we evaluated 2 contemporary ASR engines, Google Speech-to-Text Clinical Conversation ("Google ASR"), and Amazon Transcribe Medical ("Amazon ASR"), both of which have their language models specifically tailored to clinical conversations. The empirical data used were from 36 primary care encounters. We conducted a series of quantitative and qualitative analyses to examine the word error rate (WER) and the potential impact of misrecognized NLCS on the quality of clinical documentation. RESULTS: Out of a total of 135 647 spoken words contained in the evaluation data, 3284 (2.4%) were NLCS. Among these NLCS, 76 (0.06% of total words, 2.3% of all NLCS) were used to convey clinically relevant information. The overall WER, of all spoken words, was 11.8% for Google ASR and 12.8% for Amazon ASR. However, both ASR engines demonstrated poor performance in recognizing NLCS: the WERs across frequently used NLCS were 40.8% (Google) and 57.2% (Amazon), respectively; and among the NLCS that conveyed clinically relevant information, 94.7% and 98.7%, respectively. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Current ASR solutions are not capable of properly recognizing NLCS, particularly those that convey clinically relevant information. Although the volume of NLCS in our evaluation data was very small (2.4% of the total corpus; and for NLCS that conveyed clinically relevant information: 0.06%), incorrect recognition of them could result in inaccuracies in clinical documentation and introduce new patient safety risks.

Barriers and facilitators associated with implementing interventions to support oral anticancer agent adherence in academic and community cancer center settings.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study is to determine barriers and facilitators to the implementation of medication adherence interventions to support cancer patients taking novel, targeted oral anticancer agents (OAAs). METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews using a semi-structured guide from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We used purposive sampling to identify clinicians (physicians, pharmacists, nurse practitioners, nurses) and administrators (leadership from medicine, pharmacy, and nursing) who delivered care and/or oversee care delivery for patients with chronic leukemia prescribed an OAA. RESULTS: A total of 19 individuals participated in an interview (12 clinicians and 7 administrators), with 10 primarily employed by an academic cancer center; 5 employed by the community cancer center; and 4 employed by the integrated health-system specialty pharmacy. Barriers identified included low awareness of adherence interventions, difficulty in adherence measurement, complexity of designing and implementing a structured adherence intervention, and competing priorities. Facilitators identified included support of hospital administrators, value for pharmacists, and willingness to embrace change. Participants also made recommendations moving forward including standardizing workflow, designating champions, iterating implementation strategies, and improving communication between clinicians and with patients. CONCLUSION: Individual and system level factors were identified as determinants of implementation effectiveness of medication adherence interventions. A multidisciplinary advisory panel will be assembled to design comprehensive and actionable strategies to refine and implement a structured intervention to improve medication adherence in cancer patients.