Patients Contributing to Visit Notes: Mixed Methods Evaluation of OurNotes.

BACKGROUND: Secure patient portals are widely available, and patients use them to view their electronic health records, including their clinical notes. We conducted experiments asking them to cogenerate notes with their clinicians, an intervention called OurNotes. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess patient and provider experiences and attitudes after 12 months of a pilot intervention. METHODS: Before scheduled primary care visits, patients were asked to submit a word-constrained, unstructured interval history and an agenda for what they would like to discuss at the visit. Using site-specific methods, their providers were invited to incorporate the submissions into notes documenting the visits. Sites served urban, suburban, and rural patients in primary care practices in 4 academic health centers in Boston (Massachusetts), Lebanon (New Hampshire), Denver (Colorado), and Seattle (Washington). Each practice offered electronic access to visit notes (open notes) to its patients for several years. A mixed methods evaluation used tracking data and electronic survey responses from patients and clinicians. Participants were 174 providers and 1962 patients who submitted at least 1 previsit form. We asked providers about the usefulness of the submissions, effects on workflow, and ideas for the future. We asked patients about difficulties and benefits of providing the requested information and ideas for future improvements. RESULTS: Forms were submitted before 9.15% (5365/58,652) eligible visits, and 43.7% (76/174) providers and 26.76% (525/1962) patients responded to the postintervention evaluation surveys; 74 providers and 321 patients remembered receiving and completing the forms and answered the survey questions. Most clinicians thought interim patient histories (69/74, 93%) and patient agendas (72/74, 97%) as good ideas, 70% (52/74) usually or always incorporated them into visit notes, 54% (40/74) reported no change in visit length, and 35% (26/74) thought they saved time. Their most common suggestions related to improving notifications when patient forms were received, making it easier to find the form and insert it into the note, and educating patients about how best to prepare their submissions. Patient respondents were generally well educated, most found the history (259/321, 80.7%) and agenda (286/321, 89.1%) questions not difficult to answer; more than 92.2% (296/321) thought sending answers before the visit a good idea; 68.8% (221/321) thought the questions helped them prepare for the visit. Common suggestions by patients included learning to write better answers and wanting to know that their submissions were read by their clinicians. At the end of the pilot, all participating providers chose to continue the OurNotes previsit form, and sites considered expanding the intervention to more clinicians and adapting it for telemedicine visits. CONCLUSIONS: OurNotes interests patients, and providers experience it as a positive intervention. Participation by patients, care partners, clinicians, and electronic health record experts will facilitate further development.

Patients Evaluate Visit Notes Written by Their Clinicians: a Mixed Methods Investigation.

BACKGROUND: Patients actively involved in their care demonstrate better health outcomes. Using secure internet portals, clinicians are increasingly offering patients access to their narrative visit notes (open notes), but we know little about their understanding of notes written by clinicians. OBJECTIVE: We examined patients' views on the clarity, accuracy, and thoroughness of notes, their suggestions for improvement, and associations between their perceptions and willingness to recommend clinicians to others. DESIGN: We conducted an online survey of patients in 3 large health systems, June-October 2017. We performed a mixed methods analysis of survey responses regarding a self-selected note. PARTICIPANTS: Respondents were 21,664 patients aged 18 years or older who had read at least 1 open note in the previous 12 months. MAIN MEASURES: We asked to what degree the patient recalled understanding the note, whether it described the visit accurately, whether anything important was missing, for suggestions to improve the note, and whether they would recommend the authoring clinician to others. KEY RESULTS: Nearly all patients (96%) reported they understood all or nearly all of the self-selected note, with few differences by clinician type or specialty. Overall, 93% agreed or somewhat agreed the note accurately described the visit, and 6% reported something important missing from the note. The most common suggestions for improvement related to structure and content, jargon, and accuracy. Patients who reported understanding only some or very little of the note, or found inaccuracies or omissions, were much less likely to recommend the clinician to family and friends. CONCLUSIONS: Patients overwhelmingly report understanding their visit notes and usually find them accurate, with few disparities according to sociodemographic or health characteristics. They have many suggestions for improving their quality, and if they understand a note poorly or find inaccuracies, they often have less confidence in their clinicians.

Patients' perceptions of their doctors' notes and after-visit summaries: A mixed methods study of patients at safety-net clinics.

