Current use of estrogen-containing oral contraceptives or hormone therapy and risk of COVID-19 infection and hospitalization: a population-based cohort study.

This population-based cohort study evaluated the association between current use of oral contraceptives (OC) among women under 50 years (n=306,541), and hormone therapy (HT) among women aged 50 or older (n=323,203), and COVID-19 infection and hospitalization. Current OC/HT use was recorded monthly using prescription dispensing data. COVID-19 infections were identified March 2020-February 2021. COVID-19 infection and hospitalization were identified through diagnosis codes and laboratory tests. Weighted generalized estimating equations models estimated multivariable-adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for COVID-19 infection associated with time-varying OC/HT use. Among women with COVID-19, logistic regression models evaluated OC/HT use and COVID-19 hospitalization. Over 12 months, 11,727 (3.8%) women <50 years and 8,661 (2.7%) women ≥50 years experienced COVID-19 infections. There was no evidence of an association between OC use and infection (aOR=1.05; 95%CI: 0.97, 1.12). There was a modest association between HT use and infection (aOR=1.19; 95%CI: 1.03, 1.38). Women using OC had a 39% lower risk of hospitalization (aOR=0.61; 95%CI: 0.38, 1.00), but there was no association of HT use with hospitalization (aOR=0.89; 95%CI: 0.51, 1.53). These findings do not suggest a meaningfully greater risk of COVID-19 infection associated with OC or HT use. OC use may be associated with lower COVID-19 hospitalization risk.

Predicting Self-Reported Social Risk in Medically Complex Adults Using Electronic Health Data.

BACKGROUND: Social barriers to health care, such as food insecurity, financial distress, and housing instability, may impede effective clinical management for individuals with chronic illness. Systematic strategies are needed to more efficiently identify at-risk individuals who may benefit from proactive outreach by health care systems for screening and referral to available social resources. OBJECTIVE: To create a predictive model to identify a higher likelihood of food insecurity, financial distress, and/or housing instability among adults with multiple chronic medical conditions. RESEARCH DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: We developed and validated a predictive model in adults with 2 or more chronic conditions who were receiving care within Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC) between January 2017 and February 2020. The model was developed to predict the likelihood of a "yes" response to any of 3 validated self-reported survey questions related to current concerns about food insecurity, financial distress, and/or housing instability. External model validation was conducted in a separate cohort of adult non-Medicaid KPNC members aged 35-85 who completed a survey administered to a random sample of health plan members between April and June 2021 (n = 2820). MEASURES: We examined the performance of multiple model iterations by comparing areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs). We also assessed algorithmic bias related to race/ethnicity and calculated model performance at defined risk thresholds for screening implementation. RESULTS: Patients in the primary modeling cohort (n = 11,999) had a mean age of 53.8 (±19.3) years, 64.7% were women, and 63.9% were of non-White race/ethnicity. The final, simplified model with 30 predictors (including utilization, diagnosis, behavior, insurance, neighborhood, and pharmacy-based variables) had an AUC of 0.68. The model remained robust within different race/ethnic strata. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrated that a predictive model developed using information gleaned from the medical record and from public census tract data can be used to identify patients who may benefit from proactive social needs assessment. Depending on the prevalence of social needs in the target population, different risk output thresholds could be set to optimize positive predictive value for successful outreach. This predictive model-based strategy provides a pathway for prioritizing more intensive social risk outreach and screening efforts to the patients who may be in greatest need.

