Impact of large scale, multicomponent intervention to reduce proton pump inhibitor overuse in integrated healthcare system: difference-in-difference study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how a large scale, multicomponent, pharmacy based intervention to reduce proton pump inhibitor (PPI) overuse affected prescribing patterns, healthcare utilization, and clinical outcomes. DESIGN: Difference-in-difference study. SETTING: US Veterans Affairs Healthcare System, in which one regional network implemented the overuse intervention and all 17 others served as controls. PARTICIPANTS: All individuals receiving primary care from 2009 to 2019. INTERVENTION: Limits on PPI refills for patients without a documented indication for long term use, voiding of PPI prescriptions not recently filled, facilitated electronic prescribing of H2 receptor antagonists, and education for patients and clinicians. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the percentage of patients who filled a PPI prescription per 6 months. Secondary outcomes included percentage of days PPI gastroprotection was prescribed in patients at high risk for upper gastrointestinal bleeding, percentage of patients who filled either a PPI or H2 receptor antagonist prescription, hospital admission for acid peptic disease in older adults appropriate for PPI gastroprotection, primary care visits for an upper gastrointestinal diagnosis, upper endoscopies, and PPI associated clinical conditions. RESULTS: The number of patients analyzed per interval ranged from 192 607 to 250 349 in intervention sites and from 3 775 953 to 4 360 868 in control sites, with 26% of patients receiving PPIs before the intervention. The intervention was associated with an absolute reduction of 7.3% (95% confidence interval -7.6% to -7.0%) in patients who filled PPI prescriptions, an absolute reduction of 11.3% (-12.0% to -10.5%) in PPI use among patients appropriate for gastroprotection, and an absolute reduction of 5.72% (-6.08% to -5.36%) in patients who filled a PPI or H2 receptor antagonist prescription. No increases were seen in primary care visits for upper gastrointestinal diagnoses, upper endoscopies, or hospital admissions for acid peptic disease in older patients appropriate for gastroprotection. No clinically significant changes were seen in any PPI associated clinical conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The multicomponent intervention was associated with reduced PPI use overall but also in patients appropriate for gastroprotection, with minimal evidence of either clinical benefits or harms.

Impacts of COVID-19 on Appropriate Use of Screening Colonoscopy in a Large Integrated Healthcare Delivery System.

BACKGROUND: Decreasing low-value colonoscopy is critical to optimizing access for high-need patients, particularly in resource-constrained environments such as those created by the COVID-19 pandemic. We hypothesized that rates of screening colonoscopy overuse would decline during COVID compared to pre-COVID due to enhanced procedural scrutiny and prioritization in the setting of constrained access. OBJECTIVE: To characterize impacts of COVID-19 on screening colonoscopy overuse DESIGN: Retrospective national cohort study using Veterans Health Administration administrative data PARTICIPANTS: Veterans undergoing screening colonoscopy in Q4 2019 (pre-COVID) and Q4 2020 (COVID) at 109 endoscopy facilities MAIN MEASURES: Rates of screening colonoscopy overuse KEY RESULTS: 18,376 screening colonoscopies were performed pre-COVID, 19% (3,641) of which met overuse criteria. While only 9,360 screening colonoscopies were performed in Q4 2020, 25% met overuse criteria. Overall change in median facility-level overuse during COVID compared to pre-COVID was 6% (95%CI 5%-7%), with significant variability across facilities (IQR: 2%-11%). Of colonoscopies meeting overuse criteria, the top reason for overuse in both periods was screening colonoscopy performed <9 years after previous screening procedure (55% pre-COVID, 49% during COVID). The largest shifts in overuse category were in screening procedures performed <9 years after prior screening colonoscopy (-6% decline COVID vs. pre-COVID) and screening procedures performed in patients below average-risk screening age (i.e., age <40 (5% increase COVID compared to pre-COVID), age 40-44 (4% increase COVID vs. pre-COVID)). Within facility performance was stable over time; 83/109 facilities changed their performance by <=1 quartile during COVID compared to pre-COVID. CONCLUSIONS: Despite pandemic-related resource constraints and enhanced procedural scrutiny and prioritization in the setting of COVID-related backlogs, screening colonoscopy overuse rates remained roughly stable during COVID compared to pre-COVID, with continued variability across facilities. These data highlight the need for systematic and concerted efforts to address overuse, even in the face of strong external motivating factors.

