Primary care physician referral practices regarding BRCA1/2 genetic counseling in a major health system.

PURPOSE: The United States Preventive Services Task Force recommends primary care physicians refer patients at high risk for BRCA1/2 mutations to genetic testing when appropriate. The objective of our study was to describe referrals for BRCA1/2 testing in a large integrated health system and to assess factors associated with referral. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study includes female patients between 18 and 50 years who had a primary care visit in the Cleveland Clinic Health System between 2010 and 2019. We used multivariable logistic regression to estimate differences in the odds of a woman being referred for BRCA1/2 testing by patient factors and referring physician specialty. We also assessed variation in referrals by physicians. RESULTS: Among 279,568 women, 5% were high risk. Of those, 22% were referred for testing. Black patients were significantly less likely to be referred than white patients (aOR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77, 0.98) and Jewish patients were more likely to be referred than non-Jewish patients (aOR 2.13; 95% CI 1.68, 2.70). Patients primarily managed by OB/GYN were significantly more likely to be referred than those cared for via Internal/Family Medicine (aOR 1.45; 95% CI 1.30, 1.61). Less than a quarter of primary care physicians ever referred a patient for testing. CONCLUSION: The majority of primary care patients at high risk for a BRCA1/2 mutation were not referred for testing, and over a decade, most physicians never referred a single patient. Internal/Family Medicine physicians, in particular, need support in identifying and referring women who could benefit from testing.

Shared Decision Making in Cardiac Electrophysiology Procedures and Arrhythmia Management.

Shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated to improve patient care, patient decision acceptance, patient-provider communication, patient motivation, adherence, and patient reported outcomes. Documentation of SDM is endorsed in several society guidelines and is a condition of reimbursement for selected cardiovascular and cardiac arrhythmia procedures. However, many clinicians argue that SDM already occurs with clinical encounter discussions or the process of obtaining informed consent and note the additional imposed workload of using and documenting decision aids without validated tools or evidence that they improve clinical outcomes. In reality, SDM is a process and can be done without decision tools, although the process may be variable. Also, SDM advocates counter that the low-risk process of SDM need not be held to the high bar of demonstrating clinical benefit and that increasing the quality of decision making should be sufficient. Our review leverages a multidisciplinary group of experts in cardiology, cardiac electrophysiology, epidemiology, and SDM, as well as a patient advocate. Our goal is to examine and assess SDM methodology, tools, and available evidence on outcomes in patients with heart rhythm disorders to help determine the value of SDM, assess its possible impact on electrophysiological procedures and cardiac arrhythmia management, better inform regulatory requirements, and identify gaps in knowledge and future needs.

COVID-19 Is Associated With an Increase in Visits for Anxiety but Not Depression.

Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has increased concerns about mental health. We conducted a time-series analysis to determine whether the percentage of primary care visits for anxiety and depression changed after COVID-19. Methodology We assessed the adjusted weekly change in the percentage of primary care visits for anxiety and depression between August 2019 and October 2020 at a large integrated health system. To account for changes in overall visit behavior during the pandemic, we created three periods: pre-period (August 1, 2019 to March 8, 2020), initial period (March 9, 2020 to June 31, 2020), and return period (July 1, 2020 to October 31, 2020). We used hierarchical linear regression models (clustered by month) to identify the association between the time period and the adjusted mean weekly percentage of visits for depression or anxiety. We conducted the analysis in 2020 and 2021. Results There were 1,691,071 encounters among 605,105 unique adults. The median age was 55 years (interquartile range = 39-68), 57% were female, 78% were white, and 59% had private insurance. Most visits were office-based (versus virtual), of which 99% were in the pre-COVID-19 period and 75% in the return period. There was a significant increase in the percentage of visits associated with anxiety after July compared to before COVID-19 (10.4% versus 9.2%; p = 0.006), and there was no difference in the percentage of visits for depression (p > 0.05). Conclusions Outreach to individuals with depression who have not sought care may be necessary.

