The Impact of Text Messaging to Promote Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) Completion in Orthopedic Practice: Findings From a Randomized Controlled Study.

It is difficult to achieve high response rates to Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) surveys collected as part of clinical care. However, they are operationally and clinically important. To understand the impact of text message reminders on response rates to PROMs collected via email as part of routine care for hip or knee replacement surgery, initial nonresponders were randomized to receive a text reminder or not at 7 and 12 days, if needed. At day 7, the overall survey response rate was 63%. Model-derived estimates for survey return after this point were 51.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 48.0%-54.2%) in the text arm compared to 34.5% (95% CI, 31.6%-37.6%) in the no text arm. The effect of text messages on response rates did not vary by subpopulations considered nor were there differences in rates of key outcomes between the 2 groups, suggesting that it did not impact any underlying response bias. Given the relative low cost of text messages, they can be an efficient means to increase response rates.

Is There Room for Individual Patient-Specified Preferences in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Revolution?

Purpose: The study aim was to test the feasibility of collecting qualitative patient-preferred outcomes or goals and the degree of their attainment as an addition to a standardized process for collecting quantitative composite patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) from patients undergoing knee joint replacement. Methods: Patients of a large Midwestern medical group scheduled to have total replacement of their knee joint have been asked to complete a PROMs survey preoperatively and at 3 and 12 months after surgery since 2014. In March 2020, an open-ended question about their most important preferred outcome was added to the existing questionnaire. The responses for all 3 time periods from the first 6 months of this addition were summarized quantitatively and analyzed by 2 reviewers. Results: During that 6-month period, 1481 people completed the main survey while 1463 (98.8%) also completed the open-ended question. At baseline, 90.8% of the 590 baseline respondents identified a preferred outcome. If multiple-choice categories had been used, 82.7% of the responses would have lost some or a large amount of their preferred goals' meaning. Of the 144 who completed surveys at both baseline and 3 months, 86.1% reported another outcome in addition to pain relief, while 54.2% reported "Complete or Mostly" achieving their self-identified preferred outcome. Conclusions: Most people who have joint replacement surgery and respond to a quantitative PROMs survey are willing to report on their other preferred outcomes as well. Adding an open-ended question to PROMs surveys may increase clinician focus on addressing outcomes important to each patient.

How Does Prior Experience Pay Off in Large-Scale Quality Improvement Initiatives?

INTRODUCTION: To examine the association of prior investment on the effectiveness of organizations delivering large-scale external support to improve primary care. METHODS: Mixed-methods study of 7 EvidenceNOW grantees (henceforth, Cooperatives) and their recruited practices (n = 1720). Independent Variable: Cooperatives's experience level prior to EvidenceNOW, defined as a sustained track record in delivering large-scale quality improvement (QI) to primary care practices (high, medium, or low). Dependent Variables: Implementation of external support, measured as facilitation dose; effectiveness at improving (1) clinical quality, measured as practices' performance on Aspirin, Blood Pressure, Cholesterol, and Smoking (ABCS); and (2) practice capacity, measured using the Adaptive Reserve (AR) score and Change Process Capacity Questionnaire (CPCQ). Data were analyzed using multivariable linear regressions and a qualitative inductive approach. RESULTS: Cooperatives with High (vs low) levels of prior experience with and investment in large-scale QI before EvidenceNOW recruited more geographically dispersed and diverse practices, with lower baseline ABCS performance (differences ranging from 2.8% for blood pressure to 41.5% for smoking), delivered more facilitation (mean=+20.3 hours, P = .04), and made greater improvements in practices' QI capacity (CPCQ: +2.04, P < .001) and smoking performance (+6.43%, P = .003). These Cooperatives had established networks of facilitators at the start of EvidenceNOW and leadership experienced in supporting this workforce, which explained their better recruitment, delivery of facilitation, and improvement in outcomes. DISCUSSION: Long-term investment that establishes regionwide organizations with infrastructure and experience to support primary care practices in QI is associated with more consistent delivery of facilitation support, and greater improvement in practice capacity and some clinical outcomes.

Is the Promise of PROMs Being Realized? Implementation Experience in a Large Orthopedic Practice.

