Relationship of Blood Pressure, Health Behaviors, and New Diagnosis and Control of Hypertension in the BP-CHECK Study.

BACKGROUND: Undiagnosed hypertension and uncontrolled blood pressure (BP) are common and contribute to excess cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. We examined whether BP control, changes in BP, and patient behaviors and attitudes were associated with a new hypertension diagnosis. METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of 323 participants from BP-CHECK (Blood Pressure Checks for Diagnosing Hypertension), a randomized diagnostic study of BP measuring methods in adults without diagnosed hypertension with elevated BP recruited from 12 primary care clinics of an integrated health care system in Washington State during 2017 to 2019. All 323 participants returned a positive diagnostic test for hypertension based on 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring and were followed for 6 months. We used linear regression to examine the relationships between a new hypertension diagnosis (primary independent variable) and differences in the change in study outcomes from baseline to 6-month. RESULTS: Mean age of study participants was 58.3 years (SD, 13.1), 147 (45%) were women, and 253 (80%) were of non-Hispanic White race. At 6 months, 154 of 323 (48%) participants had a new hypertension diagnosis of whom 88 achieved target BP control. Participants with a new hypertension diagnosis experienced significantly larger declines from baseline in BP (adjusted mean difference: systolic BP, -7.6 mm Hg [95% CI, -10.3 to -4.8]; diastolic BP, -3.8 mm Hg [95% CI, -5.6 to -2.0]) compared with undiagnosed peers. They were also significantly more likely to achieve BP control by 6 months compared with undiagnosed participants (adjusted relative risk, 1.5 [95% CI, 1.1 to 2.0]). At 6 months, 101 of 323 participants (31%) with a positive ambulatory BP monitoring diagnostic test remained with undiagnosed hypertension, uncontrolled BP, and no antihypertensive medications. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one-third of participants with high BP on screening and ambulatory BP monitoring diagnostic testing remained with undiagnosed hypertension, uncontrolled BP, and no antihypertensive medications after 6 months. New strategies are needed to enhance integration of BP diagnostic testing into clinical practice. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03130257.

Preventing severe hypoglycemia in adults with type 2 diabetes (PHT2): Design, delivery and evaluation framework for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Severe hypoglycemia is a common and feared complication of medications used to lower blood glucose levels in individuals with diabetes. Psychoeducational interventions can prevent severe hypoglycemia in individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D). We aim to determine the effectiveness of this approach among adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) at elevated risk for severe hypoglycemia. METHODS: Preventing Hypoglycemia in Type 2 diabetes (PHT2) is a two-arm, parallel, randomized controlled trial. Participants are eligible if they are adults with T2D receiving care at an integrated group practice in Washington state and have experienced one or more episodes of severe hypoglycemia in the prior 12 months or have impaired awareness of hypoglycemia (Gold score ≥ 4). Participants are randomized to proactive nurse care management with or without my hypo compass, an evidence-based, psychoeducational intervention combining group and individual self-management training. For this study, my hypo compass was adapted to be suitable for adults with T2D and from an in-person to a virtual intervention over videoconference and telephone. The primary outcome is any self-reported severe hypoglycemia in the 12 months following the start of the intervention. Secondary outcomes include biochemical measures of hypoglycemia, self-reported hypoglycemia awareness, fear of hypoglycemia, and emergency department visits and hospitalizations for severe hypoglycemia. The study includes a process evaluation to assess implementation fidelity and clarify the causal pathway. CONCLUSION: The PHT2 trial will compare the effectiveness of two approaches for reducing severe hypoglycemia in adults with T2D. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov, # NCT04863872.

Pilot Evaluation of the Family Bridge Program: A Communication- and Culture-Focused Inpatient Patient Navigation Program.

OBJECTIVE: Children with low income and minority race and ethnicity have worse hospital outcomes due partly to systemic and interpersonal racism causing communication and system barriers. We tested the feasibility and acceptability of a novel inpatient communication-focused navigation program. METHODS: Multilingual design workshops with parents, providers, and staff created the Family Bridge Program. Delivered by a trained navigator, it included 1) hospital orientation; 2) social needs screening and response; 3) communication preference assessment; 4) communication coaching; 5) emotional support; and 6) a post-discharge phone call. We enrolled families of hospitalized children with public or no insurance, minority race or ethnicity, and preferred language of English, Spanish, or Somali in a single-arm trial. We surveyed parents at enrollment and 2 to 4 weeks post-discharge, and providers 2 to 3 days post-discharge. Survey measures were analyzed with paired t tests. RESULTS: Of 60 families enrolled, 57 (95%) completed the follow-up survey. Most parents were born outside the United States (60%) with a high school degree or less (60%). Also, 63% preferred English, 33% Spanish, and 3% Somali. The program was feasible: families received an average of 5.3 of 6 components; all received >2. Most caregivers (92%) and providers (81% [30/37]) were "very satisfied." Parent-reported system navigation improved from enrollment to follow-up (+8.2 [95% confidence interval 2.9, 13.6], P = .003; scale 0-100). Spanish-speaking parents reported decreased skills-related barriers (-18.4 [95% confidence interval -1.8, -34.9], P = .03; scale 0-100). CONCLUSIONS: The Family Bridge Program was feasible, acceptable, and may have potential for overcoming barriers for hospitalized children at risk for disparities.

