Endocrine therapy initiation among women diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ from 2001 to 2018.

PURPOSE: Trials demonstrating benefits of tamoxifen for women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) were published > 20 years ago; yet subsequent uptake of endocrine therapy was low. We estimated endocrine therapy initiation in women with DCIS between 2001 and 2018 in a community setting, reflecting more recent years of diagnosis than previous studies. METHODS: This retrospective cohort included adult females ≥ 20 years diagnosed with first primary DCIS between 2001 and 2018, followed through 2019, and enrolled in one of three U.S. integrated healthcare systems. We collected data on endocrine therapy dispensings (tamoxifen, aromatase inhibitors [AIs]) from electronic pharmacy records within 12 months after DCIS diagnosis. Using generalized linear models with a log link and Poisson distribution, we estimated endocrine therapy initiation rates over time and by patient, tumor (including estrogen receptor [ER] status), and treatment characteristics. RESULTS: Among 2020 women with DCIS, 587 (29%) initiated endocrine therapy within 12 months after diagnosis (36% among 1208 women with ER-positive DCIS). Among women who used endocrine therapy, 506 (86%) initiated tamoxifen and 81 (14%) initiated AIs. Age-adjusted endocrine therapy initiation declined from 34 to 21% between 2001 and 2017; between 2015 and 2018, AI use increased from 8 to 35%. Women less likely to initiate endocrine therapy were ER-negative or had borderline/unknown or no ER test results, ≥ 65 years at diagnosis, Black, and received no radiotherapy. CONCLUSION: One-third of women diagnosed with DCIS initiated endocrine therapy, and use decreased over time. Understanding why women eligible for endocrine therapy do not initiate is important to maximizing disease-free survival following DCIS diagnosis.

Management of Neck or Back Pain in Ambulatory Care: Did Visit Mode or the COVID-19 Pandemic Affect Provider Practice or Patient Adherence?

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: In recent years, 2 circumstances have changed provider-patient interactions in ambulatory care: (1) the replacement of virtual for in-person visits and (2) the COVID-19 pandemic. We studied the potential impact of each event on provider practice and patient adherence by comparing the frequency of the association of provider orders, and patient fulfillment of those orders, by visit mode and pandemic period, for incident neck or back pain (NBP) visits in ambulatory care. METHODS: Data were extracted from the electronic health records of 3 Kaiser Permanente regions (Colorado, Georgia, and Mid-Atlantic States) from January 2017 to June 2021. Incident NBP visits were defined from ICD-10 coded as primary or first listed diagnoses on adult, family medicine, or urgent care visits separated by at least 180 days. Visit modes were classified as virtual or in-person. Periods were classified as prepandemic (before April 2020 or the beginning of the national emergency) or recovery (after June 2020). Percentages of provider orders for, and patient fulfillment of orders, were measured for 5 service classes and compared on: virtual versus in-person visits, and prepandemic versus recovery periods. Comparisons were balanced on patient case-mix using inverse probability of treatment weighting. RESULTS: Ancillary services in all 5 categories at each of the 3 Kaiser Permanente regions were substantially ordered less frequently on virtual compared with in-person visits in both the prepandemic and recovery periods (both P ≤ 0.001). Conditional on an order, patient fulfillment within 30 days was high (typically ≥70%) and not likely meaningfully different between visit modes or pandemic periods. CONCLUSIONS: Ancillary services for incident NBP visits were ordered less frequently during virtual than in-person visits in both prepandemic and recovery periods. Patient fulfillment of orders was high, and not significantly different by mode or period.

Did Access to Ambulatory Care Moderate the Associations Between Visit Mode and Ancillary Services Utilization Across the COVID-19 Pandemic Period?

