An Exploratory Study of Physician Decision-Making When Treating Uncontrolled COPD.

Purpose: Current guidelines recommend triple therapy maintenance inhalers for patients with recurrent exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD); however, these maintenance therapies are underutilized. This study aimed to understand how physicians make COPD treatment decisions, and how combination maintenance therapies are utilized in a real-world setting. Patients and Methods: This exploratory, hypothesis-generating, non-interventional study used a cross-sectional online survey that was administered to a sample of practicing physicians in the United States. The survey included five fictitious vignettes detailing common symptoms experienced by patients with COPD. Survey questions included factors physicians consider in their decisions, and perceived barriers to prescribing treatments. Repeated measures multivariable analyses were conducted to evaluate how likely physicians were to switch to triple therapy versus no change to patient's current maintenance therapy or change to another maintenance therapy. Results: In total, 200 physicians completed the survey. Cost of treatment and patient access to treatment were reported as the most common barriers physicians consider in their prescribing decisions. Physicians were more likely to switch a patient's maintenance inhaler to triple therapy versus no change to maintenance inhaler if they considered the patient's history of new symptoms, insurance status, and clinical guidelines in their decision. Physicians with more experience treating patients with COPD, and those who treat more patients with COPD per week, were more likely to switch to triple therapy versus no change to maintenance inhaler. Conclusion: This study demonstrates the complexity of factors that can influence physicians' decisions when prescribing treatments for patients with COPD, including considerations of treatment cost, patient access and adherence, patient comorbidities, efficacy of current treatment, clinical guidelines, and provider's level of experience treating COPD. Further research may help elucidate the relative importance of the factors influencing physicians' decisions and inform what types of decision-support tools would be most beneficial.

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) symptoms can be effectively managed with maintenance therapies, which are treatments that are taken routinely to help improve symptoms. A combination of three different therapies (triple therapy maintenance) has been shown to be more effective than a combination of two different therapies (dual therapy maintenance) in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. However, maintenance therapies, including triple therapy, are underutilized. This study aimed to explore how physicians make their treatment decisions for patients with COPD, and how combination maintenance therapies are utilized. To do so, we administered a survey to a sample of practicing physicians in the United States. The survey included five clinically based, fictitious profiles, or vignettes, of patients with COPD, with common symptoms and patient characteristics being described. Physicians were then asked to answer questions about what treatment they would prescribe for each patient, and any factors they considered when deciding on a treatment for a patient. We found that cost of treatment and patient access to treatment were the most common barriers that physicians considered when choosing a treatment. Physicians were also more likely to switch a patient's maintenance inhaler to a triple therapy maintenance inhaler if they considered the patient's history of new symptoms, patient's insurance status, and clinical guidelines when making their decisions. Our study shows that there are many complex factors that influence physicians' decisions when deciding on a treatment for patients with COPD.

Outcomes of A Virtual Practice-Tailored Medicare Annual Wellness Visit Intervention.

INTRODUCTION: Interventions are needed to promote utilization of the Medicare Annual Wellness Visit (AWV), an underused opportunity to perform screenings and plan individualized preventive health services. METHOD: Using remote practice redesign and electronic health record (EHR) support, we implemented the Practice-Tailored AWV intervention in 2021 (during the COVID-19 pandemic) in 3 small community-based practices. The intervention combines EHR-based tools with practice redesign approaches and resources. Outcomes included completion of AWV and fulfillment of recommended preventive services. RESULTS: At baseline the 3 practices had 1,513 Medicare patients with at least 1 visit in the past 12 months. AWV utilization went from 7% at baseline to 54% 8 months postintervention implementation; advance care planning increased 10.7% (from 7.9% to 18.6%); depression screening increased 16.3% (from 51.7% to 68.0%); and alcohol misuse screening increased 17.3% (from 42.6% to 59.9%). Every individual preventive health service was received more often by patients with an AWV than those without. At the patient level, fulfillment of all eligible preventive services (of a maximum of 12 evaluated) went from 47.5% to 53.8% (P < .001). Subgroup analyses showed that patients with AWVs completed a greater percentage of their total recommended preventive health services than those without an AWV. CONCLUSION: Virtual implementation of an intervention that combined EHR-based tools with practice redesign approaches increased AWV and preventive services utilization in Medicare patients. Given the success of this intervention during the COVID-19 pandemic (when practices had many competing demands), greater consideration should be given to delivering future interventions virtually.

Socioeconomic status associates with worse asthma morbidity among Black and Latinx adults.

