Disparities in Patient Portal Engagement Among Patients With Hypertension Treated in Primary Care.

Importance: Patient portals are increasingly used for patient-clinician communication and to introduce interventions aimed at improving blood pressure control. Objective: To characterize patient portal use among patients with hypertension managed in primary care. Design, Settings, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used electronic health records linked with patient portal log file data from a large, diverse Midwestern health care system. Patients with hypertension who had a primary care visit from January 1, 2021, to December 31, 2021, were included. The first visit in 2021 was considered the baseline visit; patient portal engagement was evaluated during the following year. Multivariate logistic regressions, presented as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs, were used to evaluate associations between patient characteristics and patient portal engagement, adjusting for potential confounders. Exposures: Primary exposures included 4 sociodemographic factors routinely collected in the electronic health record: race and ethnicity, insurance, preferred language, and smoking status. Main Outcomes and Measures: Indicators of patient engagement with the patient portal included accessing the patient portal at least once, accessing the portal within 7 days of at least 50.0% of primary care physician (PCP) visits, frequent logins (<28 vs ≥28), messaging (<2 vs ≥2), and sharing home blood pressure readings. Results: Among 366 871 patients (mean [SD], 63.5 [12.6] years), 52.8% were female, 3.4% were Asian, 7.8% were Hispanic, 19.7% were non-Hispanic Black, 66.9% were non-Hispanic White, and 2.3% were of other race or ethnicity. During the 1-year study period starting in 2021, 70.5% accessed the patient portal at least once, 60.2% accessed around the time of their PCP visits, 35.7% accessed the portal frequently, 28.9% engaged in messaging, and 8.7% shared home blood pressure readings. Compared with White patients, non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients had lower odds of any access (Black: OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.52-0.54; Hispanic: OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.64-0.68), access around PCP visit time (Black: OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.48-0.50; Hispanic: OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.60-0.64), frequent access (Black: OR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.55-0.57; Hispanic: OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.69-0.73), and messaging (Black: OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.61-0.64); Hispanic: OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.69-0.73). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study of patients with hypertension found clear sociodemographic disparities in patient portal engagement among those treated in primary care. Without special efforts to engage patients with portals, interventions that use patient portals to target hypertension may exacerbate disparities.

Characteristics of High-Need, High-Cost Patients : A "Best-Fit" Framework Synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Accurately identifying high-need, high-cost (HNHC) patients to reduce their preventable or modifiable health care use for their chronic conditions is a priority and a challenge for U.S. policymakers, health care delivery systems, and payers. PURPOSE: To identify characteristics and criteria to distinguish HNHC patients. DATA SOURCES: Searches of multiple databases and gray literature from 1 January 2000 to 22 January 2022. STUDY SELECTION: English-language studies of characteristics and criteria to identify HNHC adult patients, defined as those with high use (emergency department, inpatient, or total services) or high cost. DATA EXTRACTION: Independent, dual-review extraction and quality assessment. DATA SYNTHESIS: The review included 64 studies comprising multivariate exposure studies (n = 47), cluster analyses (n = 11), and qualitative studies (n = 6). A National Academy of Medicine (NAM) taxonomy was an initial "best-fit" framework for organizing the synthesis of the findings. Patient characteristics associated with being HNHC included number and severity of comorbid conditions and having chronic clinical conditions, particularly heart disease, chronic kidney disease, chronic lung disease, diabetes, cancer, and hypertension. Patients' risk for being HNHC was often amplified by behavioral health conditions and social risk factors. The reviewers revised the NAM taxonomy to create a final framework, adding chronic pain and prior patterns of high health care use as characteristics associated with an increased risk for being HNHC. LIMITATION: Little evidence distinguished potentially preventable or modifiable health care use from overall use. CONCLUSION: A combination of characteristics can be useful for identifying HNHC patients. Because of the complexity of their conditions and circumstances, improving their quality of care will likely also require an individualized assessment of care needs and availability of support services. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42020161179).