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: In recent years, 2 circumstances changed provider-patient interactions in primary care: the substitution of virtual (eg, video) for in-person visits and the COVID-19 pandemic. We studied whether access to care might affect patient fulfillment of ancillary services orders for ambulatory diagnosis and management of incident neck or back pain (NBP) and incident urinary tract infection (UTI) for virtual versus in-person visits. METHODS: Data were extracted from the electronic health records of 3 Kaiser Permanente Regions to identify incident NBP and UTI visits from January 2016 through June 2021. Visit modes were classified as virtual (Internet-mediated synchronous chats, telephone visits, or video visits) or in-person. Periods were classified as prepandemic [before the beginning of the national emergency (April 2020)] or recovery (after June 2020). Percentages of patient fulfillment of ancillary services orders were measured for 5 service classes each for NBP and UTI. Differences in percentages of fulfillments were compared between modes within periods and between periods within the mode to assess the possible impact of 3 moderators: distance from residence to primary care clinic, high deductible health plan (HDHP) enrollment, and prior use of a mail-order pharmacy program. RESULTS: For diagnostic radiology, laboratory, and pharmacy services, percentages of fulfilled orders were generally >70-80%. Given an incident NBP or UTI visit, longer distance to the clinic and higher cost-sharing due to HDHP enrollment did not significantly suppress patients' fulfillment of ancillary services orders. Prior use of mail-order prescriptions significantly promoted medication order fulfillments on virtual NBP visits compared with in-person NBP visits in the prepandemic period (5.9% vs. 2.0%, P=0.01) and in the recovery period (5.2% vs. 1.6%, P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Distance to the clinic or HDHP enrollment had minimal impact on the fulfillment of diagnostic or prescribed medication services associated with incident NBP or UTI visits delivered virtually or in-person; however, prior use of mail-order pharmacy option promoted fulfillment of prescribed medication orders associated with NBP visits.

Impact of COVID-19 on Trends in Outpatient Clinic Utilization: A Tale of 2 Departments.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic forced many US health care organizations to shift from mostly in-person care to a hybrid of virtual visits (VV) and in-person visits (IPV). While there was an expected and immediate shift to virtual care (VC) early in the pandemic, little is known about trends in VC use after restrictions eased. METHODS: This is a retrospective study using data from 3 health care systems. All completed visits from adult primary care (APC) and behavioral health (BH) were extracted from the electronic health record of adults aged 19 years and older from January 1, 2019 to June 30, 2021. Standardized weekly visit rates were calculated by department and site and analyzed using time series analysis. RESULTS: There was an immediate decrease in APC visits following the onset of the pandemic. IPV were quickly replaced by VV such that VV accounted for most APC visits early in the pandemic. By 2021, VV rates declined, and VC visits accounted for <50% of all APC visits. By Spring 2021, all 3 health care systems saw a resumption of APC visits as rates neared or returned to prepandemic levels. In contrast, BH visit rates remained constant or slightly increased. By April 2020, almost all BH visits were being delivered virtually at each of the 3 sites and continue to do so without changes to utilization. CONCLUSIONS: VC use peaked during the early pandemic period. While rates of VC are higher than prepandemic levels, IPV are the predominant visit type in APC. In contrast, VC use has sustained in BH, even after restrictions eased.

Patient Factors Associated With Use of Adult Primary Care and Virtual Visits During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The delivery of adult primary care (APC) shifted from predominately in-person to modes of virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic. It is unclear how these shifts impacted the likelihood of APC use during the pandemic, or how patient characteristics may be associated with the use of virtual care. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study using person-month level datasets from 3 geographically disparate integrated health care systems was conducted for the observation period of January 1, 2020, through June 30, 2021. We estimated a 2-stage model, first adjusting for patient-level sociodemographic, clinical, and cost-sharing factors, using generalized estimating equations with a logit distribution, along with a second-stage multinomial generalized estimating equations model that included an inverse propensity score treatment weight to adjust for the likelihood of APC use. Factors associated with APC use and virtual care use were separately assessed for the 3 sites. RESULTS: Included in the first-stage models were datasets with total person-months of 7,055,549, 11,014,430, and 4,176,934, respectively. Older age, female sex, greater comorbidity, and Black race and Hispanic ethnicity were associated with higher likelihood of any APC use in any month; measures of greater patient cost-sharing were associated with a lower likelihood. Conditional on APC use, older age, and adults identifying as Black, Asian, or Hispanic were less likely to use virtual care. CONCLUSIONS: As the transition in health care continues to evolve, our findings suggest that to ensure vulnerable patient groups receive high quality health care, outreach interventions to reduce barriers to virtual care use may be warranted.