BACKGROUND: Asthma disproportionately affects African American/Black (AA/B) and Hispanic/Latinx (H/L) patients and individuals with low socioeconomic status (SES), but the relationship between SES and asthma morbidity within these racial/ethnic groups is inadequately understood. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between SES and asthma morbidity among AA/B and H/L adults with moderate to severe asthma using multidomain SES frameworks and mediation analyses. METHODS: We analyzed enrollment data from the PeRson EmPowered Asthma RElief randomized trial, evaluating inhaled corticosteroid supplementation to rescue therapy. We tested for direct and indirect relationships between SES and asthma morbidity using structural equation models. For SES, we used a latent variable defined by poverty, education, and unemployment. For asthma morbidity, we used self-reported asthma exacerbations in the year before enrollment (corticosteroid bursts, emergency room/urgent care visits, or hospitalizations), and Asthma Control Test scores. We tested for mediation via health literacy, perceived stress, and self-reported discrimination. All models adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, ethnicity, and comorbidities. RESULTS: Among 990 AA/B and H/L adults, low SES (latent variable) was directly associated with hospitalizations (ß = 0.24) and worse Asthma Control Test scores (ß = 0.20). Stress partially mediated the relationship between SES and increased emergency room/urgent care visits and worse asthma control (ß = 0.03 and = 0.05, respectively). Individual SES domains were directly associated with asthma morbidity. Stress mediated indirect associations between low educational attainment and unemployment with worse asthma control (ß = 0.05 and = 0.06, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Lower SES is directly, and indirectly through stress, associated with asthma morbidity among AA/B and H/L adults. Identification of stressors and relevant management strategies may lessen asthma-related morbidity among these populations.

Patient Navigators Connecting Patients to Community Resources to Improve Diabetes Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Despite the recognized importance of lifestyle modification in reducing risk of developing type 2 diabetes and in diabetes management, the use of available community resources by both patients and their primary care providers (PCPs) remains low. The patient navigator model, widely used in cancer care, may have the potential to link PCPs and community resources for reduction of risk and control of type 2 diabetes. In this study we tested the feasibility and acceptability of telephone-based nonprofessional patient navigation to promote linkages between the PCP office and community programs for patients with or at risk for diabetes. METHODS: This was a mixed-methods interventional prospective cohort study conducted between November 2012 and August 2013. We included adult patients with and at risk for type 2 diabetes from six primary care practices. Patient-level measures of glycemic control, diabetes care, and self-efficacy from medical records, and qualitative interview data on acceptability and feasibility, were used. RESULTS: A total of 179 patients participated in the study. Two patient navigators provided services over the phone, using motivational interviewing techniques. Patient navigators provided regular feedback to PCPs and followed up with the patients through phone calls. The patient navigators made 1028 calls, with an average of 6 calls per patient. At follow-up, reduction in HbA1c (7.8 ± 1.9% vs 7.2 ± 1.3%; P = .001) and improvement in patient self-efficacy (3.1 ± 0.8 vs 3.6 ± 0.7; P < .001) were observed. Qualitative analysis revealed uniformly positive feedback from providers and patients. CONCLUSIONS: The patient navigator model is a promising and acceptable strategy to link patient, PCP, and community resources for promoting lifestyle modification in people living with or at risk for type 2 diabetes.

Prioritization of patients for comprehensive medication review by a clinical pharmacist in family medicine.

BACKGROUND: This pilot study describes and evaluates the clinical pharmacy priority (CP2) score. We hypothesize that patients with high CP2 scores are more likely to receive a medication recommendation after comprehensive medication review (CMR) than patients with lower scores. Prioritization of patients for CMR by a clinical pharmacist in family medicine could enhance the provision of interprofessional care within the patient-centered medical home. METHODS: The CP2 score was developed collaboratively by the research team and is derived from 11 patient-specific factors extracted from the electronic health record. To evaluate the utility of the score, CMR was performed prospectively by a clinical pharmacist for patients with appointments between October 1 and December 31, 2012, at 2 University of Colorado family medicine clinics. RESULTS: CMR was performed for 1107 patient appointments. Of these, 101 were identified as having received a medication recommendation from the clinical pharmacist. For patients with a CP2 score of 0 to 2, 2 of 588 charts (0.3%) reviewed received a recommendation (level 1). The proportion increased to 37 of 358 (10.3%) for scores of 3 to 7 (level 2), 40 of 119 (33.6%) for scores of 8 to 10 (level 3), and 22 of 42 (52.4%) for scores of ≥11 (level 4). Compared with CP2 scores in level 1, patient appointments were more likely to receive a medication recommendation after CMR in level 2 (relative risk [RR], 30.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.4-125.3), in level 3 (RR, 98.8; 95% CI, 24.2-403.3), and in level 4 (RR, 154; 95% CI, 37.5-632.8). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with higher CP2 scores were more likely to receive a medication recommendation after CMR by a clinical pharmacist than patients with lower scores. The CP2 score could be used by clinical pharmacists in family medicine to enhance the efficient and effective delivery of interprofessional care.