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), increasingly used for research and quality measurement, are lauded for their potential to improve patient-centered care, both through aggregate reporting and when integrated into clinical practice. However, there are few published studies of the resultant use of PROMs in clinical practice. This case study describes the implementation and use of PROMS in a Midwestern multispecialty medical group orthopedic practice among patients undergoing total knee and hip surgery. Specifically, rates of PROMs use by care teams are tracked over time once made available in the electronic health record. During this time, the orthopedics department achieved a patient PROMS survey response rate of 68% at baseline, 58% 3 months post-surgery, and 55% 12 months post-surgery. However, these data were only accessed by the care teams for fewer than 1% of associated clinical encounters. This suggests that making PROMs available for care team review in the electronic health record, even when coupled with relatively high response rates from patients and departmental leadership support is not enough to encourage integration of PROMs into clinical care for patients. Additional effort is required to identify barriers to PROMs use in clinical care and to test methods to enhance use.

How Does Prior Experience Pay Off in Large-Scale Quality Improvement Initiatives?

INTRODUCTION: To examine the association of prior investment on the effectiveness of organizations delivering large-scale external support to improve primary care. METHODS: Mixed-methods study of 7 EvidenceNOW grantees (henceforth, Cooperatives) and their recruited practices (n = 1720). Independent Variable: Cooperatives's experience level prior to EvidenceNOW, defined as a sustained track record in delivering large-scale quality improvement (QI) to primary care practices (high, medium, or low). Dependent Variables: Implementation of external support, measured as facilitation dose; effectiveness at improving (1) clinical quality, measured as practices' performance on Aspirin, Blood Pressure, Cholesterol, and Smoking (ABCS); and (2) practice capacity, measured using the Adaptive Reserve (AR) score and Change Process Capacity Questionnaire (CPCQ). Data were analyzed using multivariable linear regressions and a qualitative inductive approach. RESULTS: Cooperatives with High (vs low) levels of prior experience with and investment in large-scale QI before EvidenceNOW recruited more geographically dispersed and diverse practices, with lower baseline ABCS performance (differences ranging from 2.8% for blood pressure to 41.5% for smoking), delivered more facilitation (mean=+20.3 hours, P = .04), and made greater improvements in practices' QI capacity (CPCQ: +2.04, P < .001) and smoking performance (+6.43%, P = .003). These Cooperatives had established networks of facilitators at the start of EvidenceNOW and leadership experienced in supporting this workforce, which explained their better recruitment, delivery of facilitation, and improvement in outcomes. DISCUSSION: Long-term investment that establishes regionwide organizations with infrastructure and experience to support primary care practices in QI is associated with more consistent delivery of facilitation support, and greater improvement in practice capacity and some clinical outcomes.

Is Shared Decision-making Associated with Better Patient-reported Outcomes? A Longitudinal Study of Patients Undergoing Total Joint Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Although shared decision-making (SDM) has knowledge and satisfaction benefits for patients and is promising, we lack data demonstrating that SDM is associated with better patient-reported functional outcomes. Such data would support the integration and prioritization of SDM into all aspects of orthopaedic care. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Is a measure of SDM before total joint arthroplasty associated with better patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) 1 year postoperatively? (2) What is the relationship between the measure of SDM and two measures of patient experience (patient rating of the provider and patient likelihood of recommending the provider) at 1 year postoperatively? METHODS: In this observational longitudinal survey-based study, patients receiving an initial THA or TKA from a large, multispecialty medical group in the Midwestern United States were surveyed after they were scheduled for surgery and again at 12 months after their procedure. The three-item collaboRATE measure of SDM was added to existing patient surveys of PROMs. However, the surgeons and their department had no organized approach to SDM during this time. The surveys also included the Oxford knee or hip score and two validated measures of patient experience (patient rating of the provider and whether a patient would recommend the provider). Of the 2779 eligible primary joint arthroplasties that occurred from April 23, 2018 to May 1, 2019, 48% (1334 procedures; 859 TKAs and 485 THAs) of the patients responded to both the preoperative and 12-month postoperative surveys. Most of the patients who were included in the analytic sample were white (93%; 1255 of 1344), with only 3% (37) using Medicaid benefits at the time of surgery. Differences between responders and nonresponders were present and explored in an analysis. Patient responses were analyzed in regression models to estimate the association between preoperative collaboRATE scores and the Oxford knee or hip scores, and patient experience measures 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS: There was a moderate, positive association between preoperative collaboRATE scores and the Oxford scores at 12 months, after adjustment for potential confounders such as patient age and preoperative functional score (ß = 0.58; 95% CI 0.14-1.02; p = 0.01). Similarly, patients with preoperative collaboRATE scores had marginally higher patient experience scores at 12 months postoperatively (ß = 0.14; 95% CI 0.05-0.24; p = 0.003) and were more likely to recommend their surgeon (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.11-1.84; p = 0.005). The patient experience measures were also modestly correlated with collaboRATE scores in cross-sectional associations, both preoperatively and at 12 months postoperatively (0.29 ≤ r ≤ 0.54; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The association between preoperative collaboRATE scores and Oxford hip or knee scores suggests that SDM could be one tool to encourage better outcomes. Although previous studies have shown that SDM can improve patient experience, the lack of a strong correlation in our study suggests that PROMs and experience measures are separate domains, at least partly. Improving preoperative SDM between the surgeon and patient might help improve surgical outcomes for patients undergoing TKA and THA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, therapeutic study.