Association Between Pain, Blood Pressure, and Medication Intensification in Primary Care: an Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Treating hypertension is important but physicians often do not intensify blood pressure (BP) treatment in the setting of pain. OBJECTIVE: To identify whether reporting pain is associated with (1) elevated BP at the same visit, (2) medication intensification, and (3) elevated BP at the subsequent visit. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort SETTING: Integrated health system PARTICIPANTS: Adults seen in primary care EXPOSURE: Pain status based on numerical scale: mild (1-3), moderate (4-6), or severe (≥ 7). MAIN MEASURES: We defined elevated BP as ≥ 140/80 mmHg and medication intensification as increasing the dose or adding a new antihypertensive medication. Multilevel regression models were used to find the association between pain and (1) elevated BP at the index visit; (2) medication intensification at the index visit; and (3) elevated BP at the subsequent visit. Models adjusted for demographics, chronic conditions, and clustering within physician. In the third model, we adjusted for initial systolic BP as well. KEY RESULTS: Our population included 56,322 patients; 3155 (6%) reported mild pain, 5050 (9%) reported moderate pain, and 4647 (8%) reported severe pain at the index visit. Compared with no pain, the adjusted odds ratios of elevated BP were 1.38 (95% CI: 1.28-1.48) for severe pain, 1.06 (95% CI: 0.99-1.14) for moderate pain, and 1.02 (95% CI: 0.93-1.12) for mild pain. Adjusted odds ratios of medication intensification at the index visit were 0.65 (95% CI: 0.54-0.80) for mild pain, 0.61 (95% CI: 0.52-0.72) for moderate pain, and 0.55 (95% CI: 0.47-0.64) for severe pain. Among patients with elevated BP at the index visit, reporting pain at the index visit was not associated with elevated BP at the subsequent visit. CONCLUSIONS: When patients reported pain, physicians were less likely to intensify antihypertensive treatment; nevertheless, patients reporting pain were not more likely to have elevated BP at the subsequent visit.

The Impact of Systematic Depression Screening in Primary Care on Depression Identification and Treatment in a Large Health Care System: A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Unless implementation of systematic depression screening is associated with timely treatment, quality measures based on screening are unlikely to improve outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of integrating systematic depression screening with clinical decision support on depression identification and treatment. DESIGN: Retrospective pre-post study. PARTICIPANTS: Adults with a primary care visit within a large integrated health system in 2016 were included. Adults diagnosed with depression in 2015 or prior to their initial primary care visit in 2016 were excluded. INTERVENTION: Initiation of systematic screening using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) which began in mid-2016. MAIN MEASURES: Depression diagnosis was based on ICD codes. Treatment was defined as (1) antidepressant prescription, (2) referral, or (3) evaluation by a behavioral health specialist. We used an adjusted linear regression model to identify whether the percentage of visits with a depression diagnosis was different before versus after implementation of systematic screening. An adjusted multilevel regression model was used to evaluate the association between screening and odds of treatment. KEY RESULTS: Our study population included 259,411 patients. After implementation, 59% of patients underwent screening. Three percent scored as having moderate to severe depression. The rate of depression diagnosis increased by 1.2% immediately after systematic screening (from 1.7 to 2.9%). The percent of patients with diagnosed depression who received treatment within 90 days increased from 64% before to 69% after implementation (p < 0.01) and the adjusted odds of treatment increased by 20% after implementation (AOR 1.20, 95% CI 1.12-1.28, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Implementing systematic depression screening within a large health care system led to high rates of screening and increased rates of depression diagnosis and treatment.

