Health System Approach to Improve Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Care after Hospital Discharge: Stepped-Wedge Clinical Trial.

Rationale: Patients discharged from the hospital for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation have impaired quality of life and frequent readmission and death. Clinical trials to reduce readmission demonstrate inconsistent results, including some demonstrating potential harms. Objectives: We tested whether a pragmatic proactive interdisciplinary and virtual review of patients discharged after hospitalization for COPD exacerbation would improve quality of life, using the Clinical COPD Questionnaire, and reduce all-cause 180-day readmission and/or mortality. Methods: We performed a stepped-wedge clinical trial. We enrolled primary care providers and their patients after hospital discharge for COPD at two Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers and 10 outpatient clinics. A multidisciplinary team reviewed health records and developed treatment recommendations delivered to primary care providers via E-consult. We facilitated uptake by entering recommendations as unsigned orders that could be accepted, modified, or canceled. Providers and patients made all final treatment decisions. Measurements and Main Results: We enrolled 365 primary care providers. Over a 30-month period, 352 patients met eligibility criteria, with 191 (54.3%) patients participating in the control and 161 (45.7%) in the intervention. The intervention led to clinically significant better Clinical COPD Questionnaire scores (-0.47; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.85 to -0.09; 52.6% missing) but did not reduce 180-day readmission and/or mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.49 to 1.38), in part because of wide CIs. Among the 161 patients in the intervention group, we entered 519 recommendations as unsigned orders, of which 401 (77.3%) were endorsed. Conclusions: A pragmatic health system-level intervention that delivered proactive specialty supported care improved quality of life but did not reduce 180-day readmission or death. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02021955).

Association between clinical measures of unhealthy alcohol use and subsequent year hospital admissions in a primary care population.

BACKGROUND: Screening for unhealthy alcohol use in primary care may help identify patients at risk for negative health outcomes. AIMS: This study examined the associations between 1) screening with the AUDIT-C (alcohol consumption) and 2) an Alcohol Symptom Checklist (symptoms of alcohol use disorder) and subsequent-year hospitalizations. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted in 29 primary care clinics in Washington State. Patients were screened in routine care (10/1/2016-2/1/2019) with the AUDIT-C (0-12) and administered the Alcohol Symptom Checklist (0-11) if they had AUDIT-C score ≥ 7. All-cause hospitalizations were measured within 1 year of the AUDIT-C and Alcohol Symptom Checklist. AUDIT-C and Alcohol Symptom Checklist scores were categorized based on previously used cut-points. FINDINGS: Of 305,376 patients with AUDIT-Cs, 5.3% of patients were hospitalized in the following year. AUDIT-C scores had a J-shaped relationship with hospitalizations, with risk for all-cause hospitalizations higher for patients with the AUDIT-C scores 9-12 (12.1%; 95% CI: 10.6-13.7%, relative to a comparison group of those with AUDIT-C scores 1-2 (female)/1-3 (male) (3.7%; 95% CI: 3.6-3.8%), adjusted for socio-demographics. Patients with AUDIT-C ≥ 7 and Alcohol Symptom Checklist scores reflecting severe AUD were at increased risk of hospitalization (14.6%, 95% CI: 11.9-17.9%) relative to those with lower scores. CONCLUSIONS: Higher AUDIT-C scores were associated with higher incidence of hospitalizations except among people with low-level drinking. Among patients with AUDIT-C ≥ 7, the Alcohol Symptom Checklist identified patients at increased risk of hospitalization. This study helps demonstrate the potential clinical utility of the AUDIT-C and Alcohol Symptom Checklist.

Primary Care Provider Experience With Proactive E-Consults to Improve COPD Outcomes and Access to Specialty Care.

Background: Often patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) receive poor quality care with limited access to pulmonologists. We tested a novel intervention, INtegrating Care After Exacerbation of COPD (InCasE), that improved patient outcomes after hospitalization for COPD. InCasE used population-based identification of patients for proactive e-consultation by pulmonologists, and tailored recommendations with pre-populated orders timed to follow-up with primary care providers (PCPs). Although adoption by PCPs was high, we do not know how PCPs experienced the intervention. Objective: Our objective was to assess PCPs' experience with proactive pulmonary e-consults after hospitalization for COPD. Methods: We conducted a convergent mixed methods study among study PCPs at 2 medical centers and 10 outpatient clinics. PCPs underwent semi-structured interviews and surveys. We performed descriptive analyses on quantitative data and inductive and deductive coding based on prespecified themes of acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility for qualitative data. Key Results: We conducted 10 interviews and 37 PCPs completed surveys. PCPs perceived InCasE to be acceptable and feasible. Facilitators included the proactive consult approach to patient identification and order entry. PCPs also noted the intervention was respectful and collegial. PCPs had concerns regarding appropriateness related to an unclear role in communicating recommendations to patients. PCPs also noted a potential decrease in autonomy if overused. Conclusion: This evaluation indicates that a proactive e-consult intervention can be deployed to collaboratively manage the health of populations with COPD in a way that is acceptable, appropriate, and feasible for primary care. Lessons learned from this study suggest the intervention may be transferable to other settings and specialties.