Association Between Diabetes Severity and Risks of COVID-19 Infection and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about whether diabetes increases the risk of COVID-19 infection and whether measures of diabetes severity are related to COVID-19 outcomes. OBJECTIVE: Investigate diabetes severity measures as potential risk factors for COVID-19 infection and COVID-19 outcomes. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS, MEASURES: In integrated healthcare systems in Colorado, Oregon, and Washington, we identified a cohort of adults on February 29, 2020 (n = 1,086,918) and conducted follow-up through February 28, 2021. Electronic health data and death certificates were used to identify markers of diabetes severity, covariates, and outcomes. Outcomes were COVID-19 infection (positive nucleic acid antigen test, COVID-19 hospitalization, or COVID-19 death) and severe COVID-19 (invasive mechanical ventilation or COVID-19 death). Individuals with diabetes (n = 142,340) and categories of diabetes severity measures were compared with a referent group with no diabetes (n = 944,578), adjusting for demographic variables, neighborhood deprivation index, body mass index, and comorbidities. RESULTS: Of 30,935 patients with COVID-19 infection, 996 met the criteria for severe COVID-19. Type 1 (odds ratio [OR] 1.41, 95% CI 1.27-1.57) and type 2 diabetes (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.23-1.31) were associated with increased risk of COVID-19 infection. Insulin treatment was associated with greater COVID-19 infection risk (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.34-1.52) than treatment with non-insulin drugs (OR 1.26, 95% 1.20-1.33) or no treatment (OR 1.24; 1.18-1.29). The relationship between glycemic control and COVID-19 infection risk was dose-dependent: from an OR of 1.21 (95% CI 1.15-1.26) for hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) < 7% to an OR of 1.62 (95% CI 1.51-1.75) for HbA1c ≥ 9%. Risk factors for severe COVID-19 were type 1 diabetes (OR 2.87; 95% CI 1.99-4.15), type 2 diabetes (OR 1.80; 95% CI 1.55-2.09), insulin treatment (OR 2.65; 95% CI 2.13-3.28), and HbA1c ≥ 9% (OR 2.61; 95% CI 1.94-3.52). CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes and greater diabetes severity were associated with increased risks of COVID-19 infection and worse COVID-19 outcomes.

Willingness of older people living with dementia and mild cognitive impairment and their caregivers to have medications deprescribed.

BACKGROUND: people living with cognitive impairment commonly take multiple medications including potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), which puts them at risk of medication related harms. AIMS: to explore willingness to have a medication deprescribed of older people living with cognitive impairment (dementia or mild cognitive impairment) and multiple chronic conditions and assess the relationship between willingness, patient characteristics and belief about medications. METHODS: cross-sectional study using results from the revised Patients' Attitudes Towards Deprescribing questionnaire (rPATDcog) collected as baseline data in the OPTIMIZE study, a pragmatic, cluster-randomised trial educating patients and clinicians about deprescribing. Eligible participants were 65+, diagnosed with dementia or mild cognitive impairment, and prescribed at least five-long-term medications. RESULTS: the questionnaire was mailed to 1,409 intervention patients and 553 (39%) were returned and included in analysis. Participants had a mean age of 80.1 (SD 7.4) and 52.4% were female. About 78.5% (431/549) of participants said that they would be willing to have one of their medications stopped if their doctor said it was possible. Willingness to deprescribe was negatively associated with getting stressed when changes are made and with previously having a bad experience with stopping a medication (P < 0.001 for both). CONCLUSION: most older people living with cognitive impairment are willing to deprescribe. Addressing previous bad experiences with stopping a medication and stress when changes are made to medications may be key points to discuss during deprescribing conversations.

Telehealth During COVID-19 for Adults with Multiple Chronic Conditions: Associations with Self-Reported Food Insecurity and with Physical Limitations.

Background: Adults with chronic medical conditions complicated by food insecurity or physical limitations may have higher barriers to accessing telehealth implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic. Objective: To examine the relationships of self-reported food insecurity and physical limitations with changes in health care utilization and medication adherence comparing the year before (March 2019-February 2020) and the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic (April 2020-March 2021) among patients with chronic conditions insured by Medicaid or Medicare Advantage. Methods: A prospective cohort study of 10,452 Kaiser Permanente Northern California members insured by Medicaid and 52,890 Kaiser Permanente Colorado members insured by Medicare Advantage was conducted. Difference-in-differences (DID) between the pre-COVID and COVID years in telehealth versus in-person health care utilization and adherence to chronic disease medicines by food insecurity and by physical limitation status were measured. Results: Food insecurity and physical limitations were each associated with small but significantly greater shifts from in-person to telehealth. Medicare Advantage members with physical limitations also had significantly greater decline in adherence to chronic medications from year to year compared with those without physical limitations (DID from pre-COVID year to COVID year ranged from 0.7% to 3.6% greater decline by medication class, p < 0.01). Conclusions: Food insecurity and physical limitations did not present significant barriers to the transition to telehealth during the COVID pandemic. The greater decrease in medication adherence among older patients with physical limitations suggests that care systems must further address the needs of this high-risk population.