Virtual Care and Urinary Tract Infection Management: Comparing Ancillary Service Orders and Patient Order Fulfillments Between Virtual and In-person Encounters During the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, more health care issues were being managed remotely. Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are being managed more often using telehealth although few reports compare the rate of UTI ancillary service orders placed and fulfilled during these visits. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate and compare the rate of ancillary service orders and order fulfillments in incident UTI diagnoses between virtual and in-person encounters. RESEARCH DESIGN: The retrospective cohort study involved 3 integrated health care systems: Kaiser Permanente (KP) Colorado, KP Georgia, and KP Mid-Atlantic States. SUBJECTS: We included incident UTI encounters from adult primary care data from January 2019 to June 2021. MEASURES: Data were categorized as: prepandemic (January 2019-March 2020), COVID-19 Era 1 (April 2020-June 2020), and COVID-19 Era 2 (July 2020-June 2021). UTI-specific ancillary services included medication, laboratory, and imaging. Orders and order fulfillments were dichotomized for analyses. Weighted percentages for orders and fulfillments were calculated using inverse probability treatment weighting from logistic regression and compared between virtual and in-person encounters using χ2 tests. RESULTS: We identified 123,907 incident encounters. Virtual encounters increased from 13.4% prepandemic to 39.1% in COVID-19 Era 2. Ancillary service orders from virtual encounters were not placed as often as in-person encounters. However, the weighted percentage for ancillary service order fulfillment across all services remained above 65.3% across sites and eras, with many fulfillment percentages above 90%. CONCLUSIONS: Our study reported a high rate of order fulfillment for both virtual and in-person encounters. Health care systems should encourage providers to place ancillary service orders for uncomplicated diagnoses, such as UTI, to provide enhanced access to patient-centered care.

Health-care-Related Practices in Virtual Behavioral Health Treatment for Major Depression Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The abrupt shift to virtual care at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic had the potential to disrupt care practices in virtual behavioral health encounters. We examined changes over time in virtual behavioral health-care-related practices for patient encounters with diagnoses of major depression. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study utilized electronic health record data from 3 integrated health care systems. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to adjust for covariates across 3 time periods, prepandemic (January 2019-March 2020), peak-pandemic shift to virtual care (April 2020-June 2020), and recovery of health care operations (July 2020-June 2021). First virtual follow-up behavioral health department encounters after an incident diagnostic encounter were examined for differences across the time periods in rates of antidepressant medication orders and fulfillments, and completion of patient-reported symptoms screeners in service of measurement-based care. RESULTS: Antidepressant medication orders declined modestly but significantly in 2 of the 3 systems during the peak-pandemic period but rebounded during the recovery period. There were no significant changes in patient fulfillment of ordered antidepressant medications. Completion of symptom screeners increased significantly in all 3 systems during the peak-pandemic period and continued to increase significantly in the subsequent period. CONCLUSIONS: A rapid shift to virtual behavioral health care was possible without compromising health-care-related practices. The transition and subsequent adjustment period have instead been marked by improved adherence to measurement-based care practices in virtual visits, signaling a potential new capacity for virtual health care delivery.