Impact of a system-wide quality improvement initiative on blood pressure control: a cohort analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of a quality improvement programme on blood pressure (BP) control and determine whether medication intensification or repeated measurement improved control. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort comparing visits in 2015 to visits in 2016 (when the programme started). SUBJECTS: Adults with ≥1 primary care visit between January and June in 2015 and 2016 and a diagnosis of hypertension in a large integrated health system. MEASURES: Elevated BP was defined as a BP ≥140/90 mm Hg. Physician response was defined as: nothing; BP recheck within 30 days; or medication intensification within 30 days. Our outcome was BP control (<140/90 mm Hg) at the last visit of the year. We used a multilevel logistic regression model (adjusted for demographic and clinical variables) to identify the effect of the programme on the odds of BP control. RESULTS: Our cohort included 111 867 adults. Control increased from 72% in 2015 to 79% in 2016 (p<0.01). The average percentage of visits with elevated blood pressure was 31% in 2015 and 25% in 2016 (p<0.01). During visits with an elevated BP, physicians were more likely to intensify medication in 2016 than in 2015 (43% vs 40%, p<0.01) and slightly more likely to obtain a BP recheck (15% vs 14%, p<0.01). Among patients with ≥1 elevated BP who attained control by the last visit in the year, there was 6% increase from 2015 to 2016 in the percentage of patients who received at least one medication intensification during the year and a 1% increase in BP rechecks. The adjusted odds of the last BP reading being categorised as controlled was 59% higher in 2016 than in 2015 (95% CI 1.54 to 1.64). CONCLUSION: A system-wide initiative can improve BP control, primarily through medication intensification.

Physician Empathy Is Not Associated with Laboratory Outcomes in Diabetes: a Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: One widely cited study suggested a link between physician empathy and laboratory outcomes in patients with diabetes, but its findings have not been replicated. While empathy has a positive impact on patient experience, its impact on other outcomes remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To assess associations between physician empathy and glycosylated hemoglobin (HgbA1c) as well as low-density lipoprotein (LDL) levels in patients with diabetes. DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with diabetes who received care at a large integrated health system in the USA between January 1, 2011, and May 31, 2014, and their primary care physicians. MAIN MEASURES: The main independent measure was physician empathy, as measured by the Jefferson Scale of Empathy (JSE). The JSE is scored on a scale of 20-140, with higher scores indicating greater empathy. Dependent measures included patient HgbA1c and LDL. Mixed-effects linear regression models adjusting for patient sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidity index, and physician characteristics were used to assess the association between physician JSE scores and their patients' HgbA1c and LDL. KEY RESULTS: The sample included 4176 primary care patients who received care with one of 51 primary care physicians. Mean physician JSE score was 118.4 (standard deviation (SD) = 12). Median patient HgbA1c was 6.7% (interquartile range (IQR) = 6.2-7.5) and median LDL concentration was 83 (IQR = 66-104). In adjusted analyses, there was no association between JSE scores and HgbA1c (ß = - 0.01, 95%CI = - 0.04, 0.02, p = 0.47) or LDL (ß = 0.41, 95%CI = - 0.47, 1.29, p = 0.35). CONCLUSION: Physician empathy was not associated with HgbA1c or LDL. While interventions to increase physician empathy may result in more patient-centered care, they may not improve clinical outcomes in patients with diabetes.

Thromboembolic and Major Bleeding Events With Rivaroxaban Versus Warfarin Use in a Real-World Setting.

BACKGROUND: Although randomized trials demonstrate the noninferiority of rivaroxaban compared with warfarin in the context of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF), little is known about how these drugs compare in practice. OBJECTIVE: To assess the relative effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban versus warfarin in a large health system and to evaluate this association by time in therapeutic range (TTR). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study with propensity matching in the Cleveland Clinic Health System. The study included patients initiated on warfarin or rivaroxaban for thromboembolic prevention in nonvalvular AF between January 2012 and July 2016. The main outcomes were thromboembolic events and major bleeds. Analyses were stratified by warfarin patients' TTR. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 472 propensity-matched pairs. The mean age was 73.6 years (SD = 11.7), and the mean CHADS2 score was 1.8. The median TTR for warfarin patients was 64%. In the propensity-matched analysis, there was no significant difference in thromboembolic or major bleeding events between groups. Among warfarin patients with a TTR <64% and their matched rivaroxaban pairs, there was also no significant difference in thromboembolic or major bleeding events. CONCLUSIONS: Under real-world conditions, warfarin and rivaroxaban were associated with similar safety and effectiveness, even among those with suboptimal therapeutic control. Individualized decision making, taking into account the nontherapeutic tradeoffs associated with these medications (eg, monitoring, half-life, cost) is warranted.