BACKGROUND: Patients are increasingly offered electronic access to their doctors' notes, and many consistently receive paper After-Visit Summaries. Specific feedback from patients about notes and summaries are lacking, particularly within safety-net settings. DESIGN: A mixed methods study SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with poorly controlled diabetes attending two urban safety-net primary care clinics in Washington State. METHODS: Patients read their own most recent clinic note and After-Visit Summary, then completed a brief survey followed by a focus group discussion (3 groups in a large general medicine teaching clinic and 1 in an HIV/AIDS clinic) about their perceptions of the clinic note and After-Visit Summary. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients participated; 70% were male, 41% were Black, 48% were unemployed or disabled, 56% reported fair/poor health, and 37% had accessed the electronic patient portal. A majority of patients felt their note content was useful (89%); a minority reported that their notes were not accurate (19%), had too much medical jargon (29%), or were too long (26%). Themes identified from the discussions included reliance on the provider to explain confusing content; a desire for more rather than less detail; and perceived inaccuracies, particularly in heavily templated notes. In each focus group, one or more portal users were enthusiastically willing to teach other patients. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of focus group participants at this safety-net site had not accessed the electronic patient portal, but those who had were willing to promote the portal benefits and assist others. Patients identified specific opportunities to improve clinic notes and After-Visit Summaries.

Diagnostic Reproducibility: What Happens When the Same Pathologist Interprets the Same Breast Biopsy Specimen at Two Points in Time?

BACKGROUND: Surgeons may receive a different diagnosis when a breast biopsy is interpreted by a second pathologist. The extent to which diagnostic agreement by the same pathologist varies at two time points is unknown. METHODS: Pathologists from eight U.S. states independently interpreted 60 breast specimens, one glass slide per case, on two occasions separated by ≥9 months. Reproducibility was assessed by comparing interpretations between the two time points; associations between reproducibility (intraobserver agreement rates); and characteristics of pathologists and cases were determined and also compared with interobserver agreement of baseline interpretations. RESULTS: Sixty-five percent of invited, responding pathologists were eligible and consented; 49 interpreted glass slides in both study phases, resulting in 2940 interpretations. Intraobserver agreement rates between the two phases were 92% [95% confidence interval (CI) 88-95] for invasive breast cancer, 84% (95% CI 81-87) for ductal carcinoma-in-situ, 53% (95% CI 47-59) for atypia, and 84% (95% CI 81-86) for benign without atypia. When comparing all study participants' case interpretations at baseline, interobserver agreement rates were 89% (95% CI 84-92) for invasive cancer, 79% (95% CI 76-81) for ductal carcinoma-in-situ, 43% (95% CI 41-45) for atypia, and 77% (95% CI 74-79) for benign without atypia. CONCLUSIONS: Interpretive agreement between two time points by the same individual pathologist was low for atypia and was similar to observed rates of agreement for atypia between different pathologists. Physicians and patients should be aware of the diagnostic challenges associated with a breast biopsy diagnosis of atypia when considering treatment and surveillance decisions.

Patients Typing Their Own Visit Agendas Into an Electronic Medical Record: Pilot in a Safety-Net Clinic.

Collaborative visit agenda setting between patient and doctor is recommended. We assessed the feasibility, acceptability, and utility of patients attending a large primary care safety-net clinic typing their agendas into the electronic visit note before seeing their clinicians. One hundred and one patients and their 28 clinicians completed post-visit surveys. Patients and clinicians agreed that the agendas improved patient-clinician communication (patients 79%, clinician 74%), and wanted to continue having patients type agendas in the future (73%, 82%). Enabling patients to type visit agendas may enhance care by engaging patients and giving clinicians an efficient way to prioritize patients' concerns.

Variability in Pathologists' Interpretations of Individual Breast Biopsy Slides: A Population Perspective.

