Trends in Chiropractic Care and Physical Rehabilitation Use Among Adults with Low Back Pain in the United States, 2002 to 2018.

BACKGROUND: While nonpharmacologic treatments are increasingly endorsed as first-line therapy for low back pain (LBP) in clinical practice guidelines, it is unclear if use of these treatments is increasing or equitable. OBJECTIVE: Examine national trends in chiropractic care and physical rehabilitation (occupational/physical therapy (OT/PT)) use among adults with LBP. DESIGN/SETTING: Serial cross-sectional analysis of the National Health Interview Survey, 2002 to 2018. PARTICIPANTS: 146,087 adults reporting LBP in prior 3 months. METHODS: We evaluated the association of survey year with chiropractic care or OT/PT use in prior 12 months. Logistic regression with multilevel linear splines was used to determine if chiropractic care or OT/PT use increased after the introduction of clinical guidelines. We also examined trends in use by age, sex, race, and ethnicity. When trends were similar over time, we present differences by these demographic characteristics as unadjusted ORs using data from all respondents. RESULTS: Between 2002 and 2018, less than one-third of adults with LBP reported use of either chiropractic care or OT/PT. Rates did not change until 2016 when uptake increased with the introduction of clinical guidelines (2016-2018 vs 2002-2015, OR = 1.15; 95% CI: 1.10-1.19). Trends did not differ significantly by sex, race, or ethnicity (p for interactions > 0.05). Racial and ethnic disparities in chiropractic care or OT/PT use were identified and persisted over time. For example, compared to non-Hispanic adults, either chiropractic care or OT/PT use was lower among Hispanic adults (combined OR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.65-0.73). By contrast, compared to White adults, Black adults had similar OT/PT use (OR = 0.98; 95% CI: 0.94-1.03) but lower for chiropractic care use (OR = 0.50; 95% CI: 0.47-0.53). CONCLUSIONS: Although use of chiropractic care or OT/PT for LBP increased after the introduction of clinical guidelines in 2016, only about a third of US adults with LBP reported using these services between 2016 and 2018 and disparities in use have not improved.

Association Between Clinician Confidence and Making Guideline-Recommended Decisions in the Management of Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Results.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for managing abnormal cervical cancer screening results are complex and adherence is challenging for clinicians. Previous studies have identified gaps in knowledge as a possible cause; few have explored the confidence clinicians have in their management decisions. Confidence in decision-making may influence management practices, particularly when guidelines are complex and evolving. OBJECTIVE: Assess whether confidence in decision-making is associated with making guideline-concordant recommendations for abnormal cervical cancer screening results. DESIGN: A clinician survey used vignettes to ask clinicians to make a management recommendation for different abnormal results and rate their level of confidence in their response. PARTICIPANTS: Physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) at three diverse health systems in Washington, Texas, and Massachusetts. MAIN MEASURES: Correct response to each vignette based on either the 2012 or 2019 American Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology (ASCCP) management guidelines. KEY RESULTS: In total, 501 clinicians completed the survey between October and December 2020 (response rate 53.7%). Overall, most clinicians made guideline-recommended management decisions for two vignettes (73.2 and 73.7%), but fewer were confident in their selection (48.3% and 46.6%, respectively). Clinicians who reported high levels of confidence were more often correct than those who reported lower levels of confidence (85.8% vs. 62.2% and 87.5% vs. 60.7%, both p<0.001). After adjusting for clinician and practice characteristics, confidence remained significantly associated with selecting the correct answer. CONCLUSIONS: Clinician confidence in management decisions for abnormal cervical cancer screening results was significantly associated with knowing guideline-concordant recommendations. Given the complexity of cervical cancer management guidelines, solutions to improve clinician confidence in decision-making are needed.