Development and validation of a new ICD-10-based screening colonoscopy overuse measure in a large integrated healthcare system: a retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Low-value use of screening colonoscopy is wasteful and potentially harmful to patients. Decreasing low-value colonoscopy prevents procedural complications, saves patient time and reduces patient discomfort, and can improve access by reducing procedural demand. The objective of this study was to develop and validate an electronic measure of screening colonoscopy overuse using International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition codes and then apply this measure to estimate facility-level overuse to target quality improvement initiatives to reduce overuse in a large integrated healthcare system. METHODS: Retrospective national observational study of US Veterans undergoing screening colonoscopy at 119 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) endoscopy facilities in 2017. A measure of screening colonoscopy overuse was specified by an expert workgroup, and electronic approximation of the measure numerator and denominator was performed ('electronic measure'). The electronic measure was then validated via manual record review (n=511). Reliability statistics (n=100) were calculated along with diagnostic test characteristics of the electronic measure. The measure was then applied to estimate overall rates of overuse and facility-level variation in overuse among all eligible patients. RESULTS: The electronic measure had high specificity (99%) and moderate sensitivity (46%). Adjusted positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 33% and 95%, respectively. Inter-rater reliability testing revealed near perfect agreement between raters (k=0.81). 269 572 colonoscopies were performed in VHA in 2017 (88 143 classified as screening procedures). Applying the measure to these 88 143 screening colonoscopies, 24.5% were identified as potential overuse. Median facility-level overuse was 22.5%, with substantial variability across facilities (IQR 19.1%-27.0%). CONCLUSIONS: An International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition based electronic measure of screening colonoscopy overuse has high specificity and improved sensitivity compared with a previous International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition based measure. Despite increased focus on reducing low-value care and improving access, a quarter of VHA screening colonoscopies in 2017 were identified as potential low-value procedures, with substantial facility-level variability.

Adalimumab persistence for inflammatory bowel disease in veteran and insured cohorts.

OBJECTIVES: Identify predictors of persistence with adalimumab (ADA) among veterans and privately insured patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) in the United States. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: Patients with IBD taking ADA as their first biologic were identified from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) database from 2009 to 2013 and the Truven Health MarketScan database from 2009 to 2012 with a 12-month follow-up. Persistence was defined as continued use 1 year after initiation. Adherence was assessed by calculating a medication possession ratio, which was dichotomized as greater than 0.86 or less than or equal to 0.86. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate predictors of persistence. RESULTS: There were 1030 patients in the VHA population compared with 3264 patients in the privately insured (MarketScan) cohort. In MarketScan, 1800 patients (55%) remained on ADA compared with 755 (73%) in the VHA cohort. In multivariable analysis, male sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.38; 95% CI, 1.16-1.63; P <.01), Crohn disease (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.02-1.57; P = .03), greater adherence (OR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.45-2.30; P <.01), and dose escalation (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.42-2.33; P <.01) were associated with higher ADA persistence in the MarketScan cohort; narcotic use (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.58-0.88; P <.01) and hospitalization or new steroid use after initiation (OR, 0.04; 95% CI, 0.03-0.05; P <.01) were associated with lower persistence. In the VHA cohort, only a hospitalization or new steroid use (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.36-0.70; P <.01) was associated with lower persistence. CONCLUSIONS: Despite being older and having more comorbidities, patients in the VHA, which is an integrated healthcare system, appear to be more likely to remain on ADA at 1 year than patients in the MarketScan database. Further studies of system differences are needed to understand the reasons behind this discrepancy.

Mind the gap: results of a multispecialty survey on coordination of care for peri-procedural anticoagulation.

To understand how physicians from various specialties perceive coordination of care when managing peri-procedural anticoagulation. Cross-sectional survey of cardiologists, gastroenterologists, and primary care physicians (PCPs) in an integrated health system (N = 251). The survey began with a vignette of a patient with atrial fibrillation co-managed by his PCP, cardiologist, and an anticoagulation clinic who must hold warfarin for a colonoscopy. Respondents' experiences and opinions around responsibilities and institutional support for managing peri-procedural anticoagulation were elicited using multiple choice questions. We examined differences in responses across specialties using Chi square analysis. The response rate was 51% (n = 127). 52% were PCPs, 28% cardiologists, and 21% gastroenterologists. Nearly half (47.2%) of respondents believed that the cardiologist should be primarily responsible for managing peri-procedural anticoagulation, while fewer identified the PCP (25.2%), anticoagulation clinic (21.3%), or gastroenterologist (6.3%; p = 0.09). Respondents across specialties had significantly different approaches to deciding how to manage the clinical case presented (p < 0.001). Most cardiologists (60.0%) would decide whether to offer bridging without consulting with other providers or clinical resources, while most PCPs would decide after consulting clinical resources (57.6%). Gastroenterologists would most often (46.2%) defer the decision to another provider. A majority of all three specialties agreed that their institution could do more to help manage peri-procedural anticoagulation, and there was broad support (88.1%) for anticoagulation clinics' managing all aspects of peri-procedural anticoagulation. Providers across specialties agree that their institution could do more to help manage peri-procedural anticoagulation, and overwhelmingly support anticoagulation clinics' taking responsibility.