Development of a Common Data Model for a Multisite and Multiyear Study of Virtual Visit Implementation: A Case Study.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: In multisite studies, a common data model (CDM) standardizes dataset organization, variable definitions, and variable code structures and can support distributed data processing. We describe the development of a CDM for a study of virtual visit implementation in 3 Kaiser Permanente (KP) regions. METHODS: We conducted several scoping reviews to inform our study's CDM design: (1) virtual visit mode, implementation timing, and scope (targeted clinical conditions and departments); and (2) extant sources of electronic health record data to specify study measures. Our study covered the period from 2017 through June 2021. Integrity of the CDM was assessed by a chart review of random samples of virtual and in-person visits, overall and by specific conditions of interest (neck or back pain, urinary tract infection, major depression). RESULTS: The scoping reviews identified a need to address differences in virtual visit programs across the 3 KP regionsto harmonize measurement specifications for our research analyses. The final CDM contained patient-level, provider-level, and system-level measures on 7,476,604 person-years for KP members aged 19 years and above. Utilization included 2,966,112 virtual visits (synchronous chats, telephone visits, video visits) and 10,004,195 in-person visits. Chart review indicated the CDM correctly identified visit mode on>96% (n=444) of visits, and presenting diagnosis on >91% (n=482) of visits. CONCLUSIONS: Upfront design and implementation of CDMs may be resource intensive. Once implemented, CDMs, like the one we developed for our study, provide downstream programming and analytic efficiencies by harmonizing, in a consistent framework, otherwise idiosyncratic temporal and study site differences in source data.

Factor Analysis in Distinguishing Coronavirus Disease 2019 From Other Influenza-like Illness Using a Validated Patient-Reported Outcome Instrument FLU-PRO Plus: A Prospective Real-world Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: InFLUenza Patient-reported Outcome (FLU-PRO Plus) is a 34-item patient-reported outcome instrument designed to capture the intensity and frequency of viral respiratory symptoms. This study evaluates whether FLU-PRO Plus responses could discriminate between symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and influenza-like illness (ILI) with no COVID diagnosis, as well as forecast disease progression. METHODS: FLU-PRO Plus was administered daily for 14 days. Exploratory factor analysis was used to reduce the FLU-PRO Plus responses on the first day to 3 factors interpreted as "symptom clusters." The 3 clusters were used to predict COVID-19 versus ILI diagnosis in logistic regression. Correlation between the clusters and quality of life (QoL) measures was used to assess concurrent validity. The timing of self-reported return to usual health in the 14-day period was estimated as a function of the clusters within COVID-19 and ILI groups. RESULTS: Three hundred fourteen patients completed day 1 FLU-PRO Plus, of which 65% had a COVID-19 diagnosis. Exploratory factor analysis identified 3 symptom clusters: (1)general Body, (2) tracheal/bronchial, and (3) nasopharyngeal. Higher nasopharyngeal scores were associated with higher odds of COVID-19 compared with ILI diagnosis [adjusted odds ratio = 1.61 (1.21, 2.12)]. Higher tracheal/bronchial scores were associated with lower odds of COVID-19 [0.58 (0.44, 0.77)]. The 3 symptom clusters were correlated with multiple QoL measures ( r = 0.14-0.56). Higher scores on the general body and tracheal/bronchial symptom clusters were associated with prolonged time to return to usual health [adjusted hazard ratios: 0.76 (0.64, 0.91), 0.80 (0.67, 0.96)]. CONCLUSION: Three symptom clusters identified from FLU-PRO Plus responses successfully discriminated patients with COVID-19 from non-COVID ILI and were associated with QoL and predicted symptom duration.

Systematic surveillance of patient-reported symptoms of viral respiratory tract infectious Syndromes in diverse populations.