Minimally invasive sacroiliac joint fusion for chronic sacroiliac joint pain: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Sacroiliac (SI) joint pain causes significant disability and impairment to quality of life (QOL). Minimally invasive SI joint fusion is increasingly used to relieve chronic SI joint pain among patients who do not respond to nonsurgical treatment. PURPOSE: To systematically review the existing literature to assess the effectiveness and safety of minimally invasive SI joint fusion. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and a clinical trial registry from database inception to June 30, 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Eligible studies were primary research studies published in the English language, enrolled adults with SI joint pain, and compared SI joint fusion to nonsurgical interventions or alternative minimally invasive procedures. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled cohort studies (CCSs) that reported effectiveness (pain, physical function, QOL, opioid use) or safety outcomes (adverse events [AEs], revision surgeries) and uncontrolled studies that reported safety outcomes. DATA ABSTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were abstracted into structured forms; two independent reviewers assessed risk of bias using standard instruments; certainty of evidence was rated using GRADE. RESULTS: Forty studies (2 RCTs, 3 CCSs, and 35 uncontrolled studies) were included. Minimally invasive SI joint fusion with the iFuse Implant System appeared to result in larger improvements in pain (two RCTs: mean difference in visual analog scale -40.5 mm, 95% CI, -50.1 to -30.9; -38.1 mm, p<.0001) and larger improvements in physical function (mean difference in Oswestry Disability Index -25.4 points, 95% CI, -32.5 to -18.3; -19.8 points, p<.0001) compared to conservative management at 6 months. Improvements in pain and physical function for the RCTs appeared durable at 1- and 2-year follow-up. Findings were similar in one CCS. The two RCTs also found significant improvements in QOL at 6 months and 1 year. Opioid use may be improved at 6 months and 1 to 2 years. AEs appeared higher in the fusion group at 6 months. The incidence of revision surgery varied by study; the highest was 3.8% at 2 years. Two CCSs compared the effectiveness of alternative minimally invasive fusion procedures. One CCS compared iFuse to the Rialto SI Fusion System and reported no differences in pain, function, QOL, and revision surgeries from 6 months to 1 year. One CCS compared iFuse to percutaneous screw fixation and reported significantly fewer revisions among iFuse participants (mean difference -61.0%, 95% CI, -78.4% to -43.5%). The 35 uncontrolled studies had serious limitations and reported heterogeneous safety outcomes. Two of the larger studies reported a 13.2% incidence of complications from minimally invasive SI joint fusion at 90 days using an insurance claims database and a 3.1% incidence of revision surgery over 2.5 years using a postmarket surveillance database. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients meeting diagnostic criteria for SI joint pain and who have not responded to conservative care, minimally invasive SI joint fusion is probably more effective than conservative management for reducing pain and opioid use and improving physical function and QOL. Fusion with iFuse and Rialto appear to have similar effectiveness. AEs appear to be higher for minimally invasive SI joint fusion than conservative management through 6 months. Based on evidence from uncontrolled studies, serious AEs from minimally invasive SI joint fusion may be higher in usual practice compared to what is reported in trials. The incidence of revision surgery is likely no higher than 3.8% at 2 years. Limited evidence is available that compares different minimally invasive devices.

Primary care physician resource use changes associated with feedback reports.