Associations Between Different Self-reported Social Risks and Neighborhood-level Resources in Medicaid Patients.

BACKGROUND: Adverse social conditions are a key contributor to health disparities. Improved understanding of how social risk factors interact with each other and with neighborhood characteristics may inform efforts to reduce health disparities. DATA: A questionnaire of 29,281 patients was collected through the enrollment of Medicaid beneficiaries in a large Northern California integrated health care delivery system between May 2016 and February 2020. EXPOSURES: Living in the least resourced quartile of neighborhoods as measured by a census-tract level Neighborhood Deprivation Index score. MAIN OUTCOMES: Five self-reported social risk factors: financial need, food insecurity, housing barriers, transportation barriers, and functional limitations. RESULTS: Nearly half (42.0%) of patients reported at least 1 social risk factor; 22.4% reported 2 or more. Mean correlation coefficient between social risk factors was ρ=0.30. Multivariable logistic models controlling for age, race/ethnicity, sex, count of chronic conditions, and insurance source estimated that living in the least resourced neighborhoods was associated with greater odds of food insecurity (adjusted odds ratio=1.07, 95% confidence interval: 1.00-1.13) and transportation barriers (adjusted odds ratio=1.20, 95% confidence interval: 1.11-1.30), but not financial stress, housing barriers, or functional limitations. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: We found that among 5 commonly associated social risk factors, Medicaid patients in a large Northern California health system typically reported only a single factor and that these factors did not correlate strongly with each other. We found only modestly greater social risk reported by patients in the least resourced neighborhoods. These results suggest that individual-level interventions should be targeted to specific needs whereas community-level interventions may be similarly important across diverse neighborhoods.

Accounting for Social Risk Does not Eliminate Race/Ethnic Disparities in COVID-19 Infection Among Insured Adults: a Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Communities of color have been disproportionately impacted by the COVID-19 epidemic in the USA. OBJECTIVES: To examine the relationship of self-reported social health needs with SARS-COV-2 infection by race/ethnicity among insured adults with access to high-quality health care. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective cohort study of 26,741 adult Kaiser Permanente Northern California members insured by Medicaid and 58,802 Kaiser Permanente Colorado members insured by Medicare Advantage who completed social risk assessments prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. MAIN MEASURES: We examined the independent relationships of demographic, medical, and social factors on SARS-COV-2 testing and positivity between March 1, 2020, and November 30, 2020, by race/ethnicity. KEY RESULTS: Findings were similar in the two cohorts, with Latino (16-18%), Asian (11-14%), and Black (11-12%) members having the highest prevalence of SARS-COV-2 infection (ORs adjusted for age, gender, and use of interpreter ranging from 1.68 to 2.23 compared to White member [7-8%], p < 0.001). Further adjustment for medical comorbidity (e.g., obesity, diabetes, chronic lung disease); neighborhood measures; and self-reported social risk factors (e.g., trouble paying for basics, food insecurity, housing concerns, transportation barriers) did not appreciably change these results. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to non-Latino White members, members of other race/ethnic groups had higher positivity rates that were only minimally reduced after controlling for medical and neighborhood conditions and self-reported social risk factors. These findings suggest that traditional infection transmission factors such as essential work roles and household size that have disproportionate representation among communities of color may be important contributors to SARS-COV-2 infection among insured adults.

Measuring Multimorbidity: Selecting the Right Instrument for the Purpose and the Data Source.