BACKGROUND: Patient reported outcome measures (PROM) can improve patient care and be crucial for symptom tracking especially during disease outbreaks. FLU-PRO Plus is a validated PROM used to track viral respiratory symptoms. Our study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of using FLU-PRO© Plus, to track symptoms across three healthcare systems. METHODS: The prospective, longitudinal study recruited adults between February-May 2021 from HealthPartners Institute (HP), Kaiser Permanente Georgia (KPGA), and Kaiser Permanente Mid-Atlantic States (KPMAS). Adult members were eligible if they had a positive lab or diagnosis for either COVID-19 or influenza-like illness (ILI) or exhibited 2 + viral respiratory symptoms. Descriptive statistics were calculated to describe the patient characteristics for participants that were eligible for FLU-PRO Plus, successfully contacted, attempted to log in to the FLU-PRO Plus website, and participants who completed FLU-PRO Plus Day 1. Bivariable and multivariable logistic regression using PROC GLIMMIXX investigated the patient characteristics associated with (1) successful contact and (2) FLU-PRO Plus Day 1 completion. RESULTS: We identified a total of 15,650 eligible participants during the enrollment period: 9,582 from HP, 1,740 from KPGA, and 4,328 from KPMAS. Among the total of 409 eligible adults who attempted to participate in FLU-PRO Plus, 317 completed FLU-PRO Plus Day 1. Among the 317 individuals that completed FLU-PRO Plus Day 1, 205 (67.5%) were diagnosed with COVID-19; 112 adults diagnosed with COVID-19 completed FLU-PRO Plus Day 14. Among adults successfully contacted, adults aged 35-64 (OR = 1.40, 95% CI 1.05, 1.87), females (OR = 1.77, 95% CI 1.38, 2.27), and adults diagnosed with COVID-19 (OR = 1.66, 95% CI 1.27, 2.17) had higher odds of completing FLU-PRO Plus Day 1; Asian adults (OR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.19, 0.76) and Black and African American adults (OR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.19, 0.76) had lower odds compared to White adults. CONCLUSION: Our study reports on the feasibility of patients across three integrated healthcare systems utilizing FLU-PRO Plus to monitor their respiratory symptoms. Patient reported outcome measures (PROM) can improve patient care, quality of life, and reduce the strain of limited resources on healthcare systems. Future FLU-PRO Plus studies should develop an implementation strategy to fully integrate FLU-PRO Plus within clinical care and patient management.

Association of sociocultural factors with initiation of the kidney transplant evaluation process.

Although research shows that minorities exhibit higher levels of medical mistrust, perceived racism, and discrimination in healthcare settings, the degree to which these underlying sociocultural factors preclude end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients from initiating kidney transplant evaluation is unknown. We telephone surveyed 528 adult ESRD patients of black or white race referred for evaluation to a Georgia transplant center (N = 3) in 2014-2016. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine associations between sociocultural factors and evaluation initiation, adjusting for demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic characteristics. Despite blacks (n = 407) reporting higher levels of medical mistrust (40.0% vs 26.4%, P < .01), perceived racism (55.5% vs 18.2%, P < .01), and experienced discrimination (29.0% vs 15.7%, P < .01) than whites (n = 121), blacks were only slightly less likely than whites to initiate evaluation (49.6% vs 57.9%, P = .11). However, after adjustment, medical mistrust (odds ratio [OR]: 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.39, 0.91), experienced discrimination (OR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.41, 0.95), and perceived racism (OR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.40, 0.92) were associated with lower evaluation initiation. Results suggest that sociocultural disparities exist in early kidney transplant access and occur despite the absence of a significant racial disparity in evaluation initiation. Interventions to reduce disparities in transplantation access should target underlying sociocultural factors, not just race.

Association Between Dialysis Facility Ownership and Access to Kidney Transplantation.

