Primary care clinicians' opinions before and after implementation of cancer screening and prevention clinical decision support in a clinic cluster-randomized control trial: a survey research study.

BACKGROUND: Electronic health record (EHR)-linked clinical decision support (CDS) may impact primary care clinicians' (PCCs') clinical care opinions. As part of a clinic cluster-randomized control trial (RCT) testing a cancer prevention and screening CDS system with patient and PCC printouts (with or without shared decision-making tools [SDMT]) for patients due for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening and/or human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination compared to usual care (UC), we surveyed PCCs at study clinics pre- and post-CDS implementation. Our primary aim was to learn if PCCs' opinions changed over time within study arms. Secondary aims including examining whether PCCs' opinions in study arms differed both pre- and post-implementation, and gauging PCCs' opinions on the CDS in the two intervention arms. METHODS: This study was conducted within a healthcare system serving an upper Midwestern population. We administered pre-implementation (11/2/2017-1/24/2018) and post-implementation (2/2/2020-4/9/2020) cross-sectional electronic surveys to PCCs practicing within a RCT arm: UC; CDS; or CDS + SDMT. Bivariate analyses compared responses between study arms at both time periods and longitudinally within study arms. RESULTS: Pre-implementation (53%, n = 166) and post-implementation (57%, n = 172) response rates were similar. No significant differences in PCC responses were seen between study arms on cancer prevention and screening questions pre-implementation, with few significant differences found between study arms post-implementation. However, significantly fewer intervention arm clinic PCCs reported being very comfortable with discussing breast cancer screening options with patients compared to UC post-implementation, as well as compared to the same intervention arms pre-implementation. Other significant differences were noted within arms longitudinally. For intervention arms, these differences related to CDS areas like EHR alerts, risk calculators, and ordering screening. Most intervention arm PCCs noted the CDS provided overdue screening alerts to which they were unaware. Few PCCs reported using the CDS, but most would recommend it to colleagues, expressed high CDS satisfaction rates, and thought patients liked the CDS's information and utility. CONCLUSIONS: While appreciated by PCCs with high satisfaction rates, the CDS may lower PCCs' confidence regarding discussing patients' breast cancer screening options and may be used irregularly. Future research will evaluate the impact of the CDS on cancer prevention and screening rates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov , NCT02986230, December 6, 2016.

Clinician perceptions of a clinical decision support system to reduce cardiovascular risk among prediabetes patients in a predominantly rural healthcare system.

BACKGROUND: The early detection and management of uncontrolled cardiovascular risk factors among prediabetes patients can prevent cardiovascular disease (CVD). Prediabetes increases the risk of CVD, which is a leading cause of death in the United States. CVD clinical decision support (CDS) in primary care settings has the potential to reduce cardiovascular risk in patients with prediabetes while potentially saving clinicians time. The objective of this study is to understand primary care clinician (PCC) perceptions of a CDS system designed to reduce CVD risk in adults with prediabetes. METHODS: We administered pre-CDS implementation (6/30/2016 to 8/25/2016) (n = 183, 61% response rate) and post-CDS implementation (6/12/2019 to 8/7/2019) (n = 131, 44.5% response rate) independent cross-sectional electronic surveys to PCCs at 36 randomized primary care clinics participating in a federally funded study of a CVD risk reduction CDS tool. Surveys assessed PCC demographics, experiences in delivering prediabetes care, perceptions of CDS impact on shared decision making, perception of CDS impact on control of major CVD risk factors, and overall perceptions of the CDS tool when managing cardiovascular risk. RESULTS: We found few significant differences when comparing pre- and post-implementation responses across CDS intervention and usual care (UC) clinics. A majority of PCCs felt well-prepared to discuss CVD risk factor control with patients both pre- and post-implementation. About 73% of PCCs at CDS intervention clinics agreed that the CDS helped improve risk control, 68% reported the CDS added value to patient clinic visits, and 72% reported they would recommend use of this CDS system to colleagues. However, most PCCs disagreed that the CDS saves time talking about preventing diabetes or CVD, and most PCCs also did not find the clinical domains useful, nor did PCCs believe that the clinical domains were useful in getting patients to take action. Finally, only about 38% reported they were satisfied with the CDS. CONCLUSIONS: These results improve our understanding of CDS user experience and can be used to guide iterative improvement of the CDS. While most PCCs agreed the CDS improves CVD and diabetes risk factor control, they were generally not satisfied with the CDS. Moreover, only 40-50% agreed that specific suggestions on clinical domains helped patients to take action. In spite of this, an overwhelming majority reported they would recommend the CDS to colleagues, pointing for the need to improve upon the current CDS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02759055 03/05/2016.

