Association of Self-reported Primary Care Physician Tolerance for Uncertainty With Variations in Resource Use and Patient Experience.

Importance: Inappropriate variations in clinical practice are a known cause of poor quality and safety, with variations often associated with nonclinical factors, such as individual differences in cognitive processing. The differential response of physicians to uncertainty may explain some of the variations in resource use and patient experience. Objective: To examine the association of physician tolerance for uncertainty with variations in resource use and patient experience. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study linked physician survey data (May to June 2019), patient experience survey data (January 2016 to December 2019), and billing data (January 2019 to December 2019) among primary care physicians (PCPs) at Massachusetts General Hospital with at least 10 visits in 2019. The statistical analysis was performed in 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: The analysis examined associations of PCP tolerance for uncertainty with the tendency to order diagnostic tests, the frequency of outpatient visits, hospital admissions, emergency department visits, and patient experience data (focused on physician communication and overall rating). A 2-stage hierarchical framework was used to account for clustering of patients under PCPs. Binary outcomes were modeled using a hierarchical logistic model, and count outcomes were modeled using hierarchical Poisson or negative binomial models. The analysis was adjusted for patient demographic variables (age, sex, and race and ethnicity), socioeconomic factors (payer and neighborhood income), and clinical comorbidities. Results: Of 217 included physicians, 137 (63.1%) were women, and 174 (80.2%) were adult PCPs. A total of 62 physicians (28.6%) reported low tolerance, 59 (27.2%) reported medium tolerance, and 96 (44.2%) reported high tolerance for uncertainty. Physicians with a low tolerance for uncertainty were less likely to order complete blood cell counts (odds ratio [OR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.50-0.88), thyroid tests (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.88), a basic metabolic profile (OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.60-1.00), and liver function tests (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.53-0.99) than physicians with a high tolerance for uncertainty. Physicians who reported higher tolerance for uncertainty were more likely to receive higher patient experience scores for listening to patients carefully (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.50-0.83) and higher overall ratings (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66-0.98) than physicians with medium tolerance. Conversely, no association was found between physician tolerance for uncertainty and patient outpatient visits, hospital admissions, or emergency department visits. Conclusions and Relevance: In clinical practice, identifying and effectively managing inappropriate variations and improving patient experience have proven to be difficult, despite increased attention to these issues. This study supports the hypothesis that physicians' tolerance for uncertainty is associated with differences in resource use and patient experience. Whether enhancing physicians' tolerance for uncertainty could help reduce unwarranted practice variations, improve quality and patient safety, and improve patient's experience remains to be established.

Comparing neighborhood-based indices of socioeconomic risk factors and potentially preventable emergency department utilization.

BACKGROUND: Neighborhood stress score (NSS) and area deprivation index (ADI) are two neighborhood-based composite measures used to quantify an individual's socioeconomic risk based on home location. In this analysis, we compare the relationships between an individual's socioeconomic risk, based on each of these measures, and potentially preventable acute care utilization. METHODS: Using emergency department (ED) visit data from two academic medical centers in Boston, Massachusetts, we conducted adjusted Poisson regressions of ADI decile and NSS decile with counts of low acuity ED visits, admissions for ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs), and patients with high frequency ED utilization at the census block group (CBG) level within the greater Boston area. RESULTS: Both NSS and ADI decile were associated with elevated rates of utilization, although the associated incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for NSS were higher than those for ADI across all three measures. NSS decile was associated with IRRs of 1.11 [95% CI: 1.10-1.12], 1.16 [1.14-1.17], and 1.22 [1.19-1.25] for ACSC admissions, low acuity ED visits, and patients with high frequency ED utilization, respectively; compared with 1.04 [1.04-1.05], 1.11 [1.10-1.11], and 1.10 [1.08-1.12] for ADI decile. CONCLUSION: ADI and NSS both represent effective tools to assess the potential impact of geographically-linked socioeconomic drivers of health on potentially preventable acute care utilization. NSS decile was associated with a greater effect size for each measure of utilization suggesting that this may be a stronger predictor, however, additional research is necessary to evaluate these findings in other contexts.

Predictors of MRI Leakage Among Patients Attributed to an Academic Medical Center Commercial Risk-Shared Insurance Contract.