BACKGROUND: Adults have a higher prevalence of multimorbidity-or having multiple chronic health conditions-than having a single condition in isolation. Researchers, health care providers, and health policymakers find it challenging to decide upon the most appropriate assessment tool from the many available multimorbidity measures. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to describe a broad range of instruments and data sources available to assess multimorbidity and offer guidance about selecting appropriate measures. DESIGN: Instruments were reviewed and guidance developed during a special expert workshop sponsored by the National Institutes of Health on September 25-26, 2018. RESULTS: Workshop participants identified 4 common purposes for multimorbidity measurement as well as the advantages and disadvantages of 5 major data sources: medical records/clinical assessments, administrative claims, public health surveys, patient reports, and electronic health records. Participants surveyed 15 instruments and 2 public health data systems and described characteristics of the measures, validity, and other features that inform tool selection. Guidance on instrument selection includes recommendations to match the purpose of multimorbidity measurement to the measurement approach and instrument, review available data sources, and consider contextual and other related constructs to enhance the overall measurement of multimorbidity. CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of multimorbidity measurement can be enhanced with appropriate measurement selection, combining data sources and special considerations for fully capturing multimorbidity burden in underrepresented racial/ethnic populations, children, individuals with multiple Adverse Childhood Events and older adults experiencing functional limitations, and other geriatric syndromes. The increased availability of comprehensive electronic health record systems offers new opportunities not available through other data sources.

Designing a Primary Care-Based Deprescribing Intervention for Patients with Dementia and Multiple Chronic Conditions: a Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with dementia and multiple chronic conditions (MCC) frequently experience polypharmacy, increasing their risk of adverse drug events. OBJECTIVES: To elucidate patient, family, and physician perspectives on medication discontinuation and recommended language for deprescribing discussions in order to inform an intervention to increase awareness of deprescribing among individuals with dementia and MCC, family caregivers and primary care physicians. We also explored participant views on culturally competent approaches to deprescribing. DESIGN: Qualitative approach based on semi-structured interviews with patients, caregivers, and physicians. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged ≥ 65 years with claims-based diagnosis of dementia, ≥ 1 additional chronic condition, and ≥ 5 chronic medications were recruited from an integrated delivery system in Colorado and an academic medical center in Maryland. We included caregivers when present or if patients were unable to participate due to severe cognitive impairment. Physicians were recruited within the same systems and through snowball sampling, targeting areas with large African American and Hispanic populations. APPROACH: We used constant comparison to identify and compare themes between patients, caregivers, and physicians. KEY RESULTS: We conducted interviews with 17 patients, 16 caregivers, and 16 physicians. All groups said it was important to earn trust before deprescribing, frame deprescribing as routine and positive, align deprescribing with goals of dementia care, and respect caregivers' expertise. As in other areas of medicine, racial, ethnic, and language concordance was important to patients and caregivers from minority cultural backgrounds. Participants favored direct-to-patient educational materials, support from pharmacists and other team members, and close follow-up during deprescribing. Patients and caregivers favored language that explained deprescribing in terms of altered physiology with aging. Physicians desired communication tips addressing specific clinical situations. CONCLUSIONS: Culturally sensitive communication within a trusted patient-physician relationship supplemented by pharmacists, and language tailored to specific clinical situations may support deprescribing in primary care for patients with dementia and MCC.

Informing Patient-Centered Care Through Stakeholder Engagement and Highly Stratified Quantitative Benefit-Harm Assessments.

