Clinician Attitudes and Beliefs Associated with More Aggressive Diagnostic Testing.

BACKGROUND: Variation in clinicians' diagnostic test utilization is incompletely explained by demographics and likely relates to cognitive characteristics. We explored clinician factors associated with diagnostic test utilization. METHODS: We used a self-administered survey of attitudes, cognitive characteristics, and reported likelihood of test ordering in common scenarios; frequency of lipid and liver testing in patients on statin therapy. Participants were 552 primary care physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants from practices in 8 US states across 3 regions, from June 1, 2018 to November 26, 2019. We measured Testing Likelihood Score: the mean of 4 responses to testing frequency and self-reported testing frequency in patients on statins. RESULTS: Respondents were 52.4% residents, 36.6% attendings, and 11.0% nurse practitioners/physician assistants; most were white (53.6%) or Asian (25.5%). Median age was 32 years; 53.1% were female. Participants reported ordering tests for a median of 20% (stress tests) to 90% (mammograms) of patients; Testing Likelihood Scores varied widely (median 54%, interquartile range 43%-69%). Higher scores were associated with geography, training type, low numeracy, high malpractice fear, high medical maximizer score, high stress from uncertainty, high concern about bad outcomes, and low acknowledgment of medical uncertainty. More frequent testing of lipids and liver tests was associated with low numeracy, high medical maximizer score, high malpractice fear, and low acknowledgment of uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: Clinician variation in testing was common, with more aggressive testing consistently associated with low numeracy, being a medical maximizer, and low acknowledgment of uncertainty. Efforts to reduce undue variations in testing should consider clinician cognitive drivers.

Accuracy of Practitioner Estimates of Probability of Diagnosis Before and After Testing.

Importance: Accurate diagnosis is essential to proper patient care. Objective: To explore practitioner understanding of diagnostic reasoning. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this survey study, 723 practitioners at outpatient clinics in 8 US states were asked to estimate the probability of disease for 4 scenarios common in primary care (pneumonia, cardiac ischemia, breast cancer screening, and urinary tract infection) and the association of positive and negative test results with disease probability from June 1, 2018, to November 26, 2019. Of these practitioners, 585 responded to the survey, and 553 answered all of the questions. An expert panel developed the survey and determined correct responses based on literature review. Results: A total of 553 (290 resident physicians, 202 attending physicians, and 61 nurse practitioners and physician assistants) of 723 practitioners (76.5%) fully completed the survey (median age, 32 years; interquartile range, 29-44 years; 293 female [53.0%]; 296 [53.5%] White). Pretest probability was overestimated in all scenarios. Probabilities of disease after positive results were overestimated as follows: pneumonia after positive radiology results, 95% (evidence range, 46%-65%; comparison P < .001); breast cancer after positive mammography results, 50% (evidence range, 3%-9%; P < .001); cardiac ischemia after positive stress test result, 70% (evidence range, 2%-11%; P < .001); and urinary tract infection after positive urine culture result, 80% (evidence range, 0%-8.3%; P < .001). Overestimates of probability of disease with negative results were also observed as follows: pneumonia after negative radiography results, 50% (evidence range, 10%-19%; P < .001); breast cancer after negative mammography results, 5% (evidence range, <0.05%; P < .001); cardiac ischemia after negative stress test result, 5% (evidence range, 0.43%-2.5%; P < .001); and urinary tract infection after negative urine culture result, 5% (evidence range, 0%-0.11%; P < .001). Probability adjustments in response to test results varied from accurate to overestimates of risk by type of test (imputed median positive and negative likelihood ratios [LRs] for practitioners for chest radiography for pneumonia: positive LR, 4.8; evidence, 2.6; negative LR, 0.3; evidence, 0.3; mammography for breast cancer: positive LR, 44.3; evidence range, 13.0-33.0; negative LR, 1.0; evidence range, 0.05-0.24; exercise stress test for cardiac ischemia: positive LR, 21.0; evidence range, 2.0-2.7; negative LR, 0.6; evidence range, 0.5-0.6; urine culture for urinary tract infection: positive LR, 9.0; evidence, 9.0; negative LR, 0.1; evidence, 0.1). Conclusions and Relevance: This survey study suggests that for common diseases and tests, practitioners overestimate the probability of disease before and after testing. Pretest probability was overestimated in all scenarios, whereas adjustment in probability after a positive or negative result varied by test. Widespread overestimates of the probability of disease likely contribute to overdiagnosis and overuse.

Who Consults Us and Why? An Evaluation of Medicine Consult/Comanagement Services at Academic Medical Centers.