OBJECTIVES: To measure changes in primary care physician (PCP) ordering rates for 4 global resource use measures before and after dissemination of physician feedback reports that provided peer-comparison resource use rates. We also explored whether physician practice characteristics (panel size, clinic size, and years of experience) were associated with resource use changes. STUDY DESIGN: Pre-post implementation study measuring physician resource use in an integrated healthcare system (2011-2014). METHODS: Kaiser Permanente Washington PCPs (N = 210) were provided annual feedback reports showing their personal ordering rates compared with those of their peers. Monthly physician ordering was measured from November 2011 to September 2014 (including prereport and postreport periods). We examined 4 physician ordering rates (specialty referrals, high-end imaging, laboratory tests, and 30-day prescriptions) per 1000 patients, adjusted for patient age, gender, and clinical complexity. RESULTS: After accounting for physician practice characteristics, monthly PCP ordering rates for high-end imaging significantly decreased by 0.8 images per 1000 patients (P <.01). In contrast, orders for laboratory tests and 30-day prescriptions significantly increased by 15.0 tests and 84.7 prescriptions per 1000 patients (both P <.01). We observed greater changes following feedback in physicians with fewer years of experience (≤10 years), who had 4.2 fewer specialty referrals (P = .01) and 101.3 more 30-day prescriptions (P <.01) compared with those with more experience (>20 years). CONCLUSIONS: Physician feedback reports may be associated with changes in physician resource use, and physicians with fewer years of experience may be more responsive to feedback reports. Better understanding of factors associated with changes in resource use is necessary for future targeted development of physician interventions.

Latina and Black/African American Women's Perspectives on Cancer Screening and Cancer Screening Reminders.

INTRODUCTION: Racial and ethnic disparities continue to exist in cancer screening rates, especially among US Latina and Black/African American populations. We conducted six focus groups among 41 women from these communities in order to better understand their preferences about cancer screening reminders and the motivators and deterrents they face in obtaining recommended breast, cervical, and colon cancer screening. METHODS: Using self-reported patient race/ethnicity from electronic medical records of a large, integrated health care system in Seattle, we recruited women ages 30-60 to participate in one of five 2-hour focus groups. Using verbatim transcripts from these discussions, we conducted a qualitative analysis to identify common themes. RESULTS: The focus group participants were primarily strong endorsers and utilizers of recommended breast, cervical, and colon cancer screening services. Insurance and belief in preventive care were the most common motivators that they cited in obtaining cancer screening. However, they still reported multiple barriers to getting recommended cancer screening for themselves and community members, including lack of time, conflicting information about screening intervals, distrust in the health care system, and a lack of understanding of the benefits of preventive care. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to improve understanding about the benefits of cancer screening, clarify cancer screening guideline recommendations, increase cultural competency among health care professionals, and expand the times and locations where cancer screening is available are all options that may improve cancer screening rates among Latinas and Black/African American women.

Physician Service Attribution Methods for Examining Provision of Low-Value Care.

OBJECTIVES: There has been significant research on provider attribution for quality and cost. Low-value care is an area of heightened focus, with little of the focus being on measurement; a key methodological decision is how to attribute delivered services and procedures. We illustrate the difference in relative and absolute physician- and panel-attributed services and procedures using overuse in cervical cancer screening. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective, cross-sectional study in an integrated health care system. METHODS: We used 2013 physician-level data from Group Health Cooperative to calculate two utilization attributions: (1) panel attribution with the procedure assigned to the physician's predetermined panel, regardless of who performed the procedure; and (2) physician attribution with the procedure assigned to the performing physician. We calculated the percentage of low-value cervical cancer screening tests and ranked physicians within the clinic using the two utilization attribution methods. RESULTS: The percentage of low-value cervical cancer screening varied substantially between physician and panel attributions. Across the whole delivery system, median panel- and physician-attributed percentages were 15 percent and 10 percent, respectively. Among sampled clinics, panel-attributed percentages ranged between 10 percent and 17 percent, and physician-attributed percentages ranged between 9 percent and 13 percent. Within a clinic, median panel-attributed screening percentage was 17 percent (range 0 percent-27 percent) and physician-attributed percentage was 11 percent (range 0 percent-24 percent); physician rank varied by attribution method. CONCLUSIONS: The attribution method is an important methodological decision when developing low-value care measures since measures may ultimately have an impact on national benchmarking and quality scores. Cross-organizational dialogue and transparency in low-value care measurement will become increasingly important for all stakeholders.