Monitoring suicidal patients in primary care using electronic health records.

INTRODUCTION: Patients at risk for suicide often come into contact with primary care providers, many of whom use electronic health records (EHRs) for charting. It is not known, however, how often suicide ideation or attempts are documented in EHRs. METHODS: We used retrospective analyses of de-identified EHR data from a distributed health network of primary care organizations to estimate the frequency of using diagnostic codes to record suicidal ideation and attempts. Data came from 3 sources: a clinician notes field processed using natural language processing; a suicidal ideation item on a patient-reported depression severity instrument (9-item Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9]); and diagnostic codes from the EHR. RESULTS: Only 3% of patients with an indication of suicidal ideation in the notes field had a corresponding International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision (ICD-9), code (κ = 0.036). Agreement between an indication of suicidal ideation from item 9 of the PHQ-9 and an ICD-9 code was slightly higher (κ = 0.068). Suicide attempt indicated in the notes field was more likely to be recorded using an ICD-9 code (19%; κ = 0.18). CONCLUSIONS: Few cases of suicidal ideation and attempt were documented in patients' EHRs using diagnostic codes. Increased documentation of suicidal ideation and behaviors in patients' EHRs may improve their monitoring in the health care system.

Managing patient populations in primary care: points of leverage.

Common "quality" metrics may represent the quality of care for large populations; however, they do not adequately represent quality in individual primary care settings, especially as stand-alone indices. Using discreet threshold values to measure quality in primary care may result in physicians focusing on managing patients by the numbers at the expense of making individualized and nuanced clinical decisions. Current performance measures may be misapplied as proxies for both cost savings and quality. We posit that developing and focusing measurement on high-leverage activities will yield better clinical outcomes and potentially lower cost. As a starting point for further work in this area, we suggest the development of metrics that track identification and management of depression; management of transitions of care; care coordination; team-based care; identification and support of socially frail/isolated individuals; pharmacologic management, including optimizing medication and dealing with adherence issues; and establishment of a therapeutic environment. These processes, or others like them, will require infrastructure that may be costly and time-consuming, and measuring these processes will require thought and effort. Nevertheless, we believe developing metrics based on high-leverage activities will yield greater clinical and economic returns than relying on the metrics currently in place.

Rates of 5 common antidepressant side effects among new adult and adolescent cases of depression: a retrospective US claims study.

BACKGROUND: Antidepressants are the first-line treatment for depression, yet medication-related side effects may be associated with antidepressant discontinuation before reaching a period of exposure believed to result in effectiveness. There is a gap in knowledge of the prevalence of side effects across commonly prescribed antidepressants and the effect of the type of antidepressant on the likelihood of side effects in real-world clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to estimate and compare the prevalence of headaches, nausea or vomiting, agitation, sedation, and sexual dysfunction among patients diagnosed with depression who initiated monotherapy across different classes of antidepressants and to estimate the effect of the type of antidepressant on the likelihood of each of the 5 side effects. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of patients aged ≥13 who were newly diagnosed with depression and began antidepressant monotherapy was created using LifeLink managed care claims from 1998 to 2008. Antidepressant groups included selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs), bupropion, phenylpiperazine, and tetracyclic antidepressants. Prevalence of headache, nausea or vomiting, agitation, sedation, and sexual dysfunction were compared across antidepressant groups. Propensity-adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression was used to estimate the likelihood of each of the 5 side effects for each antidepressant group compared with SSRIs, adjusted for demographic, clinical, and treatment characteristics. RESULTS: The study cohort included 40,017 patients (3617 adolescents, aged 13-18 years, and 36,400 adults, aged ≥19 years; mean age = 45 years; 67% female) with a new episode of depression who were initiated on antidepressant monotherapy within 30 days of diagnosis (SSRI [66%], bupropion [14%], SNRI [12%], other [8%]). The most common side effects were headache (up to 17/1000 person-months of therapy in adults and adolescents) and nausea (up to 7.2/1000 in adults, 9.3/1000 in adolescents). Relative to adults receiving SSRIs, adults receiving SNRIs had a higher risk of nausea (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.26; 95%CI,1.05-1.51). Adults (HR = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62-0.96) and adolescents (HR = 0.43; 95% CI, 0.21-0.87) taking bupropion were less likely to experience headaches compared with adults and adolescents, respectively, taking an SSRI. Adolescents receiving a tetracyclic were more likely to experience headaches than adolescents receiving an SSRI (HR = 3.16; 95%CI, 1.13-8.84). CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence and risk of the 5 side effects varied across types of antidepressants for both adults and adolescents. Results from this study were consistent with prior clinical trials, suggesting that variation in side effect profiles exists in a more generalized managed care population.