OBJECTIVES: In a previous project aimed at informing patient-centered care for people with multiple chronic conditions, we performed highly stratified quantitative benefit-harm assessments for 2 top priority questions. In this current work, our goal was to describe the process and approaches we developed and to qualitatively glean important elements from it that address patient-centered care. METHODS: We engaged patients, caregivers, clinicians, and guideline developers as stakeholder representatives throughout the process of the quantitative benefit-harm assessment and investigated whether the benefit-harm balance differed based on patient preferences and characteristics (stratification). We refined strategies to select the most applicable, valid, and precise evidence. RESULTS: Two processes were important when assessing the balance of benefits and harms of interventions: (1) engaging stakeholders and (2) stratification by patient preferences and characteristics. Engaging patients and caregivers through focus groups, preference surveys, and as co-investigators provided value in prioritizing research questions, identifying relevant clinical outcomes, and clarifying the relative importance of these outcomes. Our strategies to select evidence for stratified benefit-harm assessments considered consistency across outcomes and subgroups. By quantitatively estimating the range in the benefit-harm balance resulting from true variation in preferences, we clarified whether the benefit-harm balance is preference sensitive. CONCLUSIONS: Our approaches for engaging patients and caregivers at all phases of the stratified quantitative benefit-harm assessments were feasible and revealed how sensitive the benefit-harm balance is to patient characteristics and individual preferences. Accordingly, this sensitivity can suggest to guideline developers when to tailor recommendations for specific patient subgroups or when to explicitly leave decision making to individual patients and their providers.

Perceptions of Patient Portal Use for Advance Directive Documentation among Older Adults with Multiple Chronic Conditions.

Patient portals can play an innovative role in facilitating advanced care planning (ACP) and documenting advance directives (ADs) among older adults with multiple chronic conditions. The objective of this qualitative sub-study was to (1) understand older adults' use of an ACP patient portal section and (2) obtain user-design input on AD documentation features. Although some older adults may be reluctant, participants reported likely to use a portal for ADs with proper portal design and support.

Visit Planning Using a Waiting Room Health IT Tool: The Aligning Patients and Providers Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: Time during primary care visits is limited. We tested the hypothesis that a waiting room health information technology (IT) tool to help patients identify and voice their top visit priorities would lead to better visit interactions and improved quality of care. METHODS: We designed a waiting room tool, the Visit Planner, to guide adult patients through the process of identifying their top priorities for their visit and effectively expressing these priorities to their clinician. We tested this tool in a cluster-randomized controlled trial with usual care as the control. Eligible patients had at least 1 clinical care gap (eg, overdue for cancer screening, suboptimal chronic disease risk factor control, or medication nonadherence). RESULTS: The study (conducted March 31, 2016 through December 31, 2017) included 750 English- or Spanish-speaking patients. Compared with usual care patients, intervention patients more often reported "definitely" preparing questions for their doctor (59.5% vs 45.1%, P <.001) and "definitely" expressing their top concerns at the beginning of the visit (91.3% vs 83.3%, P = .005). Patients in both arms reported high levels of satisfaction with their care (86.8% vs 89.9%, P = .20). With 6 months of follow-up, prevalence of clinical care gaps was reduced by a similar amount in each study arm. CONCLUSIONS: A simple waiting room-based tool significantly improved visit communication. Patients using the Visit Planner were more prepared and more likely to begin the visit by communicating their top priorities. These changes did not, however, lead to further reduction in aggregate clinical care gaps beyond the improvements seen in the usual care arm.

Outcome preferences of older people with multiple chronic conditions and hypertension: a cross-sectional survey using best-worst scaling.

BACKGROUND: Older people with hypertension and multiple chronic conditions (MCC) receive complex treatments and face challenging trade-offs. Patients' preferences for different health outcomes can impact multiple treatment decisions. Since evidence about outcome preferences is especially scarce among people with MCC our aim was to elicit preferences of people with MCC for outcomes related to hypertension, and to determine how these outcomes should be weighed when benefits and harms are assessed for patient-centered clinical practice guidelines and health economic assessments. METHODS: We sent a best-worst scaling preference survey to a random sample identified from a primary care network of Kaiser Permanente (Colorado, USA). The sample included individuals age 60 or greater with hypertension and at least two other chronic conditions. We assessed average ranking of patient-important outcomes using conditional logit regression (stroke, heart attack, heart failure, dialysis, cognitive impairment, chronic kidney disease, acute kidney injury, fainting, injurious falls, low blood pressure with dizziness, treatment burden) and studied variation across individuals. RESULTS: Of 450 invited participants, 217 (48%) completed the survey, and we excluded 10 respondents who had more than two missing choices, resulting in a final sample of 207 respondents. Participants ranked stroke as the most worrisome outcome and treatment burden as the least worrisome outcome (conditional logit parameters: 3.19 (standard error 0.09) for stroke, 0 for treatment burden). None of the outcomes were always chosen as the most or least worrisome by more than 25% of respondents, indicating that all outcomes were somewhat worrisome to respondents. Predefined subgroup analyses according to age, self-reported life-expectancy, degree of comorbidity, number of medications and antihypertensive treatment did not reveal meaningful differences. CONCLUSIONS: Although some outcomes were more worrisome to patients than others, our results indicate that none of the outcomes should be disregarded for clinical practice guidelines and health economic assessments.

