Validation of administrative claims to identify ultrasound enhancing agent use.

BACKGROUND: Ultrasound enhancing agents (UEAs) are an invaluable adjunct to stress and transthoracic echocardiography (STE) to improve left ventricular visualization. Despite multiple single center studies evaluating UEA use, investigation into the rates, sources of variation, and outcomes of UEA use on a national level in the United States (US) has been limited by lack of validation of UEA codes for claims analyses. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study, 2019-2022, using linked multicenter electronic medical record (EMR) data from > 30 health systems linked to all-payor claims data representing > 90% of the US population. Individuals receiving STE in both EMR and claims data on the same day during the study window were included. UEA receipt as identified by presence of a Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) or National Drug Code (NDC) for UEA use within 1-day of the index STE event. We evaluated the performance of claims to identify UEA use, using EMR data as the gold standard, stratified by inpatient and outpatient status. RESULTS: Amongst 54,525 individuals receiving STE in both EMR and claims data, 12,853 (23.6%) had a UEA claim in EMR, 10,461 (19.2%) had a UEA claim in claims, and 9140 (16.8%) had a UEA claim in both within the 1-day window. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive, and negative predictive values for UEA claims were 71.1%, 96.8%, 90.8%, 87.4%. and 91.6% respectively. However, amongst inpatients, the sensitivity of UEA claims was substantially lower (6.8%) compared to outpatients (79.7%). CONCLUSIONS: While the overall accuracy of claims to identify UEA use was high, there was substantial under-capture of UEA use by claims amongst inpatients. These results call into question published rates of UEA use amongst inpatients in studies using administrative claims, and highlight ongoing need to improve inpatient coding for UEA use.

Closing the Equity Gap: An Intervention to Improve Chlamydia and Gonorrhea Testing for Adolescents and Young Adults in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhea are the most reported sexually transmitted infections in the United States. Testing rates remain suboptimal and may be subject to implicit bias. We evaluated the effectiveness of an opt-out chlamydia and gonorrhea testing program for adolescents and young adults in improving testing rates and promoting equity. METHODS: An opt-out testing program that standardized testing to once annually for 14 to 24-year-old patients was implemented across 28 federally qualified health centers spanning 4 specialties. A quasi-experimental design using interrupted time series analyses evaluated testing and infection rates between baseline, intervention, and pandemic-associated test shortage periods. Reduction in testing inequities based on sex, race, ethnicity, insurance, and language preference were also examined. RESULTS: A total of 57 452 encounters during the baseline, 17 320 during the intervention, and 26 993 during the test supply shortage periods were included. Testing increased from 66.8% to 81.0% (14.2% absolute increase) between baseline and intervention periods. Pediatric clinics demonstrated the largest improvement compared to other settings (absolute increase 30.9%). We found significant reductions in testing inequities for language preference (P < .001), and un-insured and public insured individuals (P < .001). More cases of chlamydia and gonorrhea were detected in the intervention period (chlamydia-29.7; gonorrhea-7.4 per 1000 patients) than in the baseline period (chlamydia-20.7; gonorrhea-4.4 per 1000 patients; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: An opt-out approach increased testing, reduced inequities between some groups and detected more infections than a risk-based approach. Opt-out testing should be considered as an approach to increase detection of chlamydia and gonorrhea and promote equity.

Dashboard development for near real-time visualization of COVID-19 vaccine safety surveillance data in the vaccine safety datalink.

The Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) conducts active surveillance and vaccine safety research studies. Since the start of the U.S. COVID-19 vaccination program, the VSD has conducted near real-time safety surveillance of COVID-19 vaccines using Rapid Cycle Analysis. VSD investigators developed an internal dashboard to facilitate visualization and rapid reviews of large weekly automated vaccine safety surveillance data. Dashboard development and maintenance was informed by vaccine surveillance data users and vaccine safety partners. Key metrics include population demographics, vaccine uptake, pre-specified safety outcomes, sequential analyses results, and descriptive data on potential vaccine safety signals. Dashboard visualizations are used to provide situational awareness on dynamic vaccination coverage and the status of multiple safety analyses conducted among the VSD population. This report describes the development and implementation of the internal VSD COVID-19 Vaccine Dashboard, including metrics used to develop the dashboard, which may have application across various other public health settings.