Personalized outcomes for hip and knee replacement: the patients point of view.

BACKGROUND: Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly being incorporated into clinical and surgical care for assessing outcomes. This study examined outcomes important to patients in their decision to have hip or knee replacement surgery, their perspectives on PROMs and shared decision-making, and factors they considered important for postoperative care. METHODS: A cross-sectional study employing survey methods with a stratified random sample of adult orthopedic patients who were scheduled for or recently had hip or knee replacement surgery. RESULTS: In a representative sample of 226 respondents, patients identified personalized outcomes important to them that they wanted from their surgery including the ability to walk without pain/discomfort, pain relief, and returning to an active lifestyle. They preferred a personalized outcome (54%) that they identified, compared to a PROM score, for tracking progress in their care and thought it important that their surgeon know their personal outcomes (63%). Patients also wanted to engage in shared decision-making (79%) about their post-surgical care and identified personal factors important to their aftercare, such as living alone and caring for pets. CONCLUSIONS: Patients identified unique personalized outcomes they desired from their care and that they wanted their orthopedic surgeons to know about. Asking patients to identify their personalized outcomes could add value for both patients and surgeons in clinical care, facilitating more robust patient involvement in shared decision-making.

Barriers to CT Dose Optimization: The Challenge of Organizational Change.

BACKGROUND: The use of diagnostic imaging with computed tomography (CT) has risen significantly, increasing cumulative life-time exposure to ionizing radiation for patients and raising concerns about increased cancer risk. Lowering the doses would reduce concerns about associated cancer risks. PURPOSE: To determine organizational leaders' perceptions of barriers to optimizing radiation dose in CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An observational study using semistructured interviews conducted with 26 organizational leaders from 19 health care systems in the United States, Europe, and Japan. Interviews focused on approaches the organizations used to optimize radiation dose and barriers encountered. Data were analyzed using a directed content analysis approach. RESULTS: Analysis identified six primary barriers to dose optimization: (1) resistance to change, (2) limited time and resources, (3) complex organizational structure, (4) lack of leadership support, (5) variations in CT equipment, and (6) variability in CT protocols. CONCLUSION: Barriers to optimizing CT dose across diverse health care organizations were described by organizational leaders tasked with implementing and improving CT imaging. They identified six consistent themes that reflected barriers to optimizing radiation dose at the organizational level. These barriers impeded efforts by health care organizations to optimize radiation doses to patients from CT imaging. Identifying barriers early in any improvement process is an important first step in making meaningful and sustained change.