BACKGROUND: The effect of physician diagnostic variability on accuracy at a population level depends on the prevalence of diagnoses. OBJECTIVE: To estimate how diagnostic variability affects accuracy from the perspective of a U.S. woman aged 50 to 59 years having a breast biopsy. DESIGN: Applied probability using Bayes' theorem. SETTING: B-Path (Breast Pathology) Study comparing pathologists' interpretations of a single biopsy slide versus a reference consensus interpretation from 3 experts. PARTICIPANTS: 115 practicing pathologists (6900 total interpretations from 240 distinct cases). MEASUREMENTS: A single representative slide from each of the 240 cases was used to estimate the proportion of biopsies with a diagnosis that would be verified if the same slide were interpreted by a reference group of 3 expert pathologists. Probabilities of confirmation (predictive values) were estimated using B-Path Study results and prevalence of biopsy diagnoses for women aged 50 to 59 years in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. RESULTS: Overall, if 1 representative slide were used per case, 92.3% (95% CI, 91.4% to 93.1%) of breast biopsy diagnoses would be verified by reference consensus diagnoses, with 4.6% (CI, 3.9% to 5.3%) overinterpreted and 3.2% (CI, 2.7% to 3.6%) underinterpreted. Verification of invasive breast cancer and benign without atypia diagnoses is highly probable; estimated predictive values were 97.7% (CI, 96.5% to 98.7%) and 97.1% (CI, 96.7% to 97.4%), respectively. Verification is less probable for atypia (53.6% overinterpreted and 8.6% underinterpreted) and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (18.5% overinterpreted and 11.8% underinterpreted). LIMITATIONS: Estimates are based on a testing situation with 1 slide used per case and without access to second opinions. Population-adjusted estimates may differ for women from other age groups, unscreened women, or women in different practice settings. CONCLUSION: This analysis, based on interpretation of a single breast biopsy slide per case, predicts a low likelihood that a diagnosis of atypia or DCIS would be verified by a reference consensus diagnosis. This diagnostic grey zone should be considered in clinical management decisions in patients with these diagnoses. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.

Characteristics of Patients Who Report Confusion After Reading Their Primary Care Clinic Notes Online.

Patient access to online electronic medical records (EMRs) is increasing and may offer benefits to patients. However, the inherent complexity of medicine may cause confusion. We elucidate characteristics and health behaviors of patients who report confusion after reading their doctors' notes online. We analyzed data from 4,528 patients in Boston, MA, central Pennsylvania, and Seattle, WA, who were granted online access to their primary care doctors' clinic notes and who viewed at least one note during the 1-year intervention. Three percent of patients reported confusion after reading their visit notes. These patients were more likely to be at least 70 years of age (p < .0001), have fewer years of education (p < .0017), be unemployed (p < .0001), have lower levels of self-reported health (p < .0043), and worry more after reading visit notes (relative risk [RR] 4.83; confidence interval [CI] 3.17, 7.36) compared to patients who were not confused. In adjusted analyses, they were less likely to report feeling more in control of their health (RR 0.42; CI 0.25, 0.71), remembering their care plan (RR 0.26; CI 0.17, 0.42), and understanding their medical conditions (RR 0.32; CI 0.19, 0.54) as a result of reading their doctors' notes compared to patients who were not confused. Patients who were confused by reading their doctors' notes were less likely to report benefits in health behaviors. Understanding this small subset of patients is a critical step in reducing gaps in provider-patient communication and in efforts to tailor educational approaches for patients.

Patient and Radiologist Characteristics Associated With Accuracy of Two Types of Diagnostic Mammograms.

OBJECTIVE: Earlier studies of diagnostic mammography found wide unexplained variability in accuracy among radiologists. We assessed patient and radiologist characteristics associated with the interpretive performance of two types of diagnostic mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Radiologists interpreting mammograms in seven regions of the United States were invited to participate in a survey that collected information on their demographics, practice setting, breast imaging experience, and self-reported interpretive volume. Survey data from 244 radiologists were linked to data on 274,401 diagnostic mammograms performed for additional evaluation of a recent abnormal screening mammogram or to evaluate a breast problem, between 1998 and 2008. These data were also linked to patients' risk factors and follow-up data on breast cancer. We measured interpretive performance by false-positive rate, sensitivity, and AUC. Using logistic regression, we evaluated patient and radiologist characteristics associated with false-positive rate and sensitivity for each diagnostic mammogram type. RESULTS: Mammograms performed for additional evaluation of a recent mammogram had an overall false-positive rate of 11.9%, sensitivity of 90.2%, and AUC of 0.894; examinations done to evaluate a breast problem had an overall false-positive rate of 7.6%, sensitivity of 83.9%, and AUC of 0.871. Multiple patient characteristics were associated with measures of interpretive performance, and radiologist academic affiliation was associated with higher sensitivity for both indications for diagnostic mammograms. CONCLUSION: These results indicate the potential for improved radiologist training, using evaluation of their own performance relative to best practices, and for improved clinical outcomes with health care system changes to maximize access to diagnostic mammography interpretation in academic settings.