The impact of personalized clinical decision support on primary care patients' views of cancer prevention and screening: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have assessed the impact of clinical decision support (CDS), with or without shared decision-making tools (SDMTs), on patients' perceptions of cancer screening or prevention in primary care settings. This cross-sectional survey was conducted to understand primary care patient's perceptions on cancer screening or prevention. METHODS: We mailed surveys (10/2018-1/2019) to 749 patients aged 18 to 75 years within 15 days after an index clinical encounter at 36 primary care clinics participating in a clinic-randomized control trial of a CDS system for cancer prevention. All patients were overdue for cancer screening or human papillomavirus vaccination. The survey compared respondents' answers by study arm: usual care; CDS; or CDS + SDMT. RESULTS: Of 387 respondents (52% response rate), 73% reported having enough time to discuss cancer prevention options with their primary care provider (PCP), 64% reported their PCP explained the benefits of the cancer screening choice very well, and 32% of obese patients reported discussing weight management, with two-thirds reporting selecting a weight management intervention. Usual care respondents were significantly more likely to decide on colorectal cancer screening than CDS respondents (p < 0.01), and on tobacco cessation than CDS + SDMT respondents (p = 0.02) and both CDS and CDS + SDMT respondents (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients reported discussing cancer prevention needs with PCPs, with few significant differences between the three study arms in patient-reported cancer prevention care. Upcoming research will assess differences in screening and vaccination rates between study arms during the post-intervention follow-up period. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov , NCT02986230 , December 6, 2016.

Adapting a clinical decision support system to improve identification of pediatric hypertension in a rural health system: Design of a pragmatic trial.

BACKGROUND: Identifying hypertension (HTN) early is crucial in preventing and lowering the long-term risk of heart disease, yet HTN in children often goes undiagnosed. An electronic health record linked, web-based clinical decision support (CDS) called PedsBP can help address this care gap and has been previously shown to increase recognition of HTN by primary care clinicians. OBJECTIVES: To adapt the PedsBP tool for use in a mostly rural health system and then to evaluate the effectiveness of PedsBP for repeat of hypertensive level blood pressure (BP) measurements and HTN recognition among youth 6-17 years of age in primary care settings, comparing low-intensity and high-intensity implementation approaches. METHODS AND DESIGN: PedsBP was evaluated through a pragmatic, clinic-randomized trial. The tool was piloted in 2 primary care clinics and modified prior to the full trial. Forty community-based, primary care clinics (or clusters of clinics) were randomly allocated in a 1:1:1 ratio to usual care, low-intensity implementation (CDS only), or high-intensity implementation (CDS plus in-person training, monthly use reports, and ongoing communication between study staff and clinics). Accrual of eligible patients started on August 1, 2022 and will continue for 18 months. Primary outcomes include repeating hypertensive level BP measurements at office visits and clinical recognition of HTN. Secondary outcomes include lifestyle counseling, dietician referral, and BP at follow-up. CONCLUSION: This report focuses on the design and feasibility of adapting and implementing PedsBP in a rural primary care setting. The trial and analysis are ongoing with main results expected in mid-2024.

Human Papillomavirus vaccination clinical decision support for young adults in an upper midwestern healthcare system: a clinic cluster-randomized control trial.

INTRODUCTION: Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination rates are low in young adults. Clinical decision support (CDS) in primary care may increase HPV vaccination. We tested the treatment effect of algorithm-driven, web-based, and electronic health record-linked CDS with or without shared decision-making tools (SDMT) on HPV vaccination rates compared to usual care (UC). METHODS: In a clinic cluster-randomized control trial conducted in a healthcare system serving a largely rural population, we randomized 34 primary care clinic clusters (with three clinics sharing clinicians randomized together) to: CDS; CDS+SDMT; UC. The sample included young adults aged 18-26 due for HPV vaccination with a study index visit from 08/01/2018-03/15/2019 in a study clinic. Generalized linear mixed models tested differences in HPV vaccination status 12 months after index visits by study arm. RESULTS: Among 10,253 patients, 6,876 (65.2%) were due for HPV vaccination, and 5,054 met study eligibility criteria. In adjusted analyses, the HPV vaccination series was completed by 12 months in 2.3% (95% CI: 1.6%-3.2%) of CDS, 1.6% (95% CI: 1.1%-2.3%) of CDS+SDMT, and 2.2% (95% CI: 1.6%-3.0%) of UC patients, and at least one HPV vaccine was received by 12 months in 13.1% (95% CI: 10.6%-16.1%) of CDS, 9.2% (95% CI: 7.3%-11.6%) of CDS+SDMT, and 11.2% (95% CI: 9.1%-13.7%) of UC patients. Differences were not significant between arms. Females, those with prior HPV vaccinations, and those seen at urban clinics had significantly higher odds of HPV vaccination in adjusted models. DISCUSSION: CDS may require optimization for young adults to significantly impact HPV vaccination. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT02986230, 12/6/2016.