PURPOSE: For health care organizations engaged in risk-shared insurance contracts, leakage of advanced diagnostic imaging to imaging sites not affiliated with the risk-sharing organization may undermine performance on financial and quality metrics. The goal of this study was to identify factors that are predictive of leakage of MRI examinations among patients attributed to an academic health care organization's risk-shared commercial insurance contract. METHODS: Administrative claims data from 2015 through 2016 for patients attributed to a single risk-shared commercial insurance contract at a large academic medical center (AMC) were analyzed. Primary outcome was MRI leakage: an outpatient MRI study performed at a site not affiliated with the AMC's integrated health care system. Ordering provider alignment with the AMC's risk-shared insurance contract was categorized as strong, weak, or none. Multivariate regression analyses were conducted to evaluate the relationship between provider alignment and MRI leakage, while adjusting for selected covariates. RESULTS: Among 8,215 patients meeting inclusion criteria, there were 13,272 MRI encounters. The overall proportion of leaked MRI studies was 12.7%. MRI studies ordered by providers with weak AMC alignment (odds ratio, 3.16; 95% confidence interval, 2.49-4.02) or no AMC alignment (odds ratio, 3.68; 95% confidence interval, 3.12-4.33) were more likely to leak than MRI studies ordered by providers with strong AMC alignment. CONCLUSIONS: An ordering provider with no alignment with an AMC's commercial risk-shared insurance contract was the strongest predictor of MRI leakage. Population health management initiatives aimed at reducing leakage should consider the impact of provider networks and clinical referral patterns that drive imaging utilization.

Development of an electronic health record-based chronic kidney disease registry to promote population health management.

BACKGROUND: Electronic health record (EHR) based chronic kidney disease (CKD) registries are central to population health strategies to improve CKD care. In 2015, Partners Healthcare System (PHS), encompassing multiple academic and community hospitals and outpatient care facilities in Massachusetts, developed an EHR-based CKD registry to identify opportunities for quality improvement, defined as improvement on both process measures and outcomes measures associated with clinical care. METHODS: Patients are included in the registry based on the following criteria: 1) two estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) results < 60 ml/min/1.73m2 separated by 90 days, including the most recent eGFR being < 60 ml/min/1.73m2; or 2) the most recent two urine protein values > 300 mg protein/g creatinine on either urine total protein/creatinine ratio or urine albumin/creatinine ratio; or 3) an EHR problem list diagnosis of end stage renal disease (ESRD). The registry categorizes patients by CKD stage and includes rates of annual testing for eGFR and proteinuria, blood pressure control, use of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-Is) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), nephrotoxic medication use, hepatitis B virus (HBV) immunization, vascular access placement, transplant status, CKD progression risk; number of outpatient nephrology visits, and hospitalizations. RESULTS: The CKD registry includes 60,503 patients and has revealed several opportunities for care improvement including 1) annual proteinuria testing performed for 17% (stage 3) and 31% (stage 4) of patients; 2) ACE-I/ARB used in 41% (stage 3) and 46% (stage 4) of patients; 3) nephrotoxic medications used among 23% of stage 4 patients; and 4) 89% of stage 4 patients lack HBV immunity. For advanced CKD patients there are opportunities to improve vascular access placement, transplant referrals and outpatient nephrology contact. CONCLUSIONS: A CKD registry can identify modifiable care gaps across the spectrum of CKD care and enable population health strategy implementation. No linkage to Social Security Death Master File or US Renal Data System (USRDS) databases limits our ability to track mortality and progression to ESRD.

Behavioral Health Factors as Predictors of Emergency Department Use in the High-Risk, High-Cost Medicare Population.

OBJECTIVE: This study measured the presence, extent, and type of behavioral health factors in a high-cost Medicare population and their association with the probability and intensity of emergency department (ED) use. METHODS: Retrospective claims analysis and a comprehensive electronic medical record-based review were conducted for patients enrolled in a 65-month prospective care management program at an academic tertiary medical center (N=3,620). A two-part model used multivariable logistic regression to evaluate the effect of behavioral health factors on the probability of ED use, complemented by a Poisson model to measure the number of ED visits. Control variables included demographic characteristics, poststudy survival, and hierarchical condition category risk score. RESULTS: After analyses controlled for comorbidities and other relevant variables, patients with two or more behavioral health diagnosis categories or two or more behavioral health medications were about twice as likely as those without such categories or medications to use the ED. Patients with a diagnosis category of psychosis, neuropsychiatric disorders, sleep disorders, or adjustment disorders were significantly more likely than those without these disorders to use the ED. Most primary ED diagnoses were not of behavioral health conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Behavioral health factors had a substantial and significant effect on the likelihood and number of ED visits in a population of high-cost Medicare patients. Attention to behavioral health factors as independent predictors of ED use may be useful in influencing ED use in high-cost populations.