Importance: For-profit (vs nonprofit) dialysis facilities have historically had lower kidney transplantation rates, but it is unknown if the pattern holds for living donor and deceased donor kidney transplantation, varies by facility ownership, or has persisted over time in a nationally representative population. Objective: To determine the association between dialysis facility ownership and placement on the deceased donor kidney transplantation waiting list, receipt of a living donor kidney transplant, or receipt of a deceased donor kidney transplant. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study that included 1 478 564 patients treated at 6511 US dialysis facilities. Adult patients with incident end-stage kidney disease from the US Renal Data System (2000-2016) were linked with facility ownership (Dialysis Facility Compare) and characteristics (Dialysis Facility Report). Exposures: The primary exposure was dialysis facility ownership, which was categorized as nonprofit small chains, nonprofit independent facilities, for-profit large chains (>1000 facilities), for-profit small chains (<1000 facilities), and for-profit independent facilities. Main Outcomes and Measures: Access to kidney transplantation was defined as time from initiation of dialysis to placement on the deceased donor kidney transplantation waiting list, receipt of a living donor kidney transplant, or receipt of a deceased donor kidney transplant. Cumulative incidence differences and multivariable Cox models assessed the association between dialysis facility ownership and each outcome. Results: Among 1 478 564 patients, the median age was 66 years (interquartile range, 55-76 years), with 55.3% male, and 28.1% non-Hispanic black patients. Eighty-seven percent of patients received care at a for-profit dialysis facility. A total of 109 030 patients (7.4%) received care at 435 nonprofit small chain facilities; 78 287 (5.3%) at 324 nonprofit independent facilities; 483 988 (32.7%) at 2239 facilities of large for-profit chain 1; 482 689 (32.6%) at 2082 facilities of large for-profit chain 2; 225 890 (15.3%) at 997 for-profit small chain facilities; and 98 680 (6.7%) at 434 for-profit independent facilities. During the study period, 121 680 patients (8.2%) were placed on the deceased donor waiting list, 23 762 (1.6%) received a living donor kidney transplant, and 49 290 (3.3%) received a deceased donor kidney transplant. For-profit facilities had lower 5-year cumulative incidence differences for each outcome vs nonprofit facilities (deceased donor waiting list: -13.2% [95% CI, -13.4% to -13.0%]; receipt of a living donor kidney transplant: -2.3% [95% CI, -2.4% to -2.3%]; and receipt of a deceased donor kidney transplant: -4.3% [95% CI, -4.4% to -4.2%]). Adjusted Cox analyses showed lower relative rates for each outcome among patients treated at all for-profit vs all nonprofit dialysis facilities: deceased donor waiting list (hazard ratio [HR], 0.36 [95% CI, 0.35 to 0.36]); receipt of a living donor kidney transplant (HR, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.51 to 0.54]); and receipt of a deceased donor kidney transplant (HR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.45]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among US patients with end-stage kidney disease, receiving dialysis at for-profit facilities compared with nonprofit facilities was associated with a lower likelihood of accessing kidney transplantation. Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms behind this association.

Effect of the iChoose Kidney decision aid in improving knowledge about treatment options among transplant candidates: A randomized controlled trial.

We previously developed a mobile- and web-based decision aid (iChoose Kidney) that displays individualized risk estimates of survival and mortality, for the treatment modalities of dialysis versus kidney transplantation. We examined the effect of iChoose Kidney on change in transplant knowledge and access to transplant in a randomized controlled trial among patients presenting for evaluation in three transplant centers. A total of 470 patients were randomized to standard transplantation education (control) or standard education plus iChoose Kidney (intervention). Change in transplant knowledge (primary outcome) among intervention versus control patients was assessed using nine items in pre- and postevaluation surveys. Access to transplant (secondary outcome) was defined as a composite of waitlisting, living donor inquiries, or transplantation. Among 443 patients (n = 226 intervention; n = 216 control), the mean knowledge scores were 5.1 ± 2.1 pre- and 5.8 ± 1.9 postevaluation. Change in knowledge was greater among intervention (1.1 ± 2.0) versus control (0.4 ± 1.8) patients (P < .0001). Access to transplantation was similar among intervention (n = 168; 74.3%) versus control patients (n = 153; 70.5%; P = .37). The iChoose Kidney decision aid improved patient knowledge at evaluation, but did not impact transplant access. Future studies should examine whether combining iChoose Kidney with other interventions can increase transplantation. (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02235571).

Racial disparities in preemptive referral for kidney transplantation in Georgia.