Mixed method evaluation of Relational Team Development (RELATED) to improve team-based care for complex patients with mental illness in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Patients with mental illness are frequently treated in primary care, where Primary Care Providers (PCPs) report feeling ill-equipped to manage their care. Team-based models of care improve outcomes for patients with mental illness, but multiple barriers limit adoption. Barriers include practical issues and psychosocial factors associated with the reorganization of care. Practice facilitation can improve implementation, but does not directly address the psychosocial factors or gaps in PCP skills in managing mental illness. To address these gaps, we developed Relational Team Development (RELATED). METHODS: RELATED is an implementation strategy combining practice facilitation and psychology clinical supervision methodologies to improve implementation of team-based care. It includes PCP-level clinical coaching and a team-level practice change activity. We performed a preliminary assessment of RELATED with a convergent parallel mixed method study in 2 primary care clinics in an urban Federally Qualified Health Center in Southwest, USA, 2017-2018. Study participants included PCPs, clinic staff, and patient representatives. Clinic staff and patients were recruited for the practice change activity only. Primary outcomes were feasibility and acceptability. Feasibility was assessed as ease of recruitment and implementation. Acceptability was measured in surveys of PCPs and staff and focus groups. We conducted semi-structured focus groups with 3 participant groups in each clinic: PCPs; staff and patients; and leadership. Secondary outcomes were change in pre- post- intervention PCP self-efficacy in mental illness management and team-based care. We conducted qualitative observations to better understand clinic climate. RESULTS: We recruited 18 PCPs, 17 staff members, and 3 patient representatives. We ended recruitment early due to over recruitment. Both clinics developed and implemented practice change activities. The mean acceptability score was 3.7 (SD=0.3) on a 4-point Likert scale. PCPs had a statistically significant increase in their mental illness management self-efficacy [change = 0.9, p-value= <.01]. Focus group comments were largely positive, with PCPs requesting additional coaching. CONCLUSIONS: RELATED was feasible and highly acceptable. It led to positive changes in PCP self-efficacy in Mental Illness Management. If confirmed as an effective implementation strategy, RELATED has the potential to significantly impact implementation of evidence-based interventions for patients with mental illness in primary care.

Designing the relational team development intervention to improve management of mental health in primary care using iterative stakeholder engagement.