Patients who share transparent visit notes with others: characteristics, risks, and benefits.

BACKGROUND: Inviting patients to read their primary care visit notes may improve communication and help them engage more actively in their health care. Little is known about how patients will use the opportunity to share their visit notes with family members or caregivers, or what the benefits might be. OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to evaluate the characteristics of patients who reported sharing their visit notes during the course of the study, including their views on associated benefits and risks. METHODS: The OpenNotes study invited patients to access their primary care providers' visit notes in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Pre- and post-intervention surveys assessed patient demographics, standardized measures of patient-doctor communication, sharing of visit notes with others during the study, and specific health behaviors reflecting the potential benefits and risks of offering patients easy access to their visit notes. RESULTS: More than half (55.43%, 2503/4516) of the participants who reported viewing at least one visit note would like the option of letting family members or friends have their own Web access to their visit notes, and 21.70% (980/4516) reported sharing their visit notes with someone during the study year. Men, and those retired or unable to work, were significantly more likely to share visit notes, and those sharing were neither more nor less concerned about their privacy than were non-sharers. Compared to participants who did not share clinic notes, those who shared were more likely to report taking better care of themselves and taking their medications as prescribed, after adjustment for age, gender, employment status, and study site. CONCLUSIONS: One in five OpenNotes patients shared a visit note with someone, and those sharing Web access to their visit notes reported better adherence to self-care and medications. As health information technology systems increase patients' ability to access their medical records, facilitating access to caregivers may improve perceived health behaviors and outcomes.

Mammographic interpretation: radiologists' ability to accurately estimate their performance and compare it with that of their peers.

OBJECTIVE: The purposes of this study were to determine whether U.S. radiologists accurately estimate their own interpretive performance of screening mammography and to assess how they compare their performance with that of their peers. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Between 2005 and 2006, 174 radiologists from six Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries completed a mailed survey. The radiologists' estimated and actual recall, false-positive, and cancer detection rates and positive predictive value of biopsy recommendation (PPV(2)) for screening mammography were compared. Radiologists' ratings of their performance as lower than, similar to, or higher than that of their peers were compared with their actual performance. Associations with radiologist characteristics were estimated with weighted generalized linear models. RESULTS: Although most radiologists accurately estimated their cancer detection and recall rates (74% and 78% of radiologists), fewer accurately estimated their false-positive rate (19%) and PPV(2) (26%). Radiologists reported having recall rates similar to (43%) or lower than (31%) and false-positive rates similar to (52%) or lower than (33%) those of their peers and similar (72%) or higher (23%) cancer detection rates and similar (72%) or higher (38%) PPV(2). Estimation accuracy did not differ by radiologist characteristics except that radiologists who interpreted 1000 or fewer mammograms annually were less accurate at estimating their recall rates. CONCLUSION: Radiologists perceive their performance to be better than it actually is and at least as good as that of their peers. Radiologists have particular difficulty estimating their false-positive rates and PPV(2).

Clinical Use of an Electronic Pre-Visit Questionnaire Soliciting Patient Visit Goals and Interim History: A Retrospective Comparison Between Safety-net and Non-Safety-net Clinics.

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES: We examined an initial step towards co-generation of clinic notes by inviting patients to complete a pre-visit questionnaire that could be inserted into clinic notes by providers and describe the experience in a safety-net and non-safety-net clinic. METHODS: We sent an electronic pre-visit questionnaire on visit goals and interim history to patients at a safety-net clinic and a non-safety-net clinic before clinic visits. We compared questionnaire utilization between clinics during a one-year period and performed a chart review of a sample of patients to examine demographics, content and usage of patient responses to the questionnaire. RESULTS: While use was low in both clinics, it was lower in the safety-net clinic (3%) compared to the non-safety-net clinic (10%). We reviewed a sample of respondents and found they were more likely to be White compared to the overall clinic populations (p < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in patient-typed notes (word count and number of visit goals) between the safety-net and non-safety-net samples however, patients at the safety-net clinic were less likely to have all of their goals addressed within the PCP documentation, compared to the non-safety-net clinic. CONCLUSIONS: Given potential benefits of this questionnaire as a communication tool, addressing barriers to use of technology among vulnerable patients is needed, including access to devices and internet, and support from caregivers or culturally concordant peer navigators.