Screening for Atrial Fibrillation in Older Adults at Primary Care Visits: VITAL-AF Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Undiagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF) may cause preventable strokes. Guidelines differ regarding AF screening recommendations. We tested whether point-of-care screening with a handheld single-lead ECG at primary care practice visits increases diagnoses of AF. METHODS: We randomized 16 primary care clinics 1:1 to AF screening using a handheld single-lead ECG (AliveCor KardiaMobile) during vital sign assessments, or usual care. Patients included were ages ≥65 years. Screening results were provided to primary care clinicians at the encounter. All confirmatory diagnostic testing and treatment decisions were made by the primary care clinician. New AF diagnoses during the 1-year follow-up were ascertained electronically and manually adjudicated. Proportions and incidence rates were calculated. Effect heterogeneity was assessed. RESULTS: Of 30 715 patients without prevalent AF (n=15 393 screening [91% screened], n=15 322 control), 1.72% of individuals in the screening group had new AF diagnosed at 1 year versus 1.59% in the control group (risk difference, 0.13% [95% CI, -0.16 to 0.42]; P=0.38). In prespecified subgroup analyses, new AF diagnoses in the screening and control groups were greater among those aged ≥85 years (5.56% versus 3.76%, respectively; risk difference, 1.80% [95% CI, 0.18 to 3.30]). The difference in newly diagnosed AF between the screening period and the previous year was marginally greater in the screening versus control group (0.32% versus -0.12%; risk difference, 0.43% [95% CI, -0.01 to 0.84]). The proportion of individuals with newly diagnosed AF who were initiated on oral anticoagulants was not different in the screening (n=194, 73.5%) and control (n=172, 70.8%) arms (risk difference, 2.7% [95% CI, -5.5 to 10.4]). CONCLUSIONS: Screening for AF using a single-lead ECG at primary care visits did not affect new AF diagnoses among all individuals aged 65 years or older compared with usual care. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT03515057.

Detection of Atrial Fibrillation in a Large Population Using Wearable Devices: The Fitbit Heart Study.

BACKGROUND: Morbidity from undiagnosed atrial fibrillation (AF) may be preventable with early detection. Many consumer wearables contain optical photoplethysmography (PPG) sensors to measure pulse rate. PPG-based software algorithms that detect irregular heart rhythms may identify undiagnosed AF in large populations using wearables, but minimizing false-positive detections is essential. METHODS: We performed a prospective remote clinical trial to examine a novel PPG-based algorithm for detecting undiagnosed AF from a range of wrist-worn devices. Adults aged ≥22 years in the United States without AF, using compatible wearable Fitbit devices and Android or iOS smartphones, were included. PPG data were analyzed using a novel algorithm that examines overlapping 5-minute pulse windows (tachograms). Eligible participants with an irregular heart rhythm detection (IHRD), defined as 11 consecutive irregular tachograms, were invited to schedule a telehealth visit and were mailed a 1-week ambulatory ECG patch monitor. The primary outcome was the positive predictive value of the first IHRD during ECG patch monitoring for concurrent AF. RESULTS: A total of 455 699 participants enrolled (median age 47 years, 71% female, 73% White) between May 6 and October 1, 2020. IHRDs occurred for 4728 (1%) participants, and 2070 (4%) participants aged ≥65 years during a median of 122 (interquartile range, 110-134) days at risk for an IHRD. Among 1057 participants with an IHRD notification and subsequent analyzable ECG patch monitor, AF was present in 340 (32.2%). Of the 225 participants with another IHRD during ECG patch monitoring, 221 had concurrent AF on the ECG and 4 did not, resulting in an IHRD positive predictive value of 98.2% (95% CI, 95.5%-99.5%). For participants aged ≥65 years, the IHRD positive predictive value was 97.0% (95% CI, 91.4%-99.4%). CONCLUSIONS: A novel PPG software algorithm for wearable Fitbit devices exhibited a high positive predictive value for concurrent AF and identified participants likely to have AF on subsequent ECG patch monitoring. Wearable devices may facilitate identifying individuals with undiagnosed AF. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04380415.

Accuracy and variability of cardiologist interpretation of single lead electrocardiograms for atrial fibrillation: The VITAL-AF trial.

BACKGROUND: Screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) using consumer-based devices capable of producing a single lead electrocardiogram (1L ECG) is increasing. There are limited data on the accuracy of physician interpretation of these tracings. The goal of this study is to assess the sensitivity, specificity, confidence, and variability of cardiologist interpretation of point-of-care 1L ECGs. METHODS: Fifteen cardiologists reviewed point-of-care handheld 1L ECGs collected from patients aged 65 years or older enrolled in the VITAL-AF clinical trial [NCT035115057] who underwent cardiac rhythm assessments with a 1L ECG using an AliveCor KardiaMobile device. Random sampling of 1L ECGs for cardiologist review was stratified by the AliveCor algorithm interpretation. A 12L ECG performed on the same day for clinical purposes was used as the gold standard. Cardiologists each reviewed a common sample of 200 1L ECG tracings and completed a survey associated with each tracing. Cardiologists were blinded to both the AliveCor algorithm and same day 12L ECG interpretation. For each tracing, study cardiologists were asked to assess the rhythm (sinus rhythm, AF, unclassifiable), report their assessment of the quality of the tracing, and rate their confidence in rhythm interpretation. The outcomes included the sensitivity, specificity, variability, and confidence in physician interpretation. Variables associated with each measure were identified using multivariable regression. RESULTS: The average sensitivity for AF was 77.4% (range 50%-90.6%, standard deviation [SD]=11.4%) and the average specificity was 73.0% (range 41.3%-94.6%, SD = 15.4%). The mean variability was 30.8% (range 0%-76.2%, SD = 23.2%). The average reviewer confidence of 1L ECG rhythm assessment was 3.6 out of 5 (range 2.5-4.2, SD = 0.6). Patient and tracing factors associated with sensitivity, specificity, variability, and confidence were identified and included age, body mass index, and presence of artifact. CONCLUSION: Cardiologist interpretation of point-of-care handheld 1L ECGs has modest diagnostic sensitivity and specificity with substantial variability for AF classification despite high confidence. Variability in cardiologist interpretation of 1L ECGs highlights the importance of confirmatory testing for diagnosing AF.

