Do patients who read visit notes on the patient portal have a higher rate of "loop closure" on diagnostic tests and referrals in primary care? A retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The 2021 US Cures Act may engage patients to help reduce diagnostic errors/delays. We examined the relationship between patient portal registration with/without note reading and test/referral completion in primary care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of patients with visits from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2021, and order for (1) colonoscopy, (2) dermatology referral for concerning lesions, or (3) cardiac stress test at 2 academic primary care clinics. We examined differences in timely completion ("loop closure") of tests/referrals for (1) patients who used the portal and read ≥1 note (Portal + Notes); (2) those with a portal account but who did not read notes (Portal Account Only); and (3) those who did not register for the portal (No Portal). We estimated the predictive probability of loop closure in each group after adjusting for socio-demographic and clinical factors using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 12 849 tests/referrals, loop closure was more common among Portal+Note-readers compared to their counterparts for all tests/referrals (54.2% No Portal, 57.4% Portal Account Only, 61.6% Portal+Notes, P < .001). In adjusted analysis, compared to the No Portal group, the odds of loop closure were significantly higher for Portal Account Only (OR 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.4), and Portal+Notes (OR 1.4; 95% CI, 1.3-1.6) groups. Beyond portal registration, note reading was independently associated with loop closure (P = .002). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Compared to no portal registration, the odds of loop closure were 20% higher in tests/referrals for patients with a portal account, and 40% higher in tests/referrals for note readers, after controlling for sociodemographic and clinical factors. However, important safety gaps from unclosed loops remain, requiring additional engagement strategies.

Low Rate of Completion of Recommended Tests and Referrals in an Academic Primary Care Practice with Resident Trainees.

BACKGROUND: A frequent, preventable cause of diagnostic errors involves failure to follow up on diagnostic tests, referrals, and symptoms-termed "failure to close the diagnostic loop." This is particularly challenging in a resident practice where one third of physicians graduate annually, and rates of patient loss due to these transitions may lead to more opportunities for failure to close diagnostic loops. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of failure of loop closure in a resident primary care clinic compared to rates in the faculty practice and identify factors contributing to failure. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included all patient visits from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2021, at two academic medical center-based primary care practices where residents and faculty practice in the same setting. The primary outcome was prevalence of failure to close the loop for (1) dermatology referrals, (2) colonoscopy, and (3) cardiac stress testing. The primary predictor was resident vs. faculty status of the ordering provider. The authors present an unadjusted analysis and the results of a multivariable logistic regression analysis incorporating all patient factors to determine their association with loop closure. RESULTS: Of 12,282 orders for referrals and tests for the three studied areas, 1,929 (15.7%) were ordered by a resident physician. Of resident orders for all three tests, 52.9% were completed within the designated time vs. 58.4% for orders placed by attending physicians (p < 0.01). In an unadjusted analysis by test type, a similar trend was seen for colonoscopy (51.4% completion rate for residents vs. 57.5% for attending physicians, p < 0.01) and for cardiac stress testing (55.7% completion rate for residents vs. 61.2% for attending physicians), though a difference was not seen for dermatology referrals (64.2% completion rate for residents vs. 63.7% for attending physicians). In an adjusted analysis, patients with resident orders were less likely than attendings to close the loop for all test types combined (odds ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.79-0.98), with low rates of test completion for both physician groups. CONCLUSION: Loop closure for three diagnostic interventions was low for patients in both faculty and resident primary care clinics, with lower loop closure rates in resident clinics. Failure to close diagnostic loops presents a safety challenge in primary care and is of particular concern for training programs.

Completion of Recommended Tests and Referrals in Telehealth vs In-Person Visits.

Importance: Use of telehealth has increased substantially in recent years. However, little is known about whether the likelihood of completing recommended tests and specialty referrals-termed diagnostic loop closure-is associated with visit modality. Objectives: To examine the prevalence of diagnostic loop closure for tests and referrals ordered at telehealth visits vs in-person visits and identify associated factors. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a retrospective cohort study, all patient visits from March 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021, at 1 large urban hospital-based primary care practice and 1 affiliated community health center in Boston, Massachusetts, were evaluated. Main Measures: Prevalence of diagnostic loop closure for (1) colonoscopy referrals (screening and diagnostic), (2) dermatology referrals for suspicious skin lesions, and (3) cardiac stress tests. Results: The study included test and referral orders for 4133 patients (mean [SD] age, 59.3 [11.7] years; 2163 [52.3%] women; 203 [4.9%] Asian, 1146 [27.7%] Black, 2362 [57.1%] White, and 422 [10.2%] unknown or other race). A total of 1151 of the 4133 orders (27.8%) were placed during a telehealth visit. Of the telehealth orders, 42.6% were completed within the designated time frame vs 58.4% of those ordered during in-person visits and 57.4% of those ordered without a visit. In an adjusted analysis, patients with telehealth visits were less likely to close the loop for all test types compared with those with in-person visits (odds ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.47-0.64). Conclusions: The findings of this study suggest that rates of loop closure were low for all test types across all visit modalities but worse for telehealth. Failure to close diagnostic loops presents a patient safety challenge in primary care that may be of particular concern during telehealth encounters.