BACKGROUND: Racial disparities persist in access to kidney transplantation. Racial differences in preemptive referral, or referral prior to dialysis start, may explain this discrepancy. METHODS: Patient-level data on kidney transplant referrals (2005-2012) from all Georgia transplant centers were linked to the United States Renal Data System to examine racial disparities in preemptive referral, waitlisting, and living donor transplant. Adjusted logistic regression and Cox proportional hazard models determined the associations between race (African American vs white) and preemptive referral, and placement on the waitlist and receipt of a living donor kidney, respectively. RESULTS: Among 7752 adults referred for transplant evaluation, 20.38% (n = 1580) were preemptively referred. The odds of African Americans being preemptively referred for transplant evaluation were 37% (OR = 0.63; [95% CI: 0.55 0.71]) lower than white patients. Among preemptively referred patients, there was no racial difference (African Americans compared to white patients. HR = 0.96; [95% CI: 0.88, 1.04]) in waitlisting. However, African Americans were 70% less likely than white patients to receive a living donor transplant (HR = 0.30; [95% CI: 0.21, 0.42]). CONCLUSION: Racial disparities in transplant receipt may be partially explained by disparities in preemptive referral. Interventions to reduce racial disparities in kidney transplant access may need to be targeted earlier in the disease process.

Dialysis facility staff perceptions of racial, gender, and age disparities in access to renal transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Racial/ethnic, gender, and age disparities in access to renal transplantation among end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients have been well documented, but few studies have explored health care staff attitudes towards these inequalities. Staff perceptions can influence patient care and outcomes, and identifying staff perceptions on disparities could aid in the development of potential interventions to address these health inequities. The objective of this study was to investigate dialysis staff (n = 509), primarily social workers and nurse managers, perceptions of renal transplant disparities in the Southeastern United States. METHODS: This is a mixed methods study that uses both deductive and inductive qualitative analysis of a dialysis staff survey conducted in 2012 using three open-ended questions that asked staff to discuss their perceptions of factors that may contribute to transplant disparities among African American, female, and elderly patients. RESULTS: Study results suggested that the majority of staff (n = 255, 28%) perceived patients' low socioeconomic status as the primary theme related to why renal transplant disparities exist between African Americans and non-Hispanic whites. Staff cited patient perception of old age as a primary contributor (n = 188, 23%) to the disparity between young and elderly patients. The dialysis staff responses on gender transplant disparities suggested that staff were unaware of differences due to limited experience and observation (n = 76, 14.7%) of gender disparities. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that dialysis facilities should educate staff on existing renal transplantation disparities, particularly gender disparities, and collaboratively work with transplant facilities to develop strategies to actively address modifiable patient barriers for transplant.

Process evaluation of the RaDIANT community study: a dialysis facility-level intervention to increase referral for kidney transplantation.

BACKGROUND: The Reducing Disparities in Access to kidNey Transplantation Community Study (RaDIANT) was an End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) Network 6-developed, dialysis facility-level randomized trial testing the effectiveness of a 1-year multicomponent education and quality improvement intervention in increasing referral for kidney transplant evaluation among selected Georgia dialysis facilities. METHODS: To assess implementation of the RaDIANT intervention, we conducted a process evaluation at the conclusion of the intervention period (January-December 2014). We administered a 20-item survey to the staff involved with transplant education in 67 dialysis facilities randomized to participate in intervention activities. Survey items assessed facility participation in the intervention (fidelity and reach), helpfulness and willingness to continue intervention activities (sustainability), suggestions for improving intervention components (sustainability), and factors that may have influenced participation and study outcomes (context). We defined high fidelity to the intervention as completing 11 or more activities, and high participation in an activity as having at least 75% participation across intervention facilities. RESULTS: Staff from 65 of the 67 dialysis facilities completed the questionnaire, and more than half (50.8%) reported high adherence (fidelity) to RaDIANT intervention requirements. Nearly two-thirds (63.1%) of facilities reported that RaDIANT intervention activities were helpful or very helpful, with 90.8% of facilities willing to continue at least one intervention component beyond the study period. Intervention components with high participation emphasized staff and patient-level education, including in-service staff orientations, patient and family education programs, and patient educational materials. Suggested improvements for intervention activities emphasized addressing financial barriers to transplantation, with financial education materials perceived as most helpful among RaDIANT educational materials. Variation in facility-level fidelity of the RADIANT intervention did not significantly influence the mean difference in proportion of patients referred pre- (2013) and post-intervention (2014). CONCLUSIONS: We found high fidelity to the RaDIANT multicomponent intervention at the majority of intervention facilities, with sustainability of select intervention components at intervention facilities and feasibility for dissemination across ESRD Networks. Future modification of the intervention should emphasize financial education regarding kidney transplantation and amend intervention components that facilities perceive as time-intensive or non-sustainable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov number NCT02092727 . Registered 13 Mar 2014 (retrospectively registered).