Promoting Informed Decisions About Colorectal Cancer Screening in Older Adults (PRIMED Study): a Physician Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: For adults aged 76-85, guidelines recommend individualizing decision-making about whether to continue colorectal cancer (CRC) testing. These conversations can be challenging as they need to consider a patient's CRC risk, life expectancy, and preferences. OBJECTIVE: To promote shared decision-making (SDM) for CRC testing decisions for older adults. DESIGN: Two-arm, multi-site cluster randomized trial, assigning physicians to Intervention and Comparator arms. Patients were surveyed shortly after the visit to assess outcomes. Analyses were intention-to-treat. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Primary care physicians affiliated with 5 academic and community hospital networks and their patients aged 76-85 who were due for CRC testing and had a visit during the study period. INTERVENTIONS: Intervention arm physicians completed a 2-h online course in SDM communication skills and received an electronic reminder of patients eligible for CRC testing shortly before the visit. Comparator arm received reminders only. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was patient-reported SDM Process score (range 0-4 with higher scores indicating more SDM); secondary outcomes included patient-reported discussion of CRC screening, knowledge, intention, and satisfaction with the visit. KEY RESULTS: Sixty-seven physicians (Intervention n=34 and Comparator n=33) enrolled. Patient participants (n=466) were on average 79 years old, 50% with excellent or very good self-rated overall health, and 66% had one or more prior colonoscopies. Patients in the Intervention arm had higher SDM Process scores (adjusted mean difference 0.36 (95%CI (0.08, 0.64), p=0.01) than in the Comparator arm. More patients in the Intervention arm reported discussing CRC screening during the visit (72% vs. 60%, p=0.03) and had higher intention to follow through with their preferred approach (58.0% vs. 47.1, p=0.03). Knowledge scores and visit satisfaction did not differ significantly between arms. CONCLUSION: Physician training plus reminders were effective in increasing SDM and frequency of CRC testing discussions in an age group where SDM is essential. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03959696).

Cost-Effectiveness of Nadofaragene Firadenovec and Pembrolizumab in Bacillus Calmette-Guérin Immunotherapy Unresponsive Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Nadofaragene firadenovec is a gene therapy for bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG)-unresponsive non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) undergoing Food and Drug Administration review. Pembrolizumab is approved for treating patients with BCG-unresponsive NMIBC with carcinoma in situ (CIS). We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of these treatments compared with a hypothetical therapeutic alternative, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, in CIS and non-CIS BCG-unresponsive NMIBC populations. METHODS: We developed a Markov cohort simulation model with a 3-month cycle length and lifetime horizon to estimate the total costs, QALYs, and cost per additional QALY from the health sector perspective. Clinical inputs were informed by results of single-arm clinical trials evaluating the treatments, and systematic literature reviews were conducted to obtain other model inputs. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty in model results. RESULTS: Nadofaragene firadenovec, at a placeholder price 10% higher than the price of pembrolizumab, had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $263 000 and $145 000 per QALY gained in CIS and non-CIS populations, respectively. Pembrolizumab had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $168 000 per QALY gained for CIS. A 5.4% reduction in pembrolizumab's price would make it cost-effective. The model was sensitive to many inputs, especially to the probabilities of disease progression, initial treatment response and durability, and drug price. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness of nadofaragene firadenovec will depend upon its price. Pembrolizumab, although not cost-effective in our base-case analysis, is an important alternative in this population with an unmet medical need. Comparative trials of these treatments are warranted to better estimate cost-effectiveness.