Urgent referrals from primary care to dermatology for lesions suspicious for skin cancer: patterns, outcomes, and need for systems improvement.

Ideally, urgent dermatology referrals for evaluation of a lesion concerning for skin cancer should be triaged and processed with appropriate urgency by primary care and dermatology, respectively. We performed a retrospective single-institution study by conducting chart reviews of all dermatology referrals designated by primary care as urgent for evaluation of a lesion concerning for skin cancer. We identified 320 referrals placed between January 1 and December 31, 2018. Dermatology encounters for these patients occurred on or before 30 days for 50.6% of referrals and on or after 31 days for 38.4% of referrals, with 10.9% never completed. The percentage of all races excluding whites, non-Hispanic in the delayed appointment group (≥ 31 days) was 15.1% higher (95% CI 5.3-24.9) than in the timely appointment group (≤ 30 days). Similarly, the percentage of non-English languages in the delayed group was 7.1% higher (95% CI 0.5-13.7) than in the timely group. Overall, 15.8% of these referrals yielded diagnoses of malignancy, while 76.8% and 7.4% resulted in benign and pre-malignant diagnoses, respectively. The primary care team documented referral status (i.e., completed, incomplete, or pending) during their subsequent visits with the patients in only 37.5% of these referrals. Our findings demonstrate the need to improve the reliability of urgent referrals to ensure they occur in a timely manner with confirmation of "referral loop" closure at the referring clinician's end.

A mixed methods analysis of access barriers to dermatology care in a rural state.

AIMS: To identify significant patient and system access barriers and facilitators to dermatology care in one rural health system with limited dermatology appointment availability. DESIGN: Mixed methods study using data from electronic medical records, patient surveys, stakeholder semi-structured interviews, and service area dermatologist demographics. Retrospective data were collected between 1 January 2017-1 March 2018, and interviews and surveys were conducted between June 1-August 31, 2018. Participants were recruited from two primary care practices in one rural Maine regional health system. METHODS: Findings from thematic analyses, descriptive statistics, and statistical modelling were integrated using Chi-square tests for homogeneity to develop a unified understanding. Statistical modelling using odd-ratio logistic and linear regression were performed for each outcome variable of interest. RESULTS: Urgent referrals by primary care increased the likelihood of dermatology care overall (OR: 6.771; p = .007) and at nearby sites with limited availability (OR: 4.024; p = .024), but not at geographically further sites with higher capacities (p = .844). Referral under-diagnosis occurred in 20.8% of those biopsied. Older (p = .041) or non-working (p = .021) patients were more likely to remain unevaluated than seek more available but geographically further care. CONCLUSIONS: In rural areas with scarce appointment availability, primary care provider diagnostic accuracy may be an important barrier of dermatology care receipt and health outcomes, especially among at-risk populations. IMPACT: Although melanoma mortality rates are decreasing throughout the US, little is known about why rates in Maine continue to rise. This study applied a comprehensive approach to identify several patient and system access barriers to dermatology care in one underserved rural regional health system. While specific to this population and large service area, these findings will inform improvement efforts here and support broader future research efforts aimed at understanding and improving health outcomes in this rural state.

Use, Perceived Usability, and Barriers to Implementation of a Patient Safety Dashboard Integrated within a Vendor EHR.

BACKGROUND: Preventable adverse events continue to be a threat to hospitalized patients. Clinical decision support in the form of dashboards may improve compliance with evidence-based safety practices. However, limited research describes providers' experiences with dashboards integrated into vendor electronic health record (EHR) systems. OBJECTIVE: This study was aimed to describe providers' use and perceived usability of the Patient Safety Dashboard and discuss barriers and facilitators to implementation. METHODS: The Patient Safety Dashboard was implemented in a cluster-randomized stepped wedge trial on 12 units in neurology, oncology, and general medicine services over an 18-month period. Use of the Dashboard was tracked during the implementation period and analyzed in-depth for two 1-week periods to gather a detailed representation of use. Providers' perceptions of tool usability were measured using the Health Information Technology Usability Evaluation Scale (rated 1-5). Research assistants conducted field observations throughout the duration of the study to describe use and provide insight into tool adoption. RESULTS: The Dashboard was used 70% of days the tool was available, with use varying by role, service, and time of day. On general medicine units, nurses logged in throughout the day, with many logins occurring during morning rounds, when not rounding with the care team. Prescribers logged in typically before and after morning rounds. On neurology units, physician assistants accounted for most logins, accessing the Dashboard during daily brief interdisciplinary rounding sessions. Use on oncology units was rare. Satisfaction with the tool was highest for perceived ease of use, with attendings giving the highest rating (4.23). The overall lowest rating was for quality of work life, with nurses rating the tool lowest (2.88). CONCLUSION: This mixed methods analysis provides insight into the use and usability of a dashboard tool integrated within a vendor EHR and can guide future improvements and more successful implementation of these types of tools.

