Risk-based lung cancer screening performance in a universal healthcare setting.

Globally, lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death. Previous trials demonstrated that low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening of high-risk individuals can reduce lung cancer mortality by 20% or more. Lung cancer screening has been approved by major guidelines in the United States, and over 4,000 sites offer screening. Adoption of lung screening outside the United States has, until recently, been slow. Between June 2017 and May 2019, the Ontario Lung Cancer Screening Pilot successfully recruited 7,768 individuals at high risk identified by using the PLCOm2012noRace lung cancer risk prediction model. In total, 4,451 participants were successfully screened, retained and provided with high-quality follow-up, including appropriate treatment. In the Ontario Lung Cancer Screening Pilot, the lung cancer detection rate and the proportion of early-stage cancers were 2.4% and 79.2%, respectively; serious harms were infrequent; and sensitivity to detect lung cancers was 95.3% or more. With abnormal scans defined as ones leading to diagnostic investigation, specificity was 95.5% (positive predictive value, 35.1%), and adherence to annual recall and early surveillance scans and clinical investigations were high (>85%). The Ontario Lung Cancer Screening Pilot provides insights into how a risk-based organized lung screening program can be implemented in a large, diverse, populous geographic area within a universal healthcare system.

Identifying patients with ischemic heart disease in an electronic medical record.

PURPOSE: Increasing utilization of electronic medical records (EMRs) presents an opportunity to efficiently measure quality indicators in primary care. Achieving this goal requires the development of accurate patient-disease registries. This study aimed to develop and validate an algorithm for identifying patients with ischemic heart disease (IHD) within the EMR. METHODS: An algorithm was developed to search the unstructured text within the medical history fields in the EMR for IHD-related terminology. This algorithm was applied to a 5% random sample of adult patient charts (n = 969) drawn from a convenience sample of 17 Ontario family physicians. The accuracy of the algorithm for identifying patients with IHD was compared to the results of 3 trained chart abstractors. RESULTS: The manual chart abstraction identified 87 patients with IHD in the random sample (prevalence = 8.98%). The accuracy of the algorithm for identifying patients with IHD was as follows: sensitivity = 72.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 61.8-81.5); specificity = 99.3% (95% CI: 98.5-99.8); positive predictive value = 91.3% (95% CI: 82.0-96.7); negative predictive value = 97.3 (95% CI: 96.1-98.3); and kappa = 0.79 (95% CI: 0.72-0.86). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with IHD can be accurately identified by applying a search algorithm for the medical history fields in the EMR of primary care providers who were not using standardized approaches to code diagnoses. The accuracy compares favorably to other methods for identifying patients with IHD. The results of this study may aid policy makers, researchers, and clinicians to develop registries and to examine quality indicators for IHD in primary care.