A Multilevel Primary Care Intervention to Improve Follow-Up of Overdue Abnormal Cancer Screening Test Results: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Realizing the benefits of cancer screening requires testing of eligible individuals and processes to ensure follow-up of abnormal results. Objective: To test interventions to improve timely follow-up of overdue abnormal breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening results. Design, Setting, and Participants: Pragmatic, cluster randomized clinical trial conducted at 44 primary care practices within 3 health networks in the US enrolling patients with at least 1 abnormal cancer screening test result not yet followed up between August 24, 2020, and December 13, 2021. Intervention: Automated algorithms developed using data from electronic health records (EHRs) recommended follow-up actions and times for abnormal screening results. Primary care practices were randomized in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to (1) usual care, (2) EHR reminders, (3) EHR reminders and outreach (a patient letter was sent at week 2 and a phone call at week 4), or (4) EHR reminders, outreach, and navigation (a patient letter was sent at week 2 and a navigator outreach phone call at week 4). Patients, physicians, and practices were unblinded to treatment assignment. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was completion of recommended follow-up within 120 days of study enrollment. The secondary outcomes included completion of recommended follow-up within 240 days of enrollment and completion of recommended follow-up within 120 days and 240 days for specific cancer types and levels of risk. Results: Among 11 980 patients (median age, 60 years [IQR, 52-69 years]; 64.8% were women; 83.3% were White; and 15.4% were insured through Medicaid) with an abnormal cancer screening test result for colorectal cancer (8245 patients [69%]), cervical cancer (2596 patients [22%]), breast cancer (1005 patients [8%]), or lung cancer (134 patients [1%]) and abnormal test results categorized as low risk (6082 patients [51%]), medium risk (3712 patients [31%]), or high risk (2186 patients [18%]), the adjusted proportion who completed recommended follow-up within 120 days was 31.4% in the EHR reminders, outreach, and navigation group (n = 3455), 31.0% in the EHR reminders and outreach group (n = 2569), 22.7% in the EHR reminders group (n = 3254), and 22.9% in the usual care group (n = 2702) (adjusted absolute difference for comparison of EHR reminders, outreach, and navigation group vs usual care, 8.5% [95% CI, 4.8%-12.0%], P < .001). The secondary outcomes showed similar results for completion of recommended follow-up within 240 days and by subgroups for cancer type and level of risk for the abnormal screening result. Conclusions and Relevance: A multilevel primary care intervention that included EHR reminders and patient outreach with or without patient navigation improved timely follow-up of overdue abnormal cancer screening test results for breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03979495.

ReducinG stroke by screening for UndiAgnosed atRial fibrillation in elderly inDividuals (GUARD-AF): Rationale and design of the GUARD-AF randomized trial of screening for atrial fibrillation with a 14-day patch-based continuous ECG monitor.

BACKGROUND: Screening for atrial fibrillation (AF) is attractive because AF independently raises the risk of ischemic stroke, this risk is largely reversible by long-term oral anticoagulant therapy (OAC), and many patients with AF remain undiagnosed and untreated. Recent trials of one-time brief screening for AF have not produced a significant increase in the proportion of patients diagnosed with AF. Trials of longer-term screening have demonstrated an increase in AF diagnoses, primarily paroxysmal AF. To date, however, no trials have demonstrated that screening for AF results in lower rates of stroke. Clinical practice guidelines conflict in their level of support for screening for AF. METHODS: The GUARD-AF individually randomized trial is designed to test whether screening for AF in individuals age 70 years or greater using a 2-week single-lead electrocardiographic patch monitor can identify patients with undiagnosed AF and lead to treatment with OAC, resulting in a reduced rate of stroke in the screened population. The trial's efficacy end point is hospitalization for stroke (either ischemic or hemorrhagic) and the trial's safety end point is hospitalization for a bleeding event. End points will be ascertained via Medicare claims or electronic health records at 2.5 years after study start. Enrollment is based in primary care practices and the OAC decision for screen-detected cases is left to the patient and their physician. The initial planned target sample size was 52,000, with 26,000 allocated to either screening or to usual care. RESULTS: Trial enrollment was severely hampered by the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and stopped at a total enrollment of 11,931 participants. Of 5,965 randomized to the screening arm, 5,713 patients (96%) returned monitors with analyzable results. Incidence of screen-detected and clinically detected AF and associated stroke and bleeding outcomes will be ascertained. CONCLUSIONS: GUARD-AF is the largest AF screening randomized trial using a longer-term patch-based continuous electrocardiographic monitor. The results will contribute important information on the yield of patch-based AF screening, the "burden" of AF detected (percent time in AF, longest episode), and physicians' OAC decisions as a function of AF burden. GUARD-AF's stroke and bleed results will contribute to pooled trial analyses of AF screening, thereby informing future studies and guidelines.