Utilization Management of High-Cost Imaging in an Outpatient Setting in a Large Stable Patient and Provider Cohort over 7 Years.

Purpose To quantify the effect of a comprehensive, long-term, provider-led utilization management (UM) program on high-cost imaging (computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, nuclear imaging, and positron emission tomography) performed on an outpatient basis. Materials and Methods This retrospective, 7-year cohort study included all patients regularly seen by primary care physicians (PCPs) at an urban academic medical center. The main outcome was the number of outpatient high-cost imaging examinations per patient per year ordered by the patient's PCP or by any specialist. The authors determined the probability of a patient undergoing any high-cost imaging procedure during a study year and the number of examinations per patient per year (intensity) in patients who underwent high-cost imaging. Risk-adjusted hierarchical models were used to directly quantify the physician component of variation in probability and intensity of high-cost imaging use, and clinicians were provided with regular comparative feedback on the basis of the results. Observed trends in high-cost imaging use and provider variation were compared with the same measures for outpatient laboratory studies because laboratory use was not subject to UM during this period. Finally, per-member per-year high-cost imaging use data were compared with statewide high-cost imaging use data from a major private payer on the basis of the same claim set. Results The patient cohort steadily increased in size from 88 959 in 2007 to 109 823 in 2013. Overall high-cost imaging utilization went from 0.43 examinations per year in 2007 to 0.34 examinations per year in 2013, a decrease of 21.33% (P < .0001). At the same time, similarly adjusted routine laboratory study utilization decreased by less than half that rate (9.4%, P < .0001). On the basis of unadjusted data, outpatient high-cost imaging utilization in this cohort decreased 28%, compared with a 20% decrease in statewide utilization (P = .0023). Conclusion Analysis of high-cost imaging utilization in a stable cohort of patients cared for by PCPs during a 7-year period showed that comprehensive UM can produce a significant and sustained reduction in risk-adjusted per-patient year outpatient high-cost imaging volume. © RSNA, 2017.

Images of imaging: how to process and display imaging utilization for large populations.

OBJECTIVE: We propose a method of processing and displaying imaging utilization data for large populations. CONCLUSION: The comprehensive and finely grained picture of imaging utilization yielded by our methods is a first step toward population-based imaging utilization management. We believe that our methods for the categorization and display of imaging utilization will prove to be widely useful.

Does radiologist recommendation for follow-up with the same imaging modality contribute substantially to high-cost imaging volume?

PURPOSE: To retrospectively measure repeat rates for high-cost imaging studies, determining their causes and trends, and the impact of radiologist recommendations for a repeat examination on imaging volume. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This HIPAA-compliant study had institutional review board approval, with waiver of informed consent. Repeat examination was defined as a same-modality examination performed in the same patient within 0 days to 7 months of a first examination. From a database of all radiology examinations (>2.9 million) at one institution from May 1996 to June 2003, a computerized search identified head, spine, chest, and abdominal computed tomographic (CT), brain and spine magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, pelvic ultrasonography (US), and nuclear cardiology examinations with a prior examination of the same type within 7 months. Examination pairs were subdivided into studies repeated at less than 2 weeks, between 2 weeks and 2 months, or between 2 and 7 months. Automated classification of radiology reports revealed whether a repeat examination from June 2002 to June 2003 had been preceded by a radiologist recommendation on the prior report. Trends over time were analyzed with linear regression, and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. RESULTS: Between July 2002 and June 2003, 31 111 of 100 335 examinations (31%) were repeat examinations. Body CT (9057 of 20 177 [45%] chest and 8319 of 22 438 [37%] abdomen) and brain imaging (6823 of 18 378 [37%] CT and 3427 of 11 455 [30%] MR imaging) represented the highest repeat categories. Among five high-cost, high-volume imaging examinations, 6426 of 85 014 (8%) followed a report with a radiologist recommendation. Most common indications for examination repetition were neurologic surveillance within 2 weeks and cancer follow-up at 2-7 months. From 1997 to mid-2003, MR imaging and CT repeat rates increased (0.71% per year [P < .01] and 1.87% per year [P < .01], respectively). CONCLUSION: Repeat examinations account for nearly one-third of high-cost radiology examinations and represent an increasing proportion of such examinations. Most repeat examinations are initiated clinically without a recommendation by a radiologist.