The impact of patient-centered medical home certification on quality of care for patients with diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the impact of changes surrounding certification as a patient-centered medical home (PCMH) on outcomes for patients with diabetes. STUDY SETTING: Minnesota legislation established mandatory quality reporting for patients with diabetes and statewide standards for certification as a PCMH. Patient-level quality reporting data (2008-2018) were used to study the impact of transition to a PCMH. STUDY DESIGN: Achievement of Minnesota's optimal diabetes care standard-in aggregate and by component-was modeled for adult patients with Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes as a function of time relative to the year the patient's primary care practice achieved PCMH certification. Patients from uncertified practices were used to control for general trend. Practice-level random effects captured time-invariant characteristics of practices and the practices' average patient. DATA COLLECTION: Electronic health record data were submitted by 695 Minnesota practices capturing components of the quality standard: blood sugar control, cholesterol control, blood pressure control, nonsmoking status, and use of aspirin. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The first cohort of practices achieving PCMH certification (July 2010-June 2014) showed statistically insignificant changes in optimal care. The next cohort of practices (July 2014-June 2018) achieved larger, clinically meaningful increases in quality of care during the time prior to and following certification. Specifically, this second cohort of practices was estimated to achieve a 12.8 percentage-point improvement (P < .001) in the predicted probability of providing optimal diabetes care over the period spanning 3 years before to 3 years after certification. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the initial cohort of certified practices was already performing at a high level before certification, perhaps requiring little change in their operations to achieve PCMH certification. The second cohort, on the other hand, made meaningful, quality-improving changes in the years surrounding certification. Differences by cohort may partially explain the inconsistent PCMH impacts found in the literature.

What Outcomes Matter to Patients After Joint or Spine Surgery?

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used in clinical care, but there have been few studies of what patients identify as the most important outcomes. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 65 patients undergoing hip or knee replacement, spinal discectomy/laminotomy, or a spinal fusion. Interviews focused on outcomes patients identified as important, perceived usefulness of standardized PROMs measures, and contextual situations important to their care. Data were analyzed using a directed content analysis approach. RESULTS: Patients identified desired outcomes that were unique and important to them. Their preferred outcomes focused in the areas of freedom from pain, getting back to their normal life, and returning to an active lifestyle. Patients cared more about their individual preferred outcomes, which had more meaning for them, than a standardized PROM score. Patients also identified particular contextual situations that their care team was assumed to know about but that may not have been known. CONCLUSIONS: Patients identify specific preferred outcomes from these surgical procedures that are important and meaningful to them and that frame whether they see their surgery as a success. They also identified personal factors that they assume their surgeons know about, which affect their care and recovery. These findings underscore the importance of engaging patients in discussions about their preferences and contextual factors both prior to and after surgery.

Organizational Factors and Quality Improvement Strategies Associated With Lower Radiation Dose From CT Examinations.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to identify organizational factors and quality improvement strategies associated with lower radiation doses from abdominal CT. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey was administered to radiology leaders, along with simultaneous measurement of CT radiation dose among 19 health care organizations with 100 imaging centers throughout the United States, Europe, and Japan, using a common dose management software system. After adjusting for patient age, gender, and size, quality improvement strategies were tested for association with mean abdominal CT radiation dose and the odds of a high-dose examination. RESULTS: Completed surveys were received from 90 imaging centers (90%), and 182,415 abdominal CT scans were collected during the study period. Radiation doses varied considerably across organizations and centers. Univariate analyses identified eight strategies and systems that were significantly associated with lower average doses or lower frequency of high doses for abdominal CT examinations: tracking patient safety measures, assessing the impact of CT changes, identifying areas for improvement, setting specific goals, organizing improvement teams, tailoring decisions to sites, testing process changes before full implementation, and standardizing workflow. These processes were associated with an 18% to 37% reduction in high-dose examinations (P < .001-.03). In multivariate analysis, having a tracking system for patient safety measures, supportive radiology leaders, and obtaining clear images were associated with a 47% reduction in high-dose examinations. CONCLUSIONS: This documentation of the relation between quality improvement strategies and radiation exposure from CT examinations has identified important information for others interested in reducing the radiation exposure of their patients.

Does Ownership Make a Difference in Primary Care Practice?