Card studies for observational research in practice.

PURPOSE: Observational studies that collect patient-level survey data at the point-of-care are often called card studies. Card studies have been used to describe clinical problems, management, and outcomes in primary care for more than 30 years. In this article we describe 2 types of card studies and the methods for conducting them. METHODS: We undertook a descriptive review of card studies conducted in 3 Colorado practice-based research networks and several other networks throughout the United States. We summarized experiences of the State Networks of Colorado Ambulatory Practices and Partners (SNOCAP). RESULTS: Card studies can be designed to study specific conditions or care (clinicians complete a card when they encounter patients who meet inclusion criteria) and to determine trends and prevalence of conditions (clinicians complete a card on all patients seen during a period). Data can be collected from clinicians and patients and can be linked. CONCLUSIONS: Card studies provide cross-sectional descriptive data about clinical care, knowledge and behavior, perception of care, and prevalence of conditions. Card studies remain a robust method for describing primary care.

Alcohol and sleep problems in primary care patients: a report from the AAFP National Research Network.

PURPOSE: Hazardous and harmful drinking and sleep problems are common, but their associations among patients seen in primary care have not been examined. We hypothesized that greater levels of alcohol consumption would be associated with several self-reported sleep problems. METHODS: In a cross-sectional survey in primary care practices, 94 participating clinicians recruited up to 30 consecutive adult patients, and both clinicians and patients completed anonymous postvisit questionnaires. Patients were asked questions on demographics, alcohol consumption, cardinal symptoms of alcohol use disorders, sleep quality, insomnia, sleep apnea, and symptoms of restless leg syndrome. Multivariate analyses explored the associations of drinking status (none, moderate, or hazardous) and sleep problems, adjusting for demographics and clustering of patients within physician. RESULTS: Of 1,984 patients who responded, 1,699 (85.6%) provided complete data for analysis. Respondents' mean age was 50.4 years (SD 17.4 years), 67% were women, and 72.9% were white. Of these, 22.3% reported hazardous drinking, 47.8% reported fair or poor overall sleep quality, and 7.3% reported a diagnosis or treatment of sleep apnea. Multivariate analyses showed no associations between drinking status and any measure of insomnia, overall sleep quality, or restless legs syndrome symptoms. Moderate drinking was associated with lower adjusted odds of sleep apnea compared with nondrinkers (OR = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.38-1.00). Using alcohol for sleep was strongly associated with hazardous drinking (OR = 4.58; 95% CI, 2.97-7.08, compared with moderate drinking). CONCLUSIONS: Moderate and hazardous drinking were associated with few sleep problems. Using alcohol for sleep, however, was strongly associated with hazardous drinking relative to moderate drinking and may serve as a prompt for physicians to ask about excessive alcohol use.

Field test results of a new ambulatory care Medication Error and Adverse Drug Event Reporting System--MEADERS.

PURPOSE: In this study, we developed and field tested the Medication Error and Adverse Drug Event Reporting System (MEADERS)-an easy-to-use, Web-based reporting system designed for busy office practices. METHODS: We conducted a 10-week field test of MEADERS in which 220 physicians and office staff from 24 practices reported medication errors and adverse drug events they observed during usual clinical care. The main outcomes were (1) use and acceptability of MEADERS measured with a postreporting survey and interviews with office managers and lead physicians, and (2) distributions of characteristics of the medication event reports. RESULTS: A total of 507 anonymous event reports were submitted. The mean reporting time was 4.3 minutes. Of these reports, 357 (70%) included medication errors only, 138 (27%) involved adverse drug events only, and 12 (2.4%) included both. Medication errors were roughly equally divided among ordering medications, implementing prescription orders, errors by patients receiving the medications, and documentation errors. The most frequent contributors to the medication errors and adverse drug events were communication problems (41%) and knowledge deficits (22%). Eight (1.6%) of the reported events led to hospitalization. Reporting raised staff and physician awareness of the kinds of errors that occur in office medication management; however, 36% agreed or strongly agreed that the event reporting "has increased the fear of repercussion in the practice." Time pressure was the main barrier to reporting. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible for primary care clinicians and office staff to report medication errors and adverse drug events to a Web-based reporting system. Time pressures and a punitive culture are barriers to event reporting that must be overcome. Further testing of MEADERS as a quality improvement tool is warranted.