Variation in the receipt of human papilloma virus co-testing for cervical screening: Individual, provider, facility and healthcare system characteristics.

Since 2012, cervical cancer screening guidelines allow for choice of screening test for women age 30-65 years (i.e., Pap every 3 years or Pap with human papillomavirus co-testing every 5 years). Intended to give patients and providers options, this flexibility reflects a trend in the growing complexity of screening guidelines. Our objective was to characterize variation in cervical screening at the individual, provider, clinic/facility, and healthcare system levels. The analysis included 296,924 individuals receiving screening from 3626 providers at 136 clinics/facilities in three healthcare systems, 2010 to 2017. Main outcome was receipt of co-testing vs. Pap alone. Co-testing was more common in one healthcare system before the 2012 guidelines (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) of co-testing at the other systems relative to this system 0.00 and 0.50) but was increasingly implemented over time in a second with declining uptake in the third (2017: AORs shifted to 7.32 and 0.01). Despite system-level differences, there was greater heterogeneity in receipt of co-testing associated with providers than clinics/facilities. In the three healthcare systems, providers in the highest quartile of co-testing use had an 8.35, 8.81, and 25.05-times greater odds of providing a co-test to women with the same characteristics relative to the lowest quartile. Similarly, clinics/ facilities in the highest quartile of co-testing use had a 4.20, 3.14, and 6.56-times greater odds of providing a co-test relative to the lowest quartile. Variation in screening test use is associated with health system, provider, and clinic/facility levels even after accounting for patient characteristics.

Automated Electronic Phenotyping of Cardioembolic Stroke.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Oral anticoagulation is generally indicated for cardioembolic strokes, but not for other stroke causes. Consequently, subtype classification of ischemic stroke is important for risk stratification and secondary prevention. Because manual classification of ischemic stroke is time-intensive, we assessed the accuracy of automated algorithms for performing cardioembolic stroke subtyping using an electronic health record (EHR) database. METHODS: We adapted TOAST (Trial of ORG 10172 in Acute Stroke Treatment) features associated with cardioembolic stroke for derivation in the EHR. Using administrative codes and echocardiographic reports within Mass General Brigham Biobank (N=13 079), we iteratively developed EHR-based algorithms to define the TOAST cardioembolic stroke features, revising regular expression algorithms until achieving positive predictive value ≥80%. We compared several machine learning-based statistical algorithms for discriminating cardioembolic stroke using the feature algorithms applied to EHR data from 1598 patients with acute ischemic strokes from the Massachusetts General Hospital Ischemic Stroke Registry (2002-2010) with previously adjudicated TOAST and Causative Classification of Stroke subtypes. RESULTS: Regular expression-based feature extraction algorithms achieved a mean positive predictive value of 95% (range, 88%-100%) across 11 echocardiographic features. Among 1598 patients from the Massachusetts General Hospital Ischemic Stroke Registry, 1068 had any cardioembolic stroke feature within predefined time windows in proximity to the stroke event. Cardioembolic stroke tended to occur at an older age, with more TOAST-based comorbidities, and with atrial fibrillation (82.3%). The best model was a random forest with 92.2% accuracy and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 91.1% (95% CI, 87.5%-93.9%). Atrial fibrillation, age, dilated cardiomyopathy, congestive heart failure, patent foramen ovale, mitral annulus calcification, and recent myocardial infarction were the most discriminatory features. CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning-based identification of cardioembolic stroke using EHR data is feasible. Future work is needed to improve the accuracy of automated cardioembolic stroke identification and assess generalizability of electronic phenotyping algorithms across clinical settings.

Rationale and design of a large population study to validate software for the assessment of atrial fibrillation from data acquired by a consumer tracker or smartwatch: The Fitbit heart study.