Clinical Decision Support with or without Shared Decision Making to Improve Preventive Cancer Care: A Cluster-Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Innovative interventions are needed to address gaps in preventive cancer care, especially in rural areas. This study evaluated the impact of clinical decision support (CDS) with and without shared decision making (SDM) on cancer-screening completion. METHODS: In this 3-arm, parallel-group, cluster-randomized trial conducted at a predominantly rural medical group, 34 primary care clinics were randomized to clinical decision support (CDS), CDS plus shared decision making (CDS+SDM), or usual care (UC). The CDS applied web-based clinical algorithms identifying patients overdue for United States Preventive Services Task Force-recommended preventive cancer care and presented evidence-based recommendations to patients and providers on printouts and on the electronic health record interface. Patients in the CDS+SDM clinic also received shared decision-making tools (SDMTs). The primary outcome was a composite indicator of the proportion of patients overdue for breast, cervical, or colorectal cancer screening at index who were up to date on these 1 y later. RESULTS: From August 1, 2018, to March 15, 2019, 69,405 patients aged 21 to 74 y had visits at study clinics and 25,198 were overdue for 1 or more cancer screening tests at an index visit. At 12-mo follow-up, 9,543 of these (37.9%) were up to date on the composite endpoint. The adjusted, model-derived percentage of patients up to date was 36.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 34.0-39.1) in the UC group, 38.1% (95% CI: 35.5-40.9) in the CDS group, and 34.4% (95% CI: 31.8-37.2) in the CDS+SDM group. For all comparisons, the screening rates were higher than UC in the CDS group and lower than UC in the CDS+SDM group, although these differences did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSION: The CDS did not significantly increase cancer-screening rates. Exploratory analyses suggest a deeper understanding of how SDM and CDS interact to affect cancer prevention decisions is needed. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT02986230, December 6, 2016.

Patient Perceptions of Using Clinical Decision Support for Cancer Screening and Prevention: "I wouldn't have thought about getting screened without it."

PURPOSE: We sought to gain an understanding of cancer prevention and screening perspectives among patients exposed to a clinical decision support (CDS) tool because they were due or overdue for certain cancer screenings or prevention. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 37 adult patients due or overdue for cancer prevention services in 10 primary care clinics within the same health system. Data were thematically segmented and coded using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: We identified three themes: 1) The CDS tool had more strengths than weaknesses, with areas for improvement; 2) Many facilitators and barriers to cancer prevention and screening exist; and 3) Discussions and decision-making varied by type of cancer prevention and screening. Almost all participants made positive comments regarding the CDS. Some participants learned new information, reporting the CDS helped them make a decision they otherwise would not have made. Participants who used the tool with their provider had higher self-reported rates of deciding to be screened than those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: Learning about patients' perceptions of a CDS tool may increase understanding of how patient-tailored CDS impacts cancer screening and prevention rates. Participants found a personalized CDS tool for cancer screening and prevention in primary care useful and a welcome addition to their visit. However, many providers were not using the tool with eligible patients.

Design and rationale of an intervention to improve cancer prevention using clinical decision support and shared decision making: A clinic-randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite decades of research the gap in primary and secondary cancer prevention services in the U. S. remains unacceptably wide. Innovative interventions are needed to address this persistent challenge. Electronic health records linked with Web-based clinical decision support may close this gap, especially if delivered to both patients and their providers. OBJECTIVES: The Cancer Prevention Wizard (CPW) study is an implementation, clinic-randomized trial designed to achieve these aims: 1) assess impact of the Cancer Prevention Wizard-Clinical Decision Support (CPW-CDS) alone and CPW-CDS plus Shared Decision Making Tools (CPW + SDMTs) compared to usual care (UC) on tobacco cessation counseling and drugs, HPV vaccinations, and screening tests for breast, cervical, colorectal, or lung cancer; 2) assess cost of the CPW-CDS intervention; and 3) describe critical facilitators and barriers for CPW-CDS implementation, use, and clinical impact using a mixed-methods approach supported by the CFIR and RE-AIM frameworks. METHODS: 34 predominantly rural, primary care clinics were randomized to CPW-CDS, CPW + SMDTs, or UC. Between August 2018 and October 2020, primary care providers and their patients who met inclusion criteria in intervention clinics were exposed to the CPW-CDS with or without SDMTs. Study outcomes at 12 months post index visit include patients up to date on screening tests and HPV vaccinations, overall healthcare costs, and diagnostic codes and billing levels for cancer prevention services. CONCLUSIONS: We will test in rural primary care settings whether CPW-CDS with or without SDMTs can improve delivery of primary and secondary cancer prevention services. The trial and analyses are ongoing with results expected in 2021.