BACKGROUND: Team-based models of care are efficacious in improving outcomes for patients with mental and physical illnesses. However, primary care clinics have been slow to adopt these models. We used iterative stakeholder engagement to develop an intervention to improve the implementation of team-based care for this complex population. METHODS: We developed the initial framework for Relational Team Development (RELATED) from a qualitative study of Primary Care Providers' (PCPs') experiences treating mental illness and a literature review of practice facilitation and psychology clinical supervision. Subsequently, we surveyed 900 Colorado PCPs to identify factors associated with PCP self-efficacy in management of mental illness and team-based care. We then conducted two focus groups for feedback on RELATED. Lastly, we convened an expert panel to refine the intervention. RESULTS: We developed RELATED, a two-part intervention delivered by a practice facilitator with a background in clinical psychology. The facilitator observes PCPs during patient visits and provides individualized coaching. Next, the facilitator guides the primary care team through a practice change activity with a focus on relational team dynamics. CONCLUSION: The iterative development of RELATED using stakeholder engagement offers a model for the development of interventions tailored to the needs of these stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Using the Technology Acceptance Model to Explore User Experience, Intent to Use, and Use Behavior of a Patient Portal Among Older Adults With Multiple Chronic Conditions: Descriptive Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Patient portals offer modern digital tools for older adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCC) to engage in their health management. However, there are barriers to portal adoption among older adults. Understanding portal user interface and user experience (UI and UX) preferences of older adults with MCC may improve the accessibility, acceptability, and adoption of patient portals. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to use the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) as a framework for qualitatively describing the UI and UX, intent to use, and use behaviors among older patients with MCC. METHODS: We carried out a qualitative descriptive study of Kaiser Permanente Colorado's established patient portal, My Health Manager. Older patients (N=24; mean 78.41 (SD 5.4) years) with MCC participated in focus groups. Stratified random sampling was used to maximize age and experience with the portal among participants. The semistructured focus groups used a combination of discussion and think-aloud strategies. A total of 2 coders led the theoretically driven analysis based on the TAM to determine themes related to use behavior, portal usefulness and ease of use, and intent to use. RESULTS: Portal users commonly used email, pharmacy, and lab results sections of the portal. Although, generally, the portal was seen to be easy to use, simple, and quick, challenges related to log-ins, UI design (color and font), and specific features were identified. Such challenges inhibited participants' intent to use the portal entirely or specific features. Participants indicated that the portal improved patient-provider communication, saved time and money, and provided relevant health information. Participants intended to use features that were beneficial to their health management and easy to use. CONCLUSIONS: Older adults are interested in using patient portals and are already taking advantage of the features available to them. We have the opportunity to better engage older adults in portal use but need to pay close attention to key considerations promoting usefulness and ease of use.

Prescriber Continuity and Disease Control of Older Adults.

BACKGROUND: Medicare beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions are typically seen by multiple providers, particularly specialists. Clinically appropriate referrals to multiple specialists may compromise the continuity of care for multiple chronic condition beneficiaries and create care plans that patients may find challenging to reconcile, which may impact patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The objective was to examine whether glycemic control or lipid control was associated with the number of prescribers of cardiometabolic medications. RESEARCH DESIGN, SUBJECTS, AND MEASURES: A retrospective cross-sectional cohort analysis of 51,879 elderly Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with diabetes and 129,762 beneficiaries with dyslipidemia living in 10 east coast states. Glycemic control was defined as having an HbA1c<7.5. Lipid control was defined as an low-density lipoprotein<100 for beneficiaries with heart disease or diabetes or an low-density lipoprotein<130 for all other beneficiaries. We examined the association between the number of prescribers of cardiometabolic medications and disease or lipid control in 2011 through logistic regression, controlling for age, sex, race, Medicaid enrollment, 17 chronic conditions and state-fixed effects. RESULTS: Among beneficiaries with diabetes, 76% with one prescriber had well-controlled diabetes in 2011, which decreased to 65% for beneficiaries with 5+ prescribers. In adjusted analyses, Medicare beneficiaries with 3 or more prescribers were less likely to have glycemic control than beneficiaries with a single prescriber. Among those with dyslipidemia, nearly all (91%-92%) beneficiaries had lipid control. After adjustment for demographics and comorbidity burden, beneficiaries with 3 prescribers were less likely to have lipid control than beneficiaries with a single prescriber. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple prescribers were associated with worse disease control, possibly because patients with more severe diabetes or dyslipidemia have multiple prescribers or because care fragmentation is associated with worse disease control.

Engaging Stakeholders to Inform Clinical Practice Guidelines That Address Multiple Chronic Conditions.