Practice-based research network studies in the age of HIPAA.

PURPOSE: We wanted to explore potential effects of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) on research activities of practice-based research networks (PBRNs). METHODS: To understand the approaches PBRNs are using to advance their research while adhering to HIPAA standards, we combined a literature review, our experiences, and discussions with local HIPAA officers, PBRN researchers in the United States, and individuals involved in drafting HIPAA. RESULTS: HIPAA requires researchers to pay special attention to how they handle patients' protected health information (PHI). For researchers working within PBRNs, which collect information from patients and health care professionals in multiple institutions, the HIPAA Privacy Rule presents additional challenges. PBRN researchers can obtain patient authorization to use PHI, but this process is difficult and may taint the findings of some research studies. Some institutions may allow patients to provide a blanket authorization for study recruitment. PBRNs additionally can collect only "de-identified" data (data with identifying information removed) or, with a data use agreement, can work with a limited data set. PBRNs that blend quality improvement and research can work with PHI, but the researcher and practices must enter into a business agreement. PBRN researchers may need to play active, educational roles in institutional privacy boards to facilitate their research. CONCLUSIONS: There are a number of ways for PBRN researchers to comply with HIPAA short of obtaining patient consent and authorization for every study. Careful planning and consideration of HIPAA issues during study design can go a long way toward reducing frustration later.

Event reporting to a primary care patient safety reporting system: a report from the ASIPS collaborative.

BACKGROUND: We examined reports to a primary care, ambulatory, patient safety reporting system to describe types of errors reported and differences between anonymous and confidential reports. METHODS: Applied Strategies for Improving Patient Safety (ASIPS) is a demonstration project designed to collect and analyze medical error reports from clinicians and staff in 2 practice-based research networks: the Colorado Research Network (CaReNet) and the High Plains Research Network (HPRN). A major component of ASIPS is a voluntary patient safety reporting system that accepts reports of errors anonymously or confidentially. Reports are coded using a multiaxial taxonomy. RESULTS: Two years into this project, 33 practices with a total of 475 clinicians and staff have participated in ASIPS. Participants submitted 708 reports during this time (66% using the confidential reporting form). We successfully followed up on 84% of the confidential reports of interest within the allotted 10-day time frame. We ended up with 608 relevant, codable reports. Communication problems (70.8%), diagnostic tests (47%), medication problems (35.4%), and both diagnostic tests and medications (13.6%) were the most frequently reported errors. Confidential reports were significantly more likely than anonymous reports to contain codable data. CONCLUSION: A safe and secure reporting system that relies on voluntary reporting from clinicians and staff can be successfully implemented in primary care settings. Information from confidential reports appears to be superior to that from anonymous reports and may be more useful in understanding errors and designing interventions to improve patient safety.

Clinical decisions regarding HbA1c results in primary care: a report from CaReNet and HPRN.

OBJECTIVE: To describe decisions made by primary care providers on elevated HbA(1c) results and their reasons for not intensifying therapy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, a provider survey was administered in two practice-based research networks when HbA(1c) results were reviewed on all nonpregnant patients >18 years old with type 2 diabetes. Univariate and Mantel-Hantel analyses assessed associations between patient characteristics and clinical decisions. RESULTS: A total of 483 surveys were completed by at least 88 providers at 19 clinics. Most patients were female (62.5%), mean age was 60 years, and 28.6% were Hispanic. The overall action rate on HbA(1c) results >/=7% (n = 294) was 70.7%. Patients who were black or had Medicare without medication insurance had lower rates of action on HbA(1c) >/=7 and >/=8%, respectively (P < 0.05). The most common reasons providers reported for inaction were "patient improving/doing well," "competing demands," and "hypoglycemic risk." CONCLUSIONS: Primary care providers generally adhere to national glycemic control guidelines, although there may be disparities in black patients and patients without medication insurance coverage. A variety of reasons were given when control was not intensified.