BACKGROUND: Early detection of atrial fibrillation or flutter (AF) may enable prevention of downstream morbidity. Consumer wrist-worn wearable technology is capable of detecting AF by identifying irregular pulse waveforms using photoplethysmography (PPG). The validity of PPG-based software algorithms for AF detection requires prospective assessment. METHODS: The Fitbit Heart Study (NCT04380415) is a single-arm remote clinical trial examining the validity of a novel PPG-based software algorithm for detecting AF. The proprietary Fitbit algorithm examines pulse waveform intervals during analyzable periods in which participants are sufficiently stationary. Fitbit consumers with compatible wrist-worn trackers or smartwatches were invited to participate. Enrollment began May 6, 2020 and as of October 1, 2020, 455,699 participants enrolled. Participants in whom an irregular heart rhythm was detected were invited to attend a telehealth visit and eligible participants were then mailed a one-week single lead electrocardiographic (ECG) patch monitor. The primary study objective is to assess the positive predictive value of an irregular heart rhythm detection for AF during the ECG patch monitor period. Additional objectives will examine the validity of irregular pulse tachograms during subsequent heart rhythm detections, self-reported AF diagnoses and treatments, and relations between irregular heart rhythm detections and AF episode duration and time spent in AF. CONCLUSIONS: The Fitbit Heart Study is a large-scale remote clinical trial comprising a unique software algorithm for detection of AF. The study results will provide critical insights into the use of consumer wearable technology for AF detection, and for characterizing the nature of AF episodes detected using consumer-based PPG technology.

Assessing the quality of shared decision making for elective orthopedic surgery across a large healthcare system: cross-sectional survey study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines recommend engaging patients in shared decision making for common orthopedic procedures; however, limited work has assessed what is occurring in practice. This study assessed the quality of shared decision making for elective hip and knee replacement and spine surgery at four network-affiliated hospitals. METHODS: A cross-sectional sample of 875 adult patients undergoing total hip or knee joint replacement (TJR) for osteoarthritis or spine surgery for lumbar herniated disc or lumbar spinal stenosis was selected. Patients were mailed a survey including measures of Shared Decision Making (SDMP scale) and Informed, Patient-Centered (IPC) decisions. We examined decision-making across sites, surgeons, and conditions, and whether the decision-making measures were associated with better health outcomes. Analyses were adjusted for clustering of patients within surgeons. RESULTS: Six hundred forty-six surveys (74% response rate) were returned with sufficient responses for analysis. Patients who had TJR reported lower SDMP scores than patients who had spine surgery (2.2 vs. 2.8; p < 0.001). Patients who had TJR were more likely to make IPC decisions (OA = 70%, Spine = 41%; p < 0.001). SDMP and IPC scores varied widely across surgeons, but the site was not predictive of SDMP scores or IPC decisions (all p > 0.09). Higher SDMP scores and IPC decisions were associated with larger improvements in global health outcomes for patients who had TJR, but not patients who had spine surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Measures of shared decision making and decision quality varied among patients undergoing common elective orthopedic procedures. Routine measurement of shared decision making provides insight into areas of strength across these different orthopedic conditions as well as areas in need of improvement.

Validation of an electronic coding algorithm to identify the primary indication of orthopedic surgeries from administrative data.

BACKGROUND: Determining the primary indication of a surgical procedure can be useful in identifying patients undergoing elective surgery where shared decision-making is recommended. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate an algorithm to identify patients receiving the following combinations of surgical procedure and primary indication as part of a study to promote shared decision-making: (1) knee arthroplasty to treat knee osteoarthritis (KOA); (2) hip arthroplasty to treat hip osteoarthritis (HOA); (3) spinal surgery to treat lumbar spinal stenosis (SpS); and (4) spinal surgery to treat lumbar herniated disc (HD). METHODS: Consecutive surgical procedures performed by participating spine, hip, and knee surgeons at four sites within an integrated care network were included. Study staff reviewed electronic medical records to ascertain a "gold standard" determination of the procedure and primary indication status. Electronic algorithms consisting of ICD-10 and CPT codes for each combination of procedure and indication were then applied to records for each case. The primary measures of validity for the algorithms were the sensitivity and specificity relative to the gold standard review. RESULTS: Participating surgeons performed 790 procedures included in this study. The sensitivity of the algorithms in determining whether a surgical case represented one of the combinations of procedure and primary indication ranged from 0.70 (HD) to 0.92 (KOA). The specificity ranged from 0.94 (SpS) to 0.99 (HOA, KOA). CONCLUSION: The electronic algorithm was able to identify all four procedure/primary indication combinations of interest with high specificity. Additionally, the sensitivity for the KOA cases was reasonably high. For HOA and the spine conditions, additional work is needed to improve the sensitivity of the algorithm to identify the primary indication for each case.