BACKGROUND: Having more than one chronic condition is common and is associated with greater health care utilization, higher medication burden and complexity of treatment. However, clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) do not routinely address the balance between harms and benefits of treatments for people with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs). OBJECTIVE: To partner with the Kaiser Permanente Integrated Cardiovascular Health (ICVH) program to engage multiple stakeholders in a mixed-methods approach in order to: 1) identify two high-priority clinical questions related to MCCs, and 2) understand patients' and family caregivers' perceptions of meaningful outcomes to inform benefit/harm assessments for these two high-priority questions. These clinical questions and outcomes will be used to inform CPG recommendations for people with MCCs. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: The ICVH program provided 130 topics rank-ordered by the potential for finding evidence that would change clinical recommendations regarding the topic. We used a modified Delphi method to identify and reword topics into questions relevant to people with MCCs. We used two sets of focus groups (n = 27) to elicit patient and caregiver perspectives on two important research questions and relevant patient-important outcomes on benefit/harm balance for people with MCCs. KEY RESULTS: Co-investigators, patients and caregivers identified "optimal blood pressure goals" and "diabetes medication management" as important clinical topics for CPGs related to people with MCCs. Stakeholders identified a list of relevant outcomes to be addressed in future CPG development including 1) physical function and energy, 2) emotional health and well-being, 3) avoidance of treatment burden, side effects and risks, 4) interaction with providers and health care system, and 5) prevention of adverse long-term health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Through the application of a mixed-methods process, we identified the questions regarding optimal blood pressure goals and diabetes medication management, along with related patient-centered outcomes, to inform novel evidence syntheses for those with MCCs. This study provides the lessons learned and a generalizable process for CPG developers to engage patient and caregivers in priority-setting for the translation of evidence into future CPGs. Ultimately, engaging patient and stakeholders around MCCs could improve the relevance of CPGs for the care of people with MCCs.

The Diabetes Telephone Study: Design and challenges of a pragmatic cluster randomized trial to improve diabetic peripheral neuropathy treatment.

BACKGROUND: Challenges to effective pharmacologic management of symptomatic diabetic peripheral neuropathy include the limited effectiveness of available medicines, frequent side effects, and the need for ongoing symptom assessment and treatment titration for maximal effectiveness. We present here the rationale and implementation challenges of the Diabetes Telephone Study, a randomized trial designed to improve medication treatment, titration, and quality of life among patients with symptomatic diabetic peripheral neuropathy. METHODS: We implemented a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial to test the effectiveness of an automated interactive voice response tool designed to provide physicians with real-time patient-reported data about responses to newly prescribed diabetic peripheral neuropathy medicines. A total of 1834 primary care physicians treating patients in the diabetes registry at Kaiser Permanente Northern California were randomized into the intervention or control arm. In September 2014, we began identification and recruitment of patients assigned to physicians in the intervention group who receive three brief interactive calls every 2 months after a medication is prescribed to alleviate diabetic peripheral neuropathy symptoms. These calls provide patients with the opportunity to report on symptoms, side effects, self-titration of medication dose and overall satisfaction with treatment. We plan to compare changes in self-reported quality of life between the intervention group and patients in the control group who receive three non-interactive automated educational phone calls. RESULTS: Successful implementation of this clinical trial required robust stakeholder engagement to help tailor the intervention and to address pragmatic concerns such as provider time constraints. As of 27 October 2015, we had screened 2078 patients, 1447 of whom were eligible for participation. We consented and enrolled 1206 or 83% of those eligible. Among those enrolled, 53% are women and the mean age is 67 (standard deviation = 12) years. The racial ethnic make-up is 56% White, 8% Asian, 13% Black or African American, and 19% Hispanic or Latino. CONCLUSION: Innovative strategies are needed to guide improvements in healthcare delivery for patients with symptomatic diabetic peripheral neuropathy. This trial aims to assess whether real-time collection and clinical feedback of patient treatment experiences can reduce patient symptom burden. Implementation of a clinical trial closely involving clinical care required researchers to partner with clinicians. If successful, this intervention provides a critical information feedback loop that would optimize diabetic peripheral neuropathy medication titration through widely available interactive voice response technology.