Low Back Imaging When Not Indicated: A Descriptive Cross-System Analysis.

CONTEXT: Guideline-discordant imaging to evaluate incident low back pain is common. OBJECTIVE: We compared rates of guideline-discordant imaging in patients with low back pain in two care delivery systems with differing abilities to track care through an electronic health record (EHR), and in their patients' insurance status, to measure the association between these factors and rates of ordered low back imaging. DESIGN: We used data from two Kaiser Permanente (KP) Regions and from OCHIN, a community health center network. We extracted data on imaging performed after index visits for low back pain from June 1, 2011, to May 31, 2012, in these systems. Adjusted logistic regression measured associations between system-level factors and imaging rates. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Imaging rates for incident low back pain using 2 national quality metrics: Clinical Quality Measure 0052, a measure for assessing Meaningful Use of EHRs, and the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set measure "Use of Imaging Studies for Low Back Pain." RESULTS: Among 19,503 KP patients and 2694 OCHIN patients with incident low back pain, ordered imaging was higher among men and whites but did not differ across health care systems. OCHIN's publicly insured patients had higher rates of imaging compared with those with private or no insurance. CONCLUSION: Rates of ordered imaging to evaluate incident low back pain among uninsured OCHIN patients were lower than in KP overall; among insured OCHIN patients, rates were higher than in KP overall. Research is needed to establish causality and develop interventions.

Lessons Learned from Developing a Patient Engagement Panel: An OCHIN Report.

There is renewed interest in patient engagement in clinical and research settings, creating a need for documenting and publishing lessons learned from efforts to meaningfully engage patients. This article describes early lessons learned from the development of OCHIN's Patient Engagement Panel (PEP). OCHIN supports a national network of more than 300 community health centers (CHCs) and other primary care settings that serve over 1.5 million patients annually across nearly 20 states. The PEP was conceived in 2009 to harness the CHC tradition of patient engagement in this new era of patient-centered outcomes research and to ensure that patients were engaged throughout the life cycle of our research projects, from conception to dissemination. Developed by clinicians and researchers within our practice-based research network, recruitment of patients to serve as PEP members began in early 2012. The PEP currently has a membership of 18 patients from 3 states. Over the past 24 months, the PEP has been involved with 12 projects. We describe developing the PEP and challenges and lessons learned (eg, recruitment, funding model, creating value for patient partners, compensation). These lessons learned are relevant not only for research but also for patient engagement in quality improvement efforts and other clinical initiatives.

MyPreventiveCare: implementation and dissemination of an interactive preventive health record in three practice-based research networks serving disadvantaged patients--a randomized cluster trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based preventive services for early detection of cancer and other health conditions offer profound health benefits, yet Americans receive only half of indicated services. Policy initiatives promote the adoption of information technologies to engage patients in care. We developed a theory-driven interactive preventive health record (IPHR) to engage patients in health promotion. The model defines five levels of functionality: (1) collecting patient information, (2) integrating with electronic health records (EHRs), (3) translating information into lay language, (4) providing individualized, guideline-based clinical recommendations, and (5) facilitating patient action. It is hypothesized that personal health records (PHRs) with these higher levels of functionality will inform and activate patients in ways that simpler PHRs cannot. However, realizing this vision requires both technological advances and effective implementation based upon clinician and practice engagement. METHODS/DESIGN: We are starting a two-phase, mixed-method trial to evaluate whether the IPHR is scalable across a large number of practices and how its uptake differs for minority and disadvantaged patients. In phase 1, 40 practices from three practice-based research networks will be randomized to add IPHR functionality to their PHR versus continue to use their existing PHR. Throughout the study, we will engage intervention practices to locally tailor IPHR content and learn how to integrate new functions into their practice workflow. In phase 2, the IPHR to all nonintervention practices to observe whether the IPHR can be implemented more broadly (Scalability). Phase 1 will feature an implementation assessment in intervention practices, based on the RE-AIM model, to measure Reach (creation of IPHR accounts by patients), Adoption (practice decision to use the IPHR), Implementation (consistency, fidelity, barriers, and facilitators of use), and Maintenance (sustained use). The incremental effect of the IPHR on receipt of cancer screening tests and shared decision-making compared to traditional PHRs will assess Effectiveness. In phase 2, we will assess similar outcomes as phase 1 except for effectiveness. DISCUSSION: This study will yield information about the effectiveness of new health information technologies designed to actively engage patients in their care as well as information about how to effectively implement and disseminate PHRs by engaging clinicians. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02138448.