Colorectal Cancer Screening Patient Navigation for Patients with Mental Illness and/or Substance Use Disorder: Pilot Randomized Control Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second leading cause of cancer death in the US. Screening has decreased CRC mortality. However, disadvantaged patients, particularly those with mental illness or substance use disorder (SUD), are less likely to be screened. The aim of this trial was to evaluate the impact of a patient navigation program on CRC screening in patients with mental illness and/or SUD. METHODS: A pilot randomized nonblinded controlled trial was conducted from January to June 2017 in an urban community health center serving a low-income population. We randomized 251 patients aged 50-74 years with mental illness and/or SUD diagnosis overdue for CRC screening to intervention (n = 126) or usual care (n = 125) stratified by mental illness, SUD, or dual diagnosis. Intervention group patients received a letter followed by a phone call from patient navigators. Navigators helped patients overcome their individual barriers to CRC screening including: education, scheduling, explanation of bowel preparation, lack of transportation or accompaniment to appointments. If patient refused colonoscopy, navigators offered fecal occult blood testing. The main measure was proportion of patients completing CRC screening in intervention and usual care groups. RESULTS: Navigators contacted 85 patients (67%) in the intervention group and 26 declined to participate. In intention-to treat analysis, more patients in the intervention group received CRC screening than in the usual care group, 19% versus 10.4% (p = .04). Among 56 intervention patients who received navigation, 19 completed screening (33.9% versus 10.4% in the control group, p = .001). In the subgroup of patients with SUD, 20% in the intervention group were screened compared to none in the usual care group (p = .05). CONCLUSIONS: A patient navigation program improved CRC screening rates in patients with mental illness and/or SUD. Larger studies in diverse care settings are needed to demonstrate generalizability and explore which modality of CRC screening is most acceptable and which navigator activities are most effective for this vulnerable population. TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER: 2016P001322.

Design and rationale of a pragmatic trial integrating routine screening for atrial fibrillation at primary care visits: The VITAL-AF trial.

Given the preventable morbidity and mortality associated with atrial fibrillation (AF), increased awareness of undiagnosed AF, and advances in mobile electrocardiogram (ECG) technology, there is a critical need to assess the effectiveness of using such technology to routinely screen for AF in clinical practice. VITAL-AF is a pragmatic trial that will test whether screening for AF using a single-lead handheld ECG in individuals 65 years or older during primary care visits will lead to an increased rate of AF detection. The study is a cluster-randomized trial, with 8 primary care practices randomized to AF screening and 8 primary care practices randomized to usual care. We anticipate studying approximately 16,000 patients in each arm. During the 1-year enrollment period, practice medical assistants will screen eligible patients who agree to participate during office visits using a single-lead ECG device. Automated screening results are documented in the electronic health record, and patients can discuss screening results with their provider during the scheduled visit. All single-lead ECGs are overread by a cardiologist. Screen-detected AF is managed at the discretion of the patient's physician. The primary study end point is incident AF during the screening period. Key secondary outcomes include new oral anticoagulation prescriptions, incident ischemic stroke, and major hemorrhage during a 24-month period following the study start. Outcomes are ascertained based on electronic health record documentation and are manually adjudicated. The results of this pragmatic trial may help identify a model for widespread adoption of AF screening as part of routine clinical practice.

Disparities in Quality of Primary Care by Resident and Staff Physicians: Is There a Conflict Between Training and Equity?

BACKGROUND: Outpatient primary care experience is vital to internal medicine resident training but may impact quality and equity of care delivered in practices that include resident physicians. Understanding whether quality differences exist among resident and staff primary care physicians (PCPs) may present an opportunity to address health disparities within academic medical centers. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there are differences in the quality of primary care provided by resident PCPs compared to staff PCPs. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study with a propensity-matched analysis. PARTICIPANTS: 143,274 patients, including 10,870 patients managed by resident PCPs, seen in 16 primary care practices affiliated with an academic medical center. MAIN MEASURES: Guideline-concordant chronic disease management of diabetes (HbA1c, LDL) and coronary artery disease (LDL), preventive breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening, and resource utilization measures including emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, high-cost imaging, and patient-reported health experience. KEY RESULTS: At baseline, there were significant differences in sociodemographic and clinical characteristics between resident and staff physician patients. Resident patients were less likely to achieve chronic disease and preventive cancer screening outcome measures including LDL at goal (adjusted OR [aOR] 0.77 [95% CI 0.65, 0.92]) for patients with coronary artery disease; HbA1c at goal (aOR 0.73 [95% CI 0.62, 0.85]) for patients with diabetes; breast (aOR 0.56 [95% CI 0.49, 0.63]), cervical (aOR 0.66 [95% CI 0.60, 0.74]), and colorectal (aOR 0.72 [95% CI 0.65, 0.79] cancer screening. Additionally, resident patients had higher rates of ED visits and hospitalizations but lower rates of high-cost imaging. Resident patients reported lower rates of satisfaction with certain access to care and communication measures. Similar outcomes were noted in propensity-matched sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: After controlling for differences in sociodemographic and clinical factors, resident patients were less likely to achieve chronic disease and preventive cancer screening outcomes compared to staff patients. Further efforts to address ambulatory trainee education and primary care quality along with novel approaches to the management of the disproportionately disadvantaged resident patient panels are needed.