Who is Responsible for What Happens Before, During, and After Colonoscopy? Results of a National Survey of Primary Care Physicians.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Primary care providers (PCPs) play a critical role in colon cancer screening by initiating referrals to gastroenterologists for colonoscopy, but little is known about their role in pre-colonoscopy bowel preparation selection and pre-colonoscopy follow-up care. This study aimed to better understand coordination of care between PCPs and gastroenterologists as well as the current availability of "open-access" screening colonoscopy. METHODS: A multiple-choice survey was developed to assess PCPs' experiences with open-access colonoscopy, their involvement in the pre-colonoscopy process, and follow-up after colonoscopy. The survey was distributed electronically to a nationally representative sample of PCPs, via the American College of Physicians (ACP) Research Center's Internal Medicine Insider Research Panel. RESULTS: Of 442 PCPs invited to participate, 210 responded (response rate, 210/442, 48%), and 29 were ineligible (spent <25% of their time on clinical care or placed no referrals to colonoscopy), yielding 181 completed surveys. A total of 39% reported that open access was "rarely" or "never" available in their practice setting. The majority reported that pre-colonoscopy care was coordinated by gastroenterologists rather than PCPs. For example, 93% reported that gastroenterologists were responsible for bowel preparation selection in their practice setting. Post-colonoscopy, 54% of PCPs reported that they were responsible for ordering subsequent colonoscopies. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs frequently coordinate follow-up care postprocedure but play a relatively minor role in the pre-colonoscopy bowel preparation process. Open access availability for screening colonoscopy remains limited in this national sample of PCPs.

Predictors of Use of Monitored Anesthesia Care for Outpatient Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in a Capitated Payment System.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Use of monitored anesthesia care (MAC) for gastrointestinal endoscopy has increased in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) as in fee-for-service environments, despite the absence of financial incentives. We investigated factors associated with use of MAC in an integrated health care delivery system with a capitated payment model. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using multilevel logistic regression, with MAC use modeled as a function of procedure year, patient- and provider-level factors, and facility effects. We collected data from 2,091,590 veterans who underwent outpatient esophagogastroduodenoscopy and/or colonoscopy during fiscal years 2000-2013 at 133 facilities. RESULTS: The adjusted rate of MAC use in the VHA increased 17% per year (odds ratio for increase, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.27) from fiscal year 2000 through 2013. The most rapid increase occurred starting in 2011. VHA use of MAC was associated with patient-level factors that included obesity, obstructive sleep apnea, higher comorbidity, and use of prescription opioids and/or benzodiazepines, although the magnitude of these effects was small. Provider-level and facility factors were also associated with use of MAC, although again the magnitude of these associations was small. Unmeasured facility-level effects had the greatest effect on the trend of MAC use. CONCLUSIONS: In a retrospective study of veterans who underwent outpatient esophagogastroduodenoscopy and/or colonoscopy from fiscal year 2000 through 2013, we found that even in a capitated system, patient factors are only weakly associated with use of MAC. Facility-level effects are the most prominent factor influencing increasing use of MAC. Future studies should focus on better defining the role of MAC and facility and organizational factors that affect choice of endoscopic sedation. It will also be important to align resources and incentives to promote appropriate allocation of MAC based on clinically meaningful patient factors.

Developing and Testing an Electronic Measure of Screening Colonoscopy Overuse in a Large Integrated Healthcare System.