Although general medicine consultation is an integral component of inpatient medical care and a requirement of internal medicine training, little is known about current consultative practice. We used a cross-sectional, prospective survey design to examine current practices at 11 academic medical centers over four two-week periods from July 2014 through July 2015. Out of 11 consult services, four had comanagement agreements with surgical services, primarily with orthopedic surgery. We collected data regarding 1,264 consultation requests. Most requests (82.2%) originated from surgical services, with most requests originating from either orthopedic surgery (44.4%) or neurosurgery (11.6%). The most common reason for consultation at sites with a consult and comanagement service was medical management/ comanagement (23.3%) and at sites with a consultonly service was preoperative evaluation (16.4%). On average, consultants addressed more than two reasons per encounter. Many of these reasons were unidentified by the consulting service. Learners on these services should perform comprehensive evaluations to identify potentially unidentified issues.

A patient-centered research agenda for the care of the acutely ill older patient.

Hospitalists and others acute-care providers are limited by gaps in evidence addressing the needs of the acutely ill older adult population. The Society of Hospital Medicine sponsored the Acute Care of Older Patients Priority Setting Partnership to develop a research agenda focused on bridging this gap. Informed by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute framework for identification and prioritization of research areas, we adapted a methodology developed by the James Lind Alliance to engage diverse stakeholders in the research agenda setting process. The work of the Partnership proceeded through 4 steps: convening, consulting, collating, and prioritizing. First, the steering committee convened a partnership of 18 stakeholder organizations in May 2013. Next, stakeholder organizations surveyed members to identify important unanswered questions in the acute care of older persons, receiving 1299 responses from 580 individuals. Finally, an extensive and structured process of collation and prioritization resulted in a final list of 10 research questions in the following areas: advanced-care planning, care transitions, delirium, dementia, depression, medications, models of care, physical function, surgery, and training. With the changing demographics of the hospitalized population, a workforce with limited geriatrics training, and gaps in evidence to inform clinical decision making for acutely ill older patients, the identified research questions deserve the highest priority in directing future research efforts to improve care for the older hospitalized patient and enrich training.

Use and satisfaction with key functions of a common commercial electronic health record: a survey of primary care providers.

BACKGROUND: Despite considerable financial incentives for adoption, there is little evidence available about providers' use and satisfaction with key functions of electronic health records (EHRs) that meet "meaningful use" criteria. METHODS: We surveyed primary care providers (PCPs) in 11 general internal medicine and family medicine practices affiliated with 3 health systems in Texas about their use and satisfaction with performing common tasks (documentation, medication prescribing, preventive services, problem list) in the Epic EHR, a common commercial system. Most practices had greater than 5 years of experience with the Epic EHR. We used multivariate logistic regression to model predictors of being a structured documenter, defined as using electronic templates or prepopulated dot phrases to document at least two of the three note sections (history, physical, assessment and plan). RESULTS: 146 PCPs responded (70%). The majority used free text to document the history (51%) and assessment and plan (54%) and electronic templates to document the physical exam (57%). Half of PCPs were structured documenters (55%) with family medicine specialty (adjusted OR 3.3, 95% CI, 1.4-7.8) and years since graduation (nonlinear relationship with youngest and oldest having lowest probabilities) being significant predictors. Nearly half (43%) reported spending at least one extra hour beyond each scheduled half-day clinic completing EHR documentation. Three-quarters were satisfied with documenting completion of pneumococcal vaccinations and half were satisfied with documenting cancer screening (57% for breast, 45% for colorectal, and 46% for cervical). Fewer were satisfied with reminders for overdue pneumococcal vaccination (48%) and cancer screening (38% for breast, 37% for colorectal, and 31% for cervical). While most believed the problem list was helpful (70%) and kept an up-to-date list for their patients (68%), half thought they were unreliable and inaccurate (51%). CONCLUSIONS: Dissatisfaction with and suboptimal use of key functions of the EHR may mitigate the potential for EHR use to improve preventive health and chronic disease management. Future work should optimize use of key functions and improve providers' time efficiency.

Screening for hepatocellular carcinoma among veterans with hepatitis C on disease stage, treatment received, and survival.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is increasing. Despite recommendations for HCC screening from the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease, the National Cancer Institute does not recommend screening. The question of whether screening is of benefit is an important one. The purpose of this study was to examine the determinants of screening, as well as the impact of screening on disease stage, treatment received, and survival in a US veteran population. METHODS: Patients with hepatitis C and HCC who receive care in the South Texas Veteran Health Care System were identified using the Veterans Affairs national hepatitis C registry. Screening status was determined by chart review. Potential determinants of screening were assessed. Screened and unscreened patients were compared on the basis of disease stage at diagnosis, treatment received, and survival. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients were identified and included in the analysis, of whom only 16 (22%) were screened. Patients seen by a hepatologist before diagnosis were more likely to be screened. All screened patients were diagnosed with early stage disease, compared with 22% of unscreened patients (P < .001). Screened patients were 10 times more likely to have received potentially curative treatment (95% confidence interval, 2.91-31.35). Log-rank test of equality of survivor functions was statistically significant for differences between screened and unscreened groups (P = .0005). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the American Association for the Study of Liver Disease screening recommendations, and suggest that screening is underused.