Access to telehealth and changes in diabetes care patterns during the pandemic: evidence from a large integrated health system in the Southeast USA.

INTRODUCTION: To examine the role of telehealth in diabetes care and management during versus pre-COVID-19 pandemic. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We included adults (≥18 years) with prevalent diabetes as of January 1, 2018, and continuously enrolled at Kaiser Permanente Georgia through December 31, 2021 (n=22,854). We defined pre (2018-2019) and during COVID-19 (2020-2021) periods. Logistic generalized estimating equations (GEEs) assessed the within-subject change in adherence to seven annual routine care processes (blood pressure (BP), hemoglobin A1C (HbA1c), cholesterol, creatinine, urine-albumin-creatinine ratio (UACR), eye and foot examinations) pre versus during COVID-19 among telehealth users (ie, more than one telehealth visit per year per period) and non-telehealth users. Linear GEE compared mean laboratory measurements pre versus during COVID-19 by telehealth use. RESULTS: The proportion of telehealth users increased from 38.7% (2018-2019) to 91.5% (2020-2021). During (vs pre) the pandemic, adherence to all care processes declined in telehealth (range: 1.6% for foot examinations to 12.4% for BP) and non-telehealth users (range: 1.9% for foot examinations to 40.7% for BP). In telehealth users, average HbA1c (mean difference: 0.4% (95% CI 0.2% to 0.6%), systolic BP (1.62 mm Hg (1.44 to 1.81)), and creatinine (0.03 mg/dL (0.02 to 0.04)), worsened during (vs pre) COVID-19, while low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol improved (-9.08 mg/dL (-9.77 to -8.39)). For UACR, odds of elevated risk of kidney disease increased by 48% (OR 1.48 (1.36-1.62)). Patterns were similar in non-telehealth users. CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth use increased during the pandemic and alleviated some of the observed declines in routine diabetes care and management.

Sex/Gender Disparities in Preemptive Referrals for Kidney Transplantation.

Introduction: Sex/gender inequities persist in access to kidney transplantation. Whether differences in preemptive referral (i.e., referral before dialysis start) explain this inequity remains unknown. Methods: All adults (aged 18-79 years; N = 44,204) initiating kidney replacement therapy (KRT; dialysis or transplant) in Georgia (GA), North Carolina (NC), or South Carolina (SC) between 2015 and 2019 were identified from the United States Renal Data System (USRDS). Individuals were linked to the Early Steps to Kidney Transplant Access Registry (E-STAR) to obtain data on preemptive referral and followed-up with through November 13, 2020, for outcomes of waitlisting and living donor transplant. Logistic regression assessed the association between sex/gender and likelihood of preemptive referral among all KRT patients. Cox-proportional hazards assessed the association between sex/gender and waitlisting or living donor among preemptively referred patients. Results: Overall, men and women were similarly likely to be preemptively referred (odds ratio [OR]: 0.99 [0.95-1.04]). Preemptively referred women (vs. men) were, on average, younger and with fewer comorbidities. There were no sex/gender differences in waitlisting once patients were preemptively referred (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.97 [0.91-1.03]); however, women (vs. men) who were preemptively referred remained 25% (HR: 0.75 [0.66-0.86]) less likely to receive a living donor transplant. Conclusion: In the Southeast US, men and women initiating KRT are similarly likely to be preemptively referred for a kidney transplant, and this appears, at least in part, to mitigate known sex/gender inequities in access to waitlisting, but not living donor transplant. Despite this, preemptively referred women, on average, had a more favorable medical profile relative to preemptively referred men.