Monitoring vaccine safety using the vaccine safety Datalink: Assessing capacity to integrate data from Immunization Information systems.

BACKGROUND: The Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) uses vaccination data from electronic health records (EHR) at eight integrated health systems to monitor vaccine safety. Accurate capture of data from vaccines administered outside of the health system is critical for vaccine safety research, especially for COVID-19 vaccines, where many are administered in non-traditional settings. However, timely access and inclusion of data from Immunization Information Systems (IIS) into VSD safety assessments is not well understood. METHODS: We surveyed the eight data-contributing VSD sites to assess: 1) status of sending data to IIS; 2) status of receiving data from IIS; and 3) integration of IIS data into the site EHR. Sites reported separately for COVID-19 vaccination to capture any differences in capacity to receive and integrate data on COVID-19 vaccines versus other vaccines. RESULTS: All VSD sites send data to and receive data from their state IIS. All eight sites (100%) routinely integrate IIS data for COVID-19 vaccines into VSD research studies. Six sites (75%) also routinely integrate all other vaccination data; two sites integrate data from IIS following a reconciliation process, which can result in delays to integration into VSD datasets. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccines are being administered in a variety of non-traditional settings, where IIS are commonly used as centralized reporting systems. All eight VSD sites receive and integrate COVID-19 vaccine data from IIS, which positions the VSD well for conducting quality assessments of vaccine safety. Efforts to improve the timely receipt of all vaccination data will improve capacity to conduct vaccine safety assessments within the VSD.

Rates of Appropriate Treatment and Follow-Up Testing After a Gonorrhea and/or Chlamydia Infection in an Urban Network of Federally Qualified Health Center Systems.

BACKGROUND: Reinfection and partner transmission are common with Neisseria gonorrhoeae (GC) and Chlamydia trachomatis (CT). We assessed treatment and follow-up laboratory testing for GC and CT and evaluated associations with patient- and system-level factors. METHODS: The analysis included positive GC and/or CT nucleic acid amplification test results from patients aged 14 to 24 years at a federally qualified health center system site in Denver, CO, from January 2018 to December 2019. Outcomes assessed include treatment within 14 days, HIV/syphilis testing within 6 months, and repeat GC and CT testing within 2 to 6 months. Bivariate and multivariable regression modeling assessed associated factors. RESULTS: Among 27,168 GC/CT nucleic acid amplification tests performed, 1.8% (484) were positive for GC and 7.8% (2125) were positive for CT. Within the assessed time frames, 87% (2275) of patients were treated, 54.1% (1411) had HIV testing, 50.1% (1306) had syphilis testing, and 39.9% (1040) had GC and CT retesting. Older patients were more likely to receive treatment (adjusted odds ratio 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.27; P = 0.05) than younger patients, whereas males were less likely to receive GC and CT retesting (adjusted odds ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.33; P < 0.001) than females. Patients treated on the day of testing were less likely to receive follow-up laboratory tests than those treated 2 to 14 days after. CONCLUSIONS: Although most patients received antibiotic treatment, only about half received HIV/syphilis testing and less than half received GC and CT retesting. It is critical to find innovative strategies to improve treatment and follow-up management of these infections to decrease complications, reduce transmission, and combat the rising rates of sexually transmitted infections.