PURPOSE: We assessed differences in structural characteristics, quality improvement processes, and cardiovascular preventive care by ownership type among 989 small to medium primary care practices. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis used electronic health record and survey data collected between September 2015 and April 2017 as part of an evaluation of the EvidenceNOW: Advancing Heart Health in Primary Care Initiative by the Agency for Health Care Research and Quality. We compared physician-owned practices, health system or medical group practices, and Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC) by using 15 survey-based practice characteristic measures, 9 survey-based quality improvement process measures, and 4 electronic health record-based cardiovascular disease prevention quality measures, namely, aspirin prescription, blood pressure control, cholesterol management, and smoking cessation support (ABCS). RESULTS: Physician-owned practices were more likely to be solo (45.0% compared with 8.1%, P < .001 for health system practices and 12.8%, P = .009 for FQHCs) and less likely to have experienced a major change (eg, moved to a new location) in the last year (43.1% vs 65.4%, P = .01 and 72.1%, P = .001, respectively). FQHCs reported the highest use of quality improvement processes, followed by health system practices. ABCS performance was similar across ownership type, with the exception of smoking cessation support (51.0% for physician-owned practices vs 67.3%, P = .004 for health system practices and 69.3%, P = .004 for FQHCs). CONCLUSIONS: Primary care practice ownership was associated with differences in quality improvement process measures, with FQHCs reporting the highest use of such quality-improvement strategies. ABCS were mostly unrelated to ownership, suggesting a complex path between quality improvement strategies and outcomes.

Long-Term Outcomes From Repeated Smoking Cessation Assistance in Routine Primary Care.

PURPOSE: To test the association between repeated clinical smoking cessation support and long-term cessation. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational cohort study using structured and free-text data from electronic health records. SETTING: Six diverse health systems in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged ≥18 years who were smokers in 2007 and had ≥1 primary care visit in each of the following 4 years (N = 33 691). MEASURES: Primary exposure was a composite categorical variable (comprised of documentation of smoking cessation medication, counseling, or referral) classifying the proportions of visits for which patients received any cessation assistance (<25% (reference), 25%-49%, 50%-74%, and ≥75% of visits). The dependent variable was long-term quit (LTQ; yes/no), defined as no indication of being a current smoker for ≥365 days following a visit where nonsmoker or former smoker was indicated. ANALYSIS: Mixed effects logistic regression analysis adjusted for age, sex, race, and comorbidities, with robust standard error estimation to account for within site correlation. RESULTS: Overall, 20% of the cohort achieved LTQ status. Patients with ≥75% of visits with any assistance had almost 3 times the odds of achieving LTQ status compared to those with <25% visits with assistance (odds ratio = 2.84; 95% confidence interval: 1.50-5.37). Results were similar for specific assistance types. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide support for the importance of repeated assistance at primary care visits to increase long-term smoking cessation.

Updated Priorities Among Effective Clinical Preventive Services.

PURPOSE: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's provisions for first-dollar coverage of evidence-based preventive services have reduced an important barrier to receipt of preventive care. Safety-net providers, however, still serve a substantial uninsured population, and clinician and patient time remain limited in all primary care settings. As a consequence, decision makers continue to set priorities to help focus their efforts. This report updates estimates of relative health impact and cost-effectiveness for evidence-based preventive services. METHODS: We assessed the potential impact of 28 evidence-based clinical preventive services in terms of their cost-effectiveness and clinically preventable burden, as measured by quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) saved. Each service received 1 to 5 points on each of the 2 measures-cost-effectiveness and clinically preventable burden-for a total score ranging from 2 to 10. New microsimulation models were used to provide updated estimates of 12 of these services. Priorities for improving delivery rates were established by comparing the ranking with what is known of current delivery rates nationally. RESULTS: The 3 highest-ranking services, each with a total score of 10, are immunizing children, counseling to prevent tobacco initiation among youth, and tobacco-use screening and brief intervention to encourage cessation among adults. Greatest population health improvement could be obtained from increasing utilization of clinical preventive services that address tobacco use, obesity-related behaviors, and alcohol misuse, as well as colorectal cancer screening and influenza vaccinations. CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies high-priority preventive services and should help decision makers select which services to emphasize in quality-improvement initiatives.

Health Benefits and Cost-Effectiveness of Brief Clinician Tobacco Counseling for Youth and Adults.