Impact of a Population Health Management Intervention on Disparities in Cardiovascular Disease Control.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems use population health management programs to improve the quality of cardiovascular disease care. Adding a dedicated population health coordinator (PHC) who identifies and reaches out to patients not meeting cardiovascular care goals to these programs may help reduce disparities in cardiovascular care. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a program that used PHCs decreased racial/ethnic disparities in LDL cholesterol and blood pressure (BP) control. DESIGN: Retrospective difference-in-difference analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Twelve thousdand five hundred fifty-five primary care patients with cardiovascular disease (cohort for LDL analysis) and 41,183 with hypertension (cohort for BP analysis). INTERVENTION: From July 1, 2014-December 31, 2014, 18 practices used an information technology (IT) system to identify patients not meeting LDL and BP goals; 8 practices also received a PHC. We examined whether having the PHC plus IT system, compared with having the IT system alone, decreased racial/ethnic disparities, using difference-in-difference analysis of data collected before and after program implementation. MAIN MEASURES: Meeting guideline concordant LDL and BP goals. KEY RESULTS: At baseline, there were racial/ethnic disparities in meeting LDL (p = 0.007) and BP (p = 0.0003) goals. Comparing practices with and without a PHC, and accounting for pre-intervention LDL control, non-Hispanic white patients in PHC practices had improved odds of LDL control (OR 1.20 95% CI 1.09-1.32) compared with those in non-PHC practices. Non-Hispanic black (OR 1.15 95% CI 0.80-1.65) and Hispanic (OR 1.29 95% CI 0.66-2.53) patients saw similar, but non-significant, improvements in LDL control. For BP control, non-Hispanic white patients in PHC practices (versus non-PHC) improved (OR 1.13 95% CI 1.05-1.22). Non-Hispanic black patients (OR 1.17 95% CI 0.94-1.45) saw similar, but non-statistically significant, improvements in BP control, but Hispanic (OR 0.90 95% CI 0.59-1.36) patients did not. Interaction testing confirmed that disparities did not decrease (p = 0.73 for LDL and p = 0.69 for BP). CONCLUSIONS: The population health management intervention did not decrease disparities. Further efforts should explicitly target improving both healthcare equity and quality. Clinical Trials #: NCT02812303 ( ClinicalTrials.gov ).

Electronic physician notifications to improve guideline-based anticoagulation in atrial fibrillation: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Oral anticoagulants reduce the risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. However, many patients with atrial fibrillation at elevated stroke risk are not treated with oral anticoagulants. OBJECTIVE: To test whether electronic notifications sent to primary care physicians increase the proportion of ambulatory patients prescribed oral anticoagulants. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial conducted from February to May 2017 within 18 practices in an academic primary care network. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care physicians (n = 175) and their patients with atrial fibrillation, at elevated stroke risk, and not prescribed oral anticoagulants. INTERVENTION: Patients of each physician were randomized to the notification or usual care arm. Physicians received baseline email notifications and up to three reminders with patient information, educational material and primary care guidelines for anticoagulation management, and surveys in the notification arm. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients prescribed oral anticoagulants at 3 months in the notification (n = 972) vs. usual care (n = 1364) arms, compared using logistic regression with clustering by physician. Secondary measures included survey-based physician assessment of reasons why patients were not prescribed oral anticoagulants and how primary care physicians might be influenced by the notification. KEY RESULTS: Over 3 months, a small proportion of patients were newly prescribed oral anticoagulants with no significant difference in the notification (3.9%, 95% CI 2.8-5.3%) and usual care (3.2%, 95% CI 2.4-4.2%) arms (p = 0.37). The most common, non-exclusive reasons why patients were not on oral anticoagulants included atrial fibrillation was transient (30%) or paroxysmal (12%), patient/family declined (22%), high bleeding risk (20%), fall risk (19%), and frailty (10%). For 95% of patients, physicians stated they would not change their management after reviewing the alert. CONCLUSIONS: Electronic physician notification did not increase anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation at elevated stroke risk. Primary care physicians did not prescribe anticoagulants because they perceived the bleeding risk was too high or stroke risk was too low. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02950285.