Reducing Care Overuse in Older Patients Using Professional Norms and Accountability : A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

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.

Remote physiologic monitoring for hypertension in primary care: a prospective pragmatic pilot study in electronic health records using propensity score matching.

Objectives: Since 2019, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services covers remote physiologic monitoring (RPM) for blood pressure (BP) per hypertension diagnosis and treatment guidelines. Here, we integrated Omron VitalSight RPM into the health system's electronic health record to transmit BP and pulse without manual entry, assessed feasibility, and used pragmatic prospective matched cohort studies to assess initial effects in (1) uncontrolled (last two office BP ≥140/90 mmHg) and (2) general (diagnosed hypertension or last office BP ≥140/90 mmHg) hypertension patient populations. Materials and Methods: Seventeen clinicians at two internal medicine practices were oriented. Eligible patients were aged 65-85 years had Medicare insurance with ≥1 office visit in the previous year. We prospectively identified matched controls (age, sex, BP, and number of office visits in previous year) from other primary care practices within the health system and estimated the association between RPM availability (clinic-level) and patient BP outcomes after 6 months. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04604925. Results: Feasibility. Uptake was low at pilot clinics: 10 physicians prescribed RPM to 118 patients during the 6-month pilot. This included 7% (14/207) of the prespecified uncontrolled hypertension cohort and 3.3% (78/2356) of the general hypertension cohort. Surveyed clinicians (n = 4) reported changing their patients' medical treatment in response to RPM BPs, although they recommended having a dedicated RN or LPN to review BP readings. Effectiveness. At 6 months, BP control was greater at pilot practices than among matched controls (uncontrolled: 31.4% vs 22.8%; P = .007; general: 64.0% vs 59.7%; P < .001). Systolic BP at last office visit did not differ (mean [SD] 146.0 [15.7] vs 147.1 [15.6]; P = .48) in the uncontrolled population, and was lower in the general population (131.8 [15.7] vs 132.8 [15.9]; P = .04).The frequency of antihypertensive medication changes was similar in both groups (uncontrolled P = .986; general P = .218). Discussion and Conclusions: Uptake notwithstanding, RPM may have improved BP control. A potential mechanism is increased physician awareness of and attention to uncontrolled hypertension. Barriers to RPM use among physicians require further study.

Validation testing of five home blood pressure monitoring devices for the upper arm according to the ISO 81060-2:2018/AMD 1:2020 protocol.

The accuracy of Omron 10 Series BP7450 (HEM-7342T-Z), Omron Platinum BP5450 (HEM-7343T-Z), Walmart Equate Premium 8000 Series UA-8000WM, Walgreens Premium 15+ WGNBPA-960BT, and CVS Series 800 BP3MW1-4YCVS were assessed in an adult general population compared to a mercury sphygmomanometer standard according to the ISO 81060-2:2018/AMD 1:2020 validation procedure. Omron selected the monitors and included three non-Omron monitors because they were from large retail vendors in the United States and these monitors did not have accessible results from validation testing. The BP7450, N = 85, passed both criteria for the standard. Mean (SD) differences in paired SBP and DBP determinations between the test device and reference were 0.5 (7.7) and 2.5 (6.8) mm Hg. The BP5450, N = 86, passed both criteria. Mean (SD) differences in paired SBP and DBP determinations were 1.9 (7.0) and 3.6 (6.4) mm Hg. The UA-8000WM, N = 85, did not meet the first criterion for the standard. Mean (SD) differences in paired SBP and DBP determinations were 2.5 (8.0) and 5.1 (6.4) mm Hg. The WGNBPA-240BT, N = 85, did not meet the first criterion for the standard. Mean (SD) differences in paired SBP and DBP determinations were 7.9 (8.5) and 5.5 (6.7) mm Hg. The BP3MW1-4YCVS, N = 85, did not meet the first criterion for the standard. Mean (SD) differences in paired SBP and DBP determinations were 5.8 (8.7) and 3.1 (5.6) mm Hg. These findings emphasize the importance of verifying the validation status of home blood pressure monitors before use by consumers.