PURPOSE: To help clinicians and care systems determine the priority for tobacco counseling in busy clinic schedules, we assessed the lifetime health and economic value of annually counseling youth to discourage smoking initiation and of annually counseling adults to encourage cessation. METHODS: We conducted a microsimulation analysis to estimate the health impact and cost effectiveness of both types of tobacco counseling in a US birth cohort of 4,000,000. The model used for the analysis was constructed from nationally representative data sets and structured literature reviews. RESULTS: Compared with no tobacco counseling, the model predicts that annual counseling for youth would reduce the average prevalence of smoking cigarettes during adult years by 2.0 percentage points, whereas annual counseling for adults will reduce prevalence by 3.8 percentage points. Youth counseling would prevent 42,686 smoking-attributable fatalities and increase quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) by 756,601 over the lifetime of the cohort. Adult counseling would prevent 69,901 smoking-attributable fatalities and increase QALYs by 1,044,392. Youth and adult counseling would yield net savings of $225 and $580 per person, respectively. If annual tobacco counseling was provided to the cohort during both youth and adult years, then adult smoking prevalence would be 5.5 percentage points lower compared with no counseling, and there would be 105,917 fewer smoking-attributable fatalities over their lifetimes. Only one-third of the potential health and economic benefits of counseling are being realized at current counseling rates. CONCLUSIONS: Brief tobacco counseling provides substantial health benefits while producing cost savings. Both youth and adult intervention are high-priority uses of limited clinician time.

A national evaluation of a dissemination and implementation initiative to enhance primary care practice capacity and improve cardiovascular disease care: the ESCALATES study protocol.

BACKGROUND: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) launched the EvidenceNOW Initiative to rapidly disseminate and implement evidence-based cardiovascular disease (CVD) preventive care in smaller primary care practices. AHRQ funded eight grantees (seven regional Cooperatives and one independent national evaluation) to participate in EvidenceNOW. The national evaluation examines quality improvement efforts and outcomes for more than 1500 small primary care practices (restricted to those with fewer than ten physicians per clinic). Examples of external support include practice facilitation, expert consultation, performance feedback, and educational materials and activities. This paper describes the study protocol for the EvidenceNOW national evaluation, which is called Evaluating System Change to Advance Learning and Take Evidence to Scale (ESCALATES). METHODS: This prospective observational study will examine the portfolio of EvidenceNOW Cooperatives using both qualitative and quantitative data. Qualitative data include: online implementation diaries, observation and interviews at Cooperatives and practices, and systematic assessment of context from the perspective of Cooperative team members. Quantitative data include: practice-level performance on clinical quality measures (aspirin prescribing, blood pressure and cholesterol control, and smoking cessation; ABCS) collected by Cooperatives from electronic health records (EHRs); practice and practice member surveys to assess practice capacity and other organizational and structural characteristics; and systematic tracking of intervention delivery. Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods analyses will be conducted to examine how Cooperatives organize to provide external support to practices, to compare effectiveness of the dissemination and implementation approaches they implement, and to examine how regional variations and other organization and contextual factors influence implementation and effectiveness. DISCUSSION: ESCALATES is a national evaluation of an ambitious large-scale dissemination and implementation effort focused on transforming smaller primary care practices. Insights will help to inform the design of national health care practice extension systems aimed at supporting practice transformation efforts in the USA. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02560428 (09/21/15).

Assessing Trends in Tobacco Cessation in Diverse Patient Populations.

INTRODUCTION: This study examined change in tobacco use over 4 years among the general population of patients in six diverse health care organizations using electronic medical record data. METHODS: The study cohort (N = 34 393) included all patients age 18 years or older who were identified as smokers in 2007, and who then had at least one primary care visit in each of the following 4 years. RESULTS: In the 4 years following 2007, this patient cohort had a median of 13 primary care visits, and 38.6% of the patients quit smoking at least once. At the end of the fourth follow-up year, 15.4% had stopped smoking for 1 year or more. Smokers were more likely to become long-term quitters if they were 65 or older (OR = 1.32, 95% CI = [1.16, 1.49]), or had a diagnoses of cancer (1.26 [1.12, 1.41]), cardiovascular disease (1.22 [1.09, 1.37]), asthma (1.15 [1.06, 1.25]), or diabetes (1.17 [1.09, 1.27]). Characteristics associated with lower likelihood of becoming a long-term quitter were female gender (0.90 [0.84, 0.95]), black race (0.84 [0.75, 0.94]) and those identified as non-Hispanic (0.50 [0.43, 0.59]). CONCLUSIONS: Among smokers who regularly used these care systems, one in seven had achieved long-term cessation after 4 years. This study shows the practicality of using electronic medical records for monitoring patient smoking status over time. Similar methods could be used to assess tobacco use in any health care organization to evaluate the impact of environmental and organizational programs.