BACKGROUND: Most existing performance measures focus on underuse of care, but there is growing interest in identifying and reducing overuse. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop a valid and reliable electronic performance measure of overuse of screening colonoscopy in the Veterans Affairs Health Care System (VA), and to quantify overuse in VA. DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional study with multiple cross-sections. SUBJECTS: U.S. Veterans who underwent screening colonoscopy between 2011 and 2013. MAIN MEASURES: Overuse of screening colonoscopy, using a validated electronic measure developed by an expert workgroup. KEY RESULTS: Compared to results obtained from manual record review, the electronic measure was highly specific (97 %) for overuse, but not sensitive (20 %). After exclusion of diagnostic and high-risk screening or surveillance procedures, the validated electronic measure identified 88,754 average-risk screening colonoscopies performed in VA during 2013. Of these, 20,530 (23 %) met the definition for probable (17 %) or possible (6 %) overuse. Substantial variation in colonoscopy overuse was noted between Veterans Integrated Care Networks (VISNs) and between facilities, with a nearly twofold difference between the maximum and minimum rates of overuse at the VISN level and a nearly eightfold difference at the facility level. Overuse at the VISN and facility level was relatively stable over time. CONCLUSIONS: Overuse of screening colonoscopy can be measured reliably and with high specificity using electronic data, and is common in a large integrated healthcare system. Overuse measures, such as those we have specified through a consensus workgroup process, could be combined with underuse measures to improve the appropriateness of colorectal cancer screening.

Classifying the Indication for Colonoscopy Procedures: A Comparison of NLP Approaches in a Diverse National Healthcare System.

In order to measure the level of utilization of colonoscopy procedures, identifying the primary indication for the procedure is required. Colonoscopies may be utilized not only for screening, but also for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes. To determine whether a colonoscopy was performed for screening, we created a natural language processing system to identify colonoscopy reports in the electronic medical record system and extract indications for the procedure. A rule-based model and three machine-learning models were created using 2,000 manually annotated clinical notes of patients cared for in the Department of Veterans Affairs. Performance of the models was measured and compared. Analysis of the models on a test set of 1,000 documents indicates that the rule-based system performance stays fairly constant as evaluated on training and testing sets. However, the machine learning model without feature selection showed significant decrease in performance. Therefore, rule-based classification system appears to be more robust than a machine-learning system in cases when no feature selection is performed.

Role of quality measurement in inappropriate use of screening for colorectal cancer: retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the age based quality measure for screening for colorectal cancer is associated with overuse of screening in patients aged 70-75 in poor health and underuse in those aged over age 75 in good health. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study utilizing electronic data from the Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System, the largest integrated healthcare system in the United States. SETTING: VA Health Care System. PARTICIPANTS: Veterans aged ≥ 50 due for repeat average risk colorectal cancer screening at a primary care visit in fiscal year 2010. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Completion of colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, or fecal occult blood testing within 24 months of the 2010 visit. RESULTS: 399,067 veterans met inclusion/exclusion criteria (mean age 67, 97% men). Of these, 38% had electronically documented screening within 24 months. In multivariable log binomial regression adjusted for Charlson comorbidity index, sex, and number of primary care visits, screening decreased markedly after the age of 75 (the age cut off used by the quality measure) (adjusted relative risk 0.35, 95% confidence interval 0.30 to 0.40). A veteran who was aged 75 and unhealthy (in whom life expectancy might be limited and screening more likely to result in net burden or harm) was significantly more likely to undergo screening than a veteran aged 76 and healthy (unadjusted relative risk 1.64, 1.36 to 1.97). CONCLUSIONS: Specification of a quality measure can have important implications for clinical care. Future quality measures should focus on individual risk/benefit to ensure that patients who are likely to benefit from a service receive it (regardless of age), and that those who are likely to incur harm are spared unnecessary and costly care.

Improving access to colorectal cancer screening through medical philanthropy: feasibility of a flexible sigmoidoscopy health fair for uninsured patients.

OBJECTIVES: Only half of eligible patients in the United States undergo colorectal cancer (CRC) screening as recommended. Hypothesizing that the medical philanthropy platform may be effective in improving access to CRC screening, we aimed to demonstrate the feasibility of a flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS)-based CRC screening "health fair" for uninsured patients. METHODS: Uninsured patients older than 50 years who had not undergone CRC screening in the preceding 10 years were recruited through local free clinics and health fairs. A standard medical clinic was transformed into a fully functional endoscopy unit. Medicolegal protection for volunteers was obtained through the Florida Department of Health's Volunteer Health Care Provider Program. Unsedated FS with polypectomy was performed. Those with high-risk endoscopic features were given instructions on obtaining a full colonoscopy. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients without access to any form of CRC screening underwent FS. Ninety-four percent had an adequate bowel preparation, although 40% required on-site enema. Eighteen patients had a total of 22 polyps, 4 of which were adenomatous. There were no complications. The total cost of the fair, excluding donated resources such as endoscopes and processors, was $6,531.47, amounting to $126 per patient screened. CONCLUSIONS: Health fair-style CRC screening for uninsured patients is feasible. With improved efficiency, widespread application of CRC screening using the medical philanthropy platform may represent a viable approach to reducing the underuse of CRC screening among the uninsured.