Impact of molecular testing on reported Clostridoides difficile infection rates.

BACKGROUND: The reported incidence of Clostridoides difficile infection (CDI) has increased in recent years, partly due to broadening adoption of nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) replacing enzyme immunoassay (EIA) methods. Our aim was to quantify the impact of this switch on reported CDI rates using a large, multihospital, empirical dataset. METHODS: We analyzed 9 years of retrospective CDI data (2009-2017) from 47 hospitals in the southeastern United States; 37 hospitals switched to NAAT during this period, including 24 with sufficient pre- and post-switch data for statistical analyses. Poisson regression was used to quantify the NAAT-over-EIA incidence rate ratio (IRR) at hospital and network levels while controlling for longitudinal trends, the proportion of intensive care unit patient days, changes in surveillance methodology, and previously detected infection cluster periods. We additionally used change-point detection methods to identify shifts in the mean and/or slope of hospital-level CDI rates, and we compared results to recorded switch dates. RESULTS: For hospitals that transitioned to NAAT, average unadjusted CDI rates increased substantially after the test switch from 10.9 to 23.9 per 10,000 patient days. Individual hospital IRRs ranged from 0.75 to 5.47, with a network-wide IRR of 1.75 (95% confidence interval, 1.62-1.89). Reported CDI rates significantly changed 1.6 months on average after switching to NAAT testing (standard deviation, 1.9 months). CONCLUSION: Hospitals that switched from EIA to NAAT testing experienced an average postswitch increase of 75% in reported CDI rates after adjusting for other factors, and this increase was often gradual or delayed.

Timeliness of access to lung cancer diagnosis and treatment: A scoping literature review.

The Institute of Medicine recently called for increased understanding of and commitment to timely care. Lung cancer can be difficult to diagnose, resulting in delays that may adversely affect survival; rapid diagnosis and treatment therefore is critical for enabling improved patient outcomes. This scoping review provides an update on timeliness of lung cancer care over the past decade. We searched PubMed for English-language articles published from 2007 to 2016 that report wait time intervals related to diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer. Two authors independently reviewed titles and abstracts for inclusion. Abstracted data included sample size, patient population, study type, dates of study, wait times, and information on disparities, survival, costs, healthcare utilization, and interventions. The final review included 65 studies from 21 different countries. A total of 96 unique variations of wait intervals were reported (e.g., time to diagnosis from first pulmonologist visit, imaging, or initial evaluation), making comparisons across studies difficult. The most common interval was diagnosis to treatment initiation, with reported medians ranging from 6 to 45 days. Fourteen articles reported information on survival, 14 on healthcare utilization, 18 on disparities, and 14 on interventions; results varied by study. Significant variation exists in how access to care time delays are reported. Many patients across different facilities and countries appear to be facing substantial waits to receive lung cancer diagnosis and care. Further research, using common wait-interval metrics, is needed to evaluate and improve timeliness of lung cancer diagnosis and treatment.

Exact and approximate probability distributions of evidence-based bundle composite compliance measures.

Several studies recently have indicated that compliance with the medical evidence base across a wide range of chronic and acute conditions is dismally low. Partly in response, core measure sets and evidence-based "bundles" of care processes known to improve a patient's condition have become a common means for assessing and comparing the reliability of healthcare organizations to comply with best care practices. Compliance typically is estimated with a composite reliability statistic of the percent of all indicated bundle elements actually delivered to a sample of patients, which then is used to monitor, improve, rank, and reward organizations. Given these judgments inherently involve statistical concepts, we derive exact probability distributions of bundle reliability measures and illustrate how they can be used to develop appropriate statistical methods (confidence intervals, hypothesis tests, statistical process control charts, and probability ratio tests) for supporting process improvement and patient safety activities. Due to their computational complexity, we also discuss several accurate and fast approximations that can be useful in practice, including cumulant-based expansions, saddle point approximations, and probability generating function inversion. In contrast, we show that in some cases simple binomial or normal approximations can result in significant interpretation error and prolonged delays to detect process improvements or deteriorations.