Increasing Guideline-Concordant Durations of Antibiotic Therapy for Acute Otitis Media.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of 2 interventions in improving prescribing of guideline-concordant durations of therapy for acute otitis media (AOM). STUDY DESIGN: This was a quasi-experimental mixed methods analysis that compared a bundled quality improvement intervention consisting of individualized audit and feedback, education, and electronic health record (EHR) changes to an EHR-only intervention. The bundle was implemented in 3 pediatric clinics from January to August 2020 and an EHR-only intervention was implemented in 6 family medicine clinics. The primary outcome measure was prescription of an institutional guideline-concordant 5-day duration of therapy for children ≥2 years of age with uncomplicated AOM. Propensity score matching and differences-in-differences analysis weighted with inverse probability of treatment were completed. Implementation outcomes were assessed using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance Framework. Balance measures included treatment failure and recurrence. RESULTS: In total, 1017 encounters for AOM were included from February 2019 to August 2020. Guideline-concordant prescribing increased from 14.4% to 63.8% (difference = 49.4%) in clinics that received the EHR-only intervention and from 10.6% to 85.2% (difference = 74.6%) in clinics that received the bundled intervention. In the adjusted analysis, the bundled intervention improved guideline-concordant durations by an additional 26.4% (P < .01) compared with the EHR-only intervention. Providers identified EHR-prescription field changes as the most helpful components. There were no differences in treatment failure or recurrence rates between baseline and either intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Both interventions resulted in improved prescribing of guideline-concordant durations of antibiotics. The bundled intervention improved prescribing more than an EHR-only intervention and was acceptable to providers.

An Intervention to Improve Chlamydia and Gonorrhea Testing Among Adolescents in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Rates of chlamydia and gonorrhea among adolescents continue to rise. We aimed to evaluate if a universal testing program for chlamydia and gonorrhea improved testing rates in an urban general pediatric clinic and an urban family medicine clinic within a system of federally qualified health care centers and evaluated the feasibility, cost, and logistic challenges of expanding implementation across 28 primary care clinics within a federally qualified health care centers system. METHODS: A universal testing quality improvement program for male and female patient 14 to 18 years old was implemented in a general pediatrics and family medicine clinic in Denver, Colorado. The intervention was evaluated by using a controlled pre-post quasi-experimental design. The difference in testing rates due to the intervention was assessed by using a difference-in-differences regression model weighted with the inverse probability of treatment. RESULTS: In total, 15 541 pediatric encounters and 5420 family medicine encounters were included in the analyses. In pediatrics, the unadjusted testing rates increased from 32.0% to 66.7% in the intervention group and from 20.9% to 28.9% in the comparison group. For family medicine, the rates increased from 38.5% to 49.9% in the intervention group and decreased from 26.3% to 24.8% in the comparison group. The intervention resulted in an adjusted increase in screening rates of 25.2% (P < .01) in pediatrics and 11.8% (P < .01) in family medicine. The intervention was well received and cost neutral to the clinic. CONCLUSIONS: Universal testing for chlamydia and gonorrhea in primary care pediatrics and family medicine is a feasible approach to improving testing rates .

Parental Vaccine Hesitancy and Risk of Pediatric Influenza Under-Vaccination in a Safety-Net Health Care System.

OBJECTIVE: To measure the risk of influenza under-vaccination in children of vaccine-hesitant parents, referent to children of nonhesitant parents, in a sample of disadvantaged families in one influenza season. STUDY DESIGN: A prospective observational cohort study of English- and Spanish-speaking parents of 2-year-olds presenting at random for well, sick, or specialty visit care from August 1, 2019 to February 28, 2020. Parents answered demographic questions and the Parent Attitudes about Childhood Vaccines survey. We followed children until season's end, extracting vaccination data on April 30, 2020. We dichotomized vaccination status as unvaccinated or partially/fully vaccinated, analyzing data with multivariable Poisson regression; in secondary analyses, we conducted adjusted time-to-event analyses. RESULTS: Overall, 263 parents consented (response rate: 90%); our final sample included 255 dyads. Thirty-three (13%) parents were vaccine hesitant. In adjusted analyses, children of hesitant parents (n = 33) had a 195% increased risk (adjusted Risk Ratio 2.95; 95% confidence interval 1.91, 4.56) of being unvaccinated at season's end, referent to children of nonhesitant parents (n = 222). In time-to-event analyses, children of vaccine-hesitant parents were also more likely to be unvaccinated before influenza activity peaked (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Parental vaccine hesitancy tripled the risk of pediatric influenza nonvaccination in a sample of poor and minority families during the 2019 to 2020 influenza season. As parental vaccine hesitancy appears to exacerbate pediatric influenza vaccination disparities, future work should explore parental hesitancy with poor and minority stakeholders and tailor evidence-based interventions to benefit children from these communities who receive care at all practice sites.