Trends in Utilization of Electronic Consultations Associated With Patient Payer and Language Among US Academic Medical Centers During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Electronic consultations (eConsultations) are increasingly used to obtain specialist guidance, avoiding unnecessary face-to-face patient visits for certain clinical questions. During the COVID-19 pandemic, when in-person care was limited, eConsultations may have helped clinicians obtain specialist input to guide patient care. Objective: To understand how the use of eConsultations changed during the COVID-19 pandemic and whether trends in eConsultation utilization differed based on patient's payer and primary language. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at 6 academic medical centers in the United States, all participating in the Association of American Colleges Coordinating Optimal Referral Experiences program. Participants included adult patients who had an outpatient visit, referral, or eConsultation during the study period. Data were analyzed from June 4, 2019, to July 28, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the eConsultation proportion of specialty contact, defined as the number of completed eConsultations divided by the sum of the number of completed eConsultations and specialty referrals, expressed as a percentage. eConsultation percentages of specialty contact were further stratified by payer type and language. Payers included commercial, Medicare, Medicaid, self-pay or uninsured, and other. Primary language included English and non-English languages. Results: A total of 14 545 completed eConsultations and 189 776 referrals were included. More eConsultations were completed for English-speaking patients (11 363 eConsultations [95.0%]) than non-English-speaking patients (597 eConsultations [5.0%]). Patients with commercial insurance represented the highest number of completed eConsultations (8848 eConsultations [60.8%]) followed by Medicare (3891 eConsultations [26.8%]), Medicaid (930 eConsultations [6.4%]), other insurance (745 eConsultations [5.1%]), and self-pay or no insurance (131 eConsultations [0.9%]). At the start of the pandemic, across all academic medical centers, the percentage of specialty contact conducted via eConsultation significantly increased by 6.21% (95% CI, 4.97%-7.44%; P < .001). When stratified by payer and language, the percentage of specialty contact conducted via eConsultation significantly increased at the beginning of the pandemic for both English-speaking patients (change, 6.09% (95% CI, 4.82% to 7.37%; P < .001) and non-English-speaking patients (change, 8.48% [95% CI, 5.79% to 11.16%]; P < .001) and for all payers, except self-pay and uninsured patients (change, -0.21% [95% CI, [-1.35% to 0.92%]; P = .70). Conclusions and Relevance: This retrospective cohort study found that eConsultations provided an accessible mechanism for clinicians to receive specialist input when in-person care was limited.

Care partners reading patients' visit notes via patient portals: Characteristics and perceptions.

BACKGROUND: Care partners are key members of patients' health care teams, yet little is known about their experiences accessing patient information via electronic portals. OBJECTIVE: To better understand the characteristics and perceptions of care partners who read patients' electronic visit notes. PATIENT INVOLVEMENT: Focus groups with diverse patients from a community health center provided input into survey development. METHODS: We contacted patient portal users at 3 geographically distinct sites in the US via email in 2017 for an online survey including open ended questions which we qualitatively analyzed. RESULTS: Respondents chose whether to answer as care partners (N = 874) or patients (N = 28,782). Among care partner respondents, 44% were spouses, 43% children/other family members, and 14% friends/neighbors/other. Both care partners and patients reported that access to electronic notes was very important for promoting positive health behaviors, but care partners' perceptions of importance were consistently more positive than patients' perceptions of engagement behaviors. Open-ended comments included positive benefits such as: help with remembering the plan for care, coordinating care with other doctors, decreasing stress of care giving, improving efficiency of visits, and supporting patients from a geographical distance. They also offered suggestions for improving electronic portal and note experience for care partners such as having a separate log on for care partners; having doctors avoid judgmental language in their notes; and the ability to prompt needed medical care for patients. DISCUSSION: Care partners value electronic access to patients' health information even more than patients. The majority of care partners were family members, whose feedback is important for improving portal design that effectively engages these care team members. PRACTICAL VALUE: Patient care in the time of COVID-19 increasingly requires social distancing which may place additional burden on care partners supporting vulnerable patients. Access to patient notes may promote quality of care by keeping care partners informed, and care partner's input should be used to optimize portal design and electronic access to patient information.

