Reducing the Risk of Delayed Colorectal Cancer Diagnoses Through an Ambulatory Safety Net Collaborative.

BACKGROUND: An estimated 12 million adults in the United States experience delayed diagnoses and other diagnostic errors annually. Ambulatory safety nets (ASNs) are an intervention to reduce delayed diagnoses by identifying patients with abnormal results overdue for follow-up using registries, workflow redesign, and patient navigation. The authors sought to co-design a collaborative and implement colorectal cancer (CRC) ASNs across various health care settings. METHODS: A working group was convened to co-design implementation guidance, measures, and the collaborative model. Collaborative sites were recruited through a medical professional liability insurance program and chose to begin with developing an ASN for positive at-home CRC screening or overdue surveillance colonoscopy. The 18-month Breakthrough Series Collaborative ran from January 2022 to July 2023, with sites continuing to collect data while sustaining their ASNs. Data were collected from sites monthly on patients in the ASN, including the proportion that was successfully contacted, scheduled, and completed a follow-up colonoscopy. RESULTS: Six sites participated; four had an operational ASN at the end of the Breakthrough Series, with the remaining sites launching three months later. From October 2022 through February 2024, the Collaborative ASNs collectively identified 5,165 patients from the registry as needing outreach. Among patients needing outreach, 3,555 (68.8%) were successfully contacted, 2,060 (39.9%) were scheduled for a colonoscopy, and 1,504 (29.1%) completed their colonoscopy. CONCLUSION: The Collaborative successfully identified patients with previously abnormal CRC screening and facilitated completion of follow-up testing. The CRC ASN Implementation Guide offers a comprehensive road map for health care leaders interested in implementing CRC ASNs.

Patients Contributing to Visit Notes: Mixed Methods Evaluation of OurNotes.

BACKGROUND: Secure patient portals are widely available, and patients use them to view their electronic health records, including their clinical notes. We conducted experiments asking them to cogenerate notes with their clinicians, an intervention called OurNotes. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess patient and provider experiences and attitudes after 12 months of a pilot intervention. METHODS: Before scheduled primary care visits, patients were asked to submit a word-constrained, unstructured interval history and an agenda for what they would like to discuss at the visit. Using site-specific methods, their providers were invited to incorporate the submissions into notes documenting the visits. Sites served urban, suburban, and rural patients in primary care practices in 4 academic health centers in Boston (Massachusetts), Lebanon (New Hampshire), Denver (Colorado), and Seattle (Washington). Each practice offered electronic access to visit notes (open notes) to its patients for several years. A mixed methods evaluation used tracking data and electronic survey responses from patients and clinicians. Participants were 174 providers and 1962 patients who submitted at least 1 previsit form. We asked providers about the usefulness of the submissions, effects on workflow, and ideas for the future. We asked patients about difficulties and benefits of providing the requested information and ideas for future improvements. RESULTS: Forms were submitted before 9.15% (5365/58,652) eligible visits, and 43.7% (76/174) providers and 26.76% (525/1962) patients responded to the postintervention evaluation surveys; 74 providers and 321 patients remembered receiving and completing the forms and answered the survey questions. Most clinicians thought interim patient histories (69/74, 93%) and patient agendas (72/74, 97%) as good ideas, 70% (52/74) usually or always incorporated them into visit notes, 54% (40/74) reported no change in visit length, and 35% (26/74) thought they saved time. Their most common suggestions related to improving notifications when patient forms were received, making it easier to find the form and insert it into the note, and educating patients about how best to prepare their submissions. Patient respondents were generally well educated, most found the history (259/321, 80.7%) and agenda (286/321, 89.1%) questions not difficult to answer; more than 92.2% (296/321) thought sending answers before the visit a good idea; 68.8% (221/321) thought the questions helped them prepare for the visit. Common suggestions by patients included learning to write better answers and wanting to know that their submissions were read by their clinicians. At the end of the pilot, all participating providers chose to continue the OurNotes previsit form, and sites considered expanding the intervention to more clinicians and adapting it for telemedicine visits. CONCLUSIONS: OurNotes interests patients, and providers experience it as a positive intervention. Participation by patients, care partners, clinicians, and electronic health record experts will facilitate further development.

Results of random drug testing in an adolescent substance abuse program.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to estimate from a random urine drug-testing program for adolescents the proportion of drug tests that are susceptible to interpretation errors. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a clinical database and chart review from an adolescent outpatient substance abuse program at a large children's hospital. We analyzed from 110 adolescent patients (13-21 years of age) all 710 urine drug test results that were collected between December 2002 and July 2005 and 85 original laboratory reports for tests that were collected between December 2002 and May 2006 and were confirmed positive for opioids. We calculated the percentage of tests that were too dilute to interpret (potential false-negatives) and the percentage of confirmed positive tests for oxycodone that did not result in a positive initial screen (potential false-negatives). We also reviewed clinical information to determine whether confirmed positive tests resulted from legitimate use of prescription or over-the-counter medication (potential false-positives). RESULTS: Of 710 drug tests, 40 negative tests were too dilute to interpret properly, and 45 of 217 positive tests resulted from prescription medication use for a total of 85 tests that were susceptible to error. Of the 85 confirmatory laboratory reports reviewed, 43 were positive for oxycodone, but only 16 of these had produced a positive opiate screen. CONCLUSIONS: Unless proper procedures are used in collecting, analyzing, and interpreting laboratory testing for drugs, there is a substantial risk for error.