The impact of care management for high-risk pediatric asthmatics on healthcare utilization.

INTRODUCTION: From 2011 to 2015, a series of quality improvement interventions were developed that targeted pediatric persistent asthmatics that included recalls for those overdue for care and access to specialist care. The objective of this study was to assess the impact on urgent care and emergency department visits and hospitalizations from enrollment into at least one intervention during the time period. METHODS: Persistent asthmatics were identified through electronic medical records, with patients having an asthma designation containing "persistent," asthma control containing "poor", and asthma risk being "high risk." Asthma utilization events were identified for these patients between January 1, 2011, and June 30, 2015 using ICD-9 diagnosis codes. Evaluation focused on differences in utilization for patients before and after receiving interventions through the use of logistic regression for each utilization outcome. RESULTS: The interventions were delivered to 1060 children out of a total of 2046 identified as having the persistent asthmatic criteria. The intervention group consisted of 389 (36.7%) moderate persistent asthmatics and 643 (60.7%) mild persistent asthmatics, with 976 (92.1%) identifying as a minority. Analysis of 60692 months of data showed patients who received the intervention were less likely to visit the urgent care (OR [0.80, 0.96]) or be hospitalized (OR [0.37, 0.75]) than those who did not receive any interventions. Adjustment for provider referral into the interventions resulted in slight changes for both hospitalizations (OR [0.38, 0.79]) and urgent care (OR [0.68, 0.94]). CONCLUSION: Children receiving interventions were less likely to be hospitalized or visit urgent care clinics.

Association Between In-Clinic Opioid Administration and Discharge Opioid Prescription in Urgent Care: a Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Emergency departments increasingly use nonopioid analgesics to manage acute pain and minimize opioid-related harms. Urgent care centers are expanding to lower costs and provide efficient access to healthcare. General internists increasingly work in these acute care settings. Much is known about opioid prescribing in the primary care, inpatient, and emergency department setting. Little is known about opioid prescribing in the urgent care setting and associated outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the association between in-clinic opioid administration and opioid receipt at clinic discharge and on progression to chronic opioid use among urgent care patients. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Patients, 20 years or older and not on opioid medications, who presented for care to an urgent care clinic within a safety-net healthcare system from June 1, 2016, to April 30, 2019. MAIN MEASURES: We examined the association between the in-clinic administration of oral or intravenous opioids and opioid receipt at clinic discharge. We also examined the association between in-clinic opioid administration and progression to chronic opioid use after six months. KEY RESULTS: The study sample included 34,978 patients, of which 13.8% (n = 4842) received in-clinic opioids and 86.2% (n = 30,136) did not receive in-clinic opioids. After adjusting for age, gender, race/ethnicity, insurance, and pain diagnosis, patients who received in-clinic opioids were more likely to receive opioids at discharge compared to patients who did not receive in-clinic opioids (aOR = 12.30, 95% CI 11.44-13.23). Among a selected cohort of patients, in-clinic opioid administration was associated with progression to chronic opioid use (aOR = 2.12, 95% CI 1.66-2.71). CONCLUSIONS: In-clinic opioid administration was strongly associated with opioid receipt at discharge and progression to chronic opioid use. Increased use of nonopioid analgesics in urgent care could likely reduce this association and limit opioids available for diversion, overdose, and death.