Documentation of the 5 as for smoking cessation by PCPs across distinct health systems.

OBJECTIVES: Physicians can help patients quit smoking using the 5 As of smoking cessation. This study aimed to (1) identify the proportion of known smokers that receive smoking cessation services in the course of routine clinical practice; (2) describe demographic and comorbidity characteristics of patients receiving the 5 As in these systems; and (3) evaluate differences in performance of the 5 As across health systems, gender, and age categories. STUDY DESIGN: Electronic medical records of 200 current smokers from 6 unique health systems (N = 1200) were randomly selected from 2006 to 2010. Primary care encounter progress notes were hand coded for occurrences of the 5 As. METHODS: Bivariate comparisons of delivery of the 3 smoking-cessation services by site, gender, and age category were analyzed using χ² tests. RESULTS: About 50% of smokers were advised to quit smoking, 39% were assessed for their readiness to quit, and 54% received some type of assistance to help them quit smoking. Only 2% had a documented plan for follow-up regarding their quitting efforts (arrange). Significant differences were found among sites for documentation of receiving the 5 As and between age groups receiving assistance with quitting. There was no statistically significant difference between genders in receipt of the 5 As. CONCLUSIONS: Documentation of adherence to the 5 As varied by site and some demographics. Adjustments to protocols for addressing cessation and readiness to quit may be warranted. Health systems could apply the methodology described in this paper to assess their own performance, and then use that as a basis to guide improvement initiatives.

The use of computed tomography in pediatrics and the associated radiation exposure and estimated cancer risk.

IMPORTANCE: Increased use of computed tomography (CT) in pediatrics raises concerns about cancer risk from exposure to ionizing radiation. OBJECTIVES: To quantify trends in the use of CT in pediatrics and the associated radiation exposure and cancer risk. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Seven US health care systems. PARTICIPANTS: The use of CT was evaluated for children younger than 15 years of age from 1996 to 2010, including 4 857 736 child-years of observation. Radiation doses were calculated for 744 CT scans performed between 2001 and 2011. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Rates of CT use, organ and effective doses, and projected lifetime attributable risks of cancer. RESULTS The use of CT doubled for children younger than 5 years of age and tripled for children 5 to 14 years of age between 1996 and 2005, remained stable between 2006 and 2007, and then began to decline. Effective doses varied from 0.03 to 69.2 mSv per scan. An effective dose of 20 mSv or higher was delivered by 14% to 25% of abdomen/pelvis scans, 6% to 14% of spine scans, and 3% to 8% of chest scans. Projected lifetime attributable risks of solid cancer were higher for younger patients and girls than for older patients and boys, and they were also higher for patients who underwent CT scans of the abdomen/pelvis or spine than for patients who underwent other types of CT scans. For girls, a radiation-induced solid cancer is projected to result from every 300 to 390 abdomen/pelvis scans, 330 to 480 chest scans, and 270 to 800 spine scans, depending on age. The risk of leukemia was highest from head scans for children younger than 5 years of age at a rate of 1.9 cases per 10 000 CT scans. Nationally, 4 million pediatric CT scans of the head, abdomen/pelvis, chest, or spine performed each year are projected to cause 4870 future cancers. Reducing the highest 25% of doses to the median might prevent 43% of these cancers. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The increased use of CT in pediatrics, combined with the wide variability in radiation doses, has resulted in many children receiving a high-dose examination. Dose-reduction strategies targeted to the highest quartile of doses could dramatically reduce the number of radiation-induced cancers.