Hepatitis C treatment outcomes among patients treated in co-located primary care and addiction treatment settings.

BACKGROUND: Persons with substance use disorders face major barriers to hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment. Co-location of addiction and HCV treatment is appealing, yet there are limited data on outcomes using this model. This study evaluated HCV outcomes of patients treated with direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) by primary care providers in two sites of co-located addiction/HCV care. METHODS: The study conducted a retrospective chart review for all patients receiving DAA treatment from 2016 to 2018 at 1) a hospital-based primary care clinic with an office-based buprenorphine program, and 2) a primary care clinic within an opioid treatment program (i.e. methadone clinic). The study classified patients into 3 groups according to treatment status: buprenorphine maintenance, methadone maintenance, or neither. Descriptive analyses compared patient demographics, clinical characteristics, adherence to monitoring and treatment, and the primary outcome of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks (SVR12), defined as an undetectable HCV viral load at least 12 weeks after completing treatment. RESULTS: This study included 50 patients who initiated DAA treatment. The majority of patients were unemployed (74.0%), did not smoke tobacco (54.0%), and had psychiatric comorbidities (80.0%). Many also experienced homelessness during treatment (22.0%) and experienced previous incarceration (36.0%). Only a few had recently injected drugs (4.0%). Seven of 7 (100%) patients were treated with buprenorphine, 21 of 24 (87.5%) patients were treated with methadone, and 17 of 19 (89.5%) patients receiving no opioid addiction treatment fully completed HCV DAA treatment. When including patients with missing SVR12 data with the cohort that did not achieve cure, we observe that 44 of 50 patients (88.0%) achieved SVR12. Excluding patients missing SVR12 data, we observed that 44 of 46 patients (95.7%) achieved SVR12. CONCLUSION: Persons with substance use disorders treated with DAAs in co-located primary care and addiction treatment settings can achieve high rates of cure despite significant comorbidities and barriers. DAA treatment should be expanded to co-located HCV and addiction settings.

Variability in interpretive performance at screening mammography and radiologists' characteristics associated with accuracy.

PURPOSE: To identify radiologists' characteristics associated with interpretive performance in screening mammography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was approved by institutional review boards of University of Washington (Seattle, Wash) and institutions at seven Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium sites, informed consent was obtained, and procedures were HIPAA compliant. Radiologists who interpreted mammograms in seven U.S. regions completed a self-administered mailed survey; information on demographics, practice type, and experience in and perceptions of general radiology and breast imaging was collected. Survey data were linked to data on screening mammograms the radiologists interpreted between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 2005, and included patient risk factors, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System assessment, and follow-up breast cancer data. The survey was returned by 71% (257 of 364) of radiologists; in 56% (205 of 364) of the eligible radiologists, complete data on screening mammograms during the study period were provided; these data were used in the final analysis. An evaluation of whether the radiologists' characteristics were associated with recall rate, false-positive rate, sensitivity, or positive predictive value of recall (PPV(1)) of the screening examinations was performed with logistic regression models that were adjusted for patients' characteristics and radiologist-specific random effects. RESULTS: Study radiologists interpreted 1 036 155 screening mammograms; 4961 breast cancers were detected. Median percentages and interquartile ranges, respectively, were as follows: recall rate, 9.3% and 6.3%-13.2%; false-positive rate, 8.9% and 5.9%-12.8%; sensitivity, 83.8% and 74.5%-92.3%; and PPV(1), 4.0% and 2.6%-5.9%. Wide variability in sensitivity was noted, even among radiologists with similar false-positive rates. In adjusted regression models, female radiologists or fellowship-trained radiologists had significantly higher recall and false-positive rates (P < .05, all). Fellowship training in breast imaging was the only characteristic significantly associated with improved sensitivity (odds ratio, 2.32; 95% confidence interval: 1.42, 3.80; P < .001) and the overall accuracy parameter (odds ratio, 1.61; 95% confidence interval: 1.05, 2.45; P = .028). CONCLUSION: Fellowship training in breast imaging may lead to improved cancer detection, but it is associated with higher false-positive rates.

Diabetes mellitus and urinary tract infection: epidemiology, pathogenesis and proposed studies in animal models.