Impact of concurrent medication use on statin adherence and refill persistence.

BACKGROUND: Effective therapy for chronic illness requires daily medication adherence (DMA) for prolonged periods. Overall medical regimen complexity may represent one barrier to successful adherence. METHODS: To assess the relationship between the number of concurrently prescribed medicines and adherence to 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (statins), we analyzed a cohort of 5488 patients in a single health insurance plan who began statin therapy between July 1, 1999, and June 30, 2002. We assessed 2 parameters of statin adherence: (1) DMA ([total number of pills dispensed/total number of days between first and last prescription] x100) and (2) refill persistence (RP) (consecutive months of refills after initial prescription). RESULTS: The cohort was 61.6% male, with a mean +/- SD age of 52.7 +/- 9.3 years. Patients were prescribed a mean +/- SD of 2.9 +/- 2 total medicines (range, 1-13), with a mean +/- SD statin DMA of 82.1% +/- 26.5%. By 12 months, only 68% of patients continued filling statin prescriptions. After controlling for age, income level, and treatment for hypertension or ischemic heart disease, a greater number of concurrently prescribed medicines was significantly associated with better DMA (P = .005) and longer RP (P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, statin DMA was generally adequate, but RP was suboptimal. Patients with more concurrently prescribed medicines had higher DMA and better RP, even after adjusting for demographic factors and cardiovascular comorbidity. Physicians should not be deterred from initiating statin therapy by a patient's medical regimen complexity but should be alert for lack of therapy persistence, particularly in younger and healthier patients.

An overview of SSRI and SNRI therapies for depression.

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and serotonin norepinephrine re-uptake inhibitors (SNRIs) are used widely to treat mood and anxiety disorders. Indications, pharmacologic characteristics, and dosing and administration are outlined. Because more patients receive SSRIs in general medical versus psychiatric settings, this chapter includes information relevant to both.

Costs of antidepressant medications associated with inadequate treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the costs of antidepressant medications used during inadequate treatment. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective database analysis of pharmacy claims made by patients who were treated under routine clinical conditions from July 1, 1999, through September 30, 2002. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Our participants included 21,632 patients enrolled in a commercial HMO who had a primary care physician associated with our healthcare system. Patients never receiving at least a minimum likely effective antidepressant dose for at least 90 days were defined as having inadequate treatment. This study calculated the costs of antidepressants involved with inadequate treatment at the level of the patient and the medication trial. RESULTS: A majority of patients (51%) received inadequate treatment. Of overall antidepressant costs, 16% were incurred during trials for patients never adequately treated. The majority of inadequate trials were short and unlikely to have been effective. Most patients (64%) had only a single trial of antidepressants. Venlafaxine, fluoxetine, and sertraline had significantly lower first-trial inadequacy rates compared with the most commonly prescribed agent, citalopram. CONCLUSIONS: Improved patient care quality and lower antidepressant costs could result if clinicians and healthcare systems focus on reducing short trial rates. Initiating treatment with agents least likely to be discontinued prematurely may be helpful.

Evaluation of the adequacy of outpatient antidepressant treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Most studies evaluating the adequacy of antidepressant treatment have focused on the relatively small segment of the medicated population with a diagnosis of depression. This study assessed the rates and determinants of the adequacy of antidepressant treatment among all outpatients who receive antidepressants. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted using pharmacy claims made by patients with a primary care physician in a managed care plan at an academic medical center from 1996 through 1999. Adequate antidepressant treatment was defined as prescription of the lowest likely effective dosage of an antidepressant for at least 90 consecutive days. Data for a total of 15,476 records and 1,550 patients were available. RESULTS: Overall, 46 percent of the patients receiving antidepressants received minimally adequate treatment. The rates of adequate treatment were significantly higher among patients whose antidepressant prescriptions were written by both primary care physicians and psychiatrists than among patients whose antidepressants were prescribed solely by primary care physicians (61 percent versus 31 percent). Patients who had trials of SSRIs had significantly higher rates of treatment adequacy than those who had trials of tricyclic antidepressants but not SSRIs (51 percent compared with 27 percent) or trials with other antidepressants only (24 percent). CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacy claims from all patients receiving antidepressants indicate that these drugs are prescribed in ways that are unlikely to be fully effective across the broad spectrum of patients. Adequate antidepressant treatment trials were most likely when psychiatrists collaborated with primary care physicians or other specialists and when SSRIs were used.