PURPOSE: We reviewed the current state of knowledge about urinary tract infection in patients with diabetes from the clinical and basic science perspectives. We identified key knowledge gaps and areas for further research. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a focused literature search on certain topics, including clinical studies related to etiology and pathophysiology of urinary tract infection in patients with diabetes, urinary tract infection studies in animal models of diabetes and basic science studies of the molecular mechanisms of urinary tract infection. RESULTS: Individuals with diabetes are at higher risk for urinary tract infection. Increased susceptibility in patients with diabetes is positively associated with increased duration and severity of diabetes. Clinical epidemiological data identifying mechanisms of increased urinary tract infection susceptibility in patients with diabetes are generally lacking and indicate only that urinary tract infections in women with and without diabetes are qualitatively similar in bacterial etiology and morbid sequelae. Existing animal models for diabetes have not been well characterized for urinary tract infection research. The increased incidence, prevalence and severity of urinary tract infection in patients with diabetes argue for aggressive antibacterial chemotherapy but novel therapies resulting from urinary tract infection research in nondiabetic animal models are still not available. CONCLUSIONS: Future clinical investigations of urinary tract infection in patients with diabetes should focus on how the disease differs from that in patients without diabetes, notably on the role of glycosuria and urinary tract infection risk. Basic science research priorities for urinary tract infection in patients with diabetes should emphasize further development of diabetic animal models for urinary tract infection research and clinical translation of known important virulence determinants into new therapies.

Effect of lowering initiation thresholds in a primary care-based buprenorphine treatment program.

BACKGROUND: Office-based buprenorphine treatment is effective for opioid use disorder. Scant research has examined programmatic factors impacting successful initiation of treatment. To increase initiation of eligible patients, our buprenorphine program implemented changes to lower treatment thresholds. Most notable among these was elimination of a requirement that patients demonstrate abstinence from stimulants prior to initiating buprenorphine. METHODS: This observational, retrospective study included patients screened for primary care-based buprenorphine treatment under high- and low-threshold conditions from 2015 to 2017. Background characteristics and treatment data were extracted from the electronic medical record and clinical registry. Chi-squared tests were used to compare proportions of patients initiated within 90 days of screening and retained to 60 days after initiation, under both conditions. Multivariate logistic regression was employed to compare relative odds of buprenorphine initiation after adjustment for several covariates. All analyses were stratified by recent stimulant use. RESULTS: The sample of 168 patients included 96 in the high-threshold group and 72 in the low-threshold group. Among patients with recent stimulant use, low-threshold conditions were associated with a higher proportion of patients initiated (69% versus 35%, p = 0.002) and higher relative odds of initiation (aOR = 7.01, 95% CI = 2.26-21.80) but also with a lower proportion of patients retained (63% versus 100%, p = 0.004). Among patients without recent stimulant use, low-threshold conditions did not change these measures by a statistically significant margin. CONCLUSIONS: Lower-threshold policies may increase buprenorphine treatment initiation for patients with co-occurring stimulant use. However, patients using stimulants may require additional supports to remain engaged.

Urinary incontinence and urinary tract infection: temporal relationships in postmenopausal women.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the temporal relationship between self-reported urine loss and incident, symptomatic, microbiologically confirmed urinary tract infection (UTI). METHODS: We used daily diaries to collect information on incontinent episodes during a 2-year prospective study of incident UTI among 913 healthy postmenopausal health maintenance organization enrollees. We calculated the monthly rate of urine loss to assess for association with incident UTI. We also estimated the basal rate of urinary incontinence among women who experienced a UTI (excluding the 14-day time period pre- and post-UTI) and compared this to urine loss during the 3-day time period after UTI, to evaluate changes after infection. RESULTS: Sixty percent of women reported urinary incontinence, at a mean rate of 4.7 times per month. The monthly mean rate of urine loss was 2.64 times per month among women who did not experience a UTI compared with 4.60 times per among women who developed a UTI (P=.04). Among women who developed a UTI (n=78), the rate of urine loss during the 3 days after UTI onset was 1.5 times higher than the basal rate (0.23 compared with 0.15 reports per day, P=.26). CONCLUSION: After eliminating episodes of incontinence surrounding a UTI, the basal rate of urine loss was higher among women who experienced UTIs compared with those who did not. Additionally, among women who experienced a UTI, an increase in urine loss occurred in the immediate 3-day time period post-UTI, compared with infection-free periods. Urinary incontinence characterizes women who experience UTIs, both intercurrently and during an acute episode. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.