Engaging staff to improve COVID-19 vaccination response at long-term care facilities (ENSPIRE): A cluster randomized trial of co-designed, tailored vaccine promotion materials.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccination rates among long-term care center (LTCC) workers are among the lowest of all frontline health care workers. Current efforts to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake generally focus on strategies that have proven effective for increasing influenza vaccine uptake among health care workers including educational and communication strategies. Experimental evidence is lacking on the comparative advantage of educational strategies to improve vaccine acceptance and uptake, especially in the context of COVID-19. Despite the lack of evidence, education and communication strategies are recommended to improve COVID-19 vaccination rates and decrease vaccine hesitancy (VH), especially strategies using tailored messaging for disproportionately affected populations. METHODS: We describe a cluster-randomized comparative effectiveness trial with 40 LTCCs and approximately 4000 LTCC workers in 2 geographically, culturally, and ethnically distinct states. We compare the effectiveness of two strategies for increasing COVID-19 booster vaccination rates and willingness to promote COVID-19 booster vaccination: co-design processes for tailoring educational messages vs. an enhanced usual care comparator. Our study focuses on the language and/or cultural groups that are most disproportionately affected by VH and low COVID-19 vaccine uptake in these LTCCs. CONCLUSION: Finding effective methods to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake and decrease VH among LTCC staff is critical. Beyond COVID-19, better approaches are needed to improve vaccine uptake and decrease VH for a variety of existing vaccines as well as vaccines created to address novel viruses as they emerge.

Considerations for Subgroup Analyses in Cluster-Randomized Trials Based on Aggregated Individual-Level Predictors.

In research assessing the effect of an intervention or exposure, a key secondary objective often involves assessing differential effects of this intervention or exposure in subgroups of interest; this is often referred to as assessing effect modification or heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE). Observed HTE can have important implications for policy, including intervention strategies (e.g., will some patients benefit more from intervention than others?) and prioritizing resources (e.g., to reduce observed health disparities). Analysis of HTE is well understood in studies where the independent unit is an individual. In contrast, in studies where the independent unit is a cluster (e.g., a hospital or school) and a cluster-level outcome is used in the analysis, it is less well understood how to proceed if the HTE analysis of interest involves an individual-level characteristic (e.g., self-reported race) that must be aggregated at the cluster level. Through simulations, we show that only individual-level models have power to detect HTE by individual-level variables; if outcomes must be defined at the cluster level, then there is often low power to detect HTE by the corresponding aggregated variables. We illustrate the challenges inherent to this type of analysis in a study assessing the effect of an intervention on increasing COVID-19 booster vaccination rates at long-term care centers.

The electronic health record Risk of Alzheimer's and Dementia Assessment Rule (eRADAR) Brain Health Trial: Protocol for an embedded, pragmatic clinical trial of a low-cost dementia detection algorithm.

BACKGROUND: About half of people living with dementia have not received a diagnosis, delaying access to treatment, education, and support. We previously developed a tool, eRADAR, which uses information in the electronic health record (EHR) to identify patients who may have undiagnosed dementia. This paper provides the protocol for an embedded, pragmatic clinical trial (ePCT) implementing eRADAR in two healthcare systems to determine whether an intervention using eRADAR increases dementia diagnosis rates and to examine the benefits and harms experienced by patients and other stakeholders. METHODS: We will conduct an ePCT within an integrated healthcare system and replicate it in an urban academic medical center. At primary care clinics serving about 27,000 patients age 65 and above, we will randomize primary care providers (PCPs) to have their patients with high eRADAR scores receive targeted outreach (intervention) or usual care. Intervention patients will be offered a "brain health" assessment visit with a clinical research interventionist mirroring existing roles within the healthcare systems. The interventionist will make follow-up recommendations to PCPs and offer support to newly-diagnosed patients. Patients with high eRADAR scores in both study arms will be followed to identify new diagnoses of dementia in the EHR (primary outcome). Secondary outcomes include healthcare utilization from the EHR and patient, family member and clinician satisfaction assessed through surveys and interviews. CONCLUSION: If this pragmatic trial is successful, the eRADAR tool and intervention could be adopted by other healthcare systems, potentially improving dementia detection, patient care and quality of life.

Implementation and workflow strategies for integrating digital therapeutics for alcohol use disorders into primary care: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol use disorders (AUD) are prevalent and often go untreated. Patients are commonly screened for AUD in primary care, but existing treatment programs are failing to meet demand. Digital therapeutics include novel mobile app-based treatment approaches which may be cost-effective treatment options to help fill treatment gaps. The goal of this study was to identify implementation needs and workflow design considerations for integrating digital therapeutics for AUD into primary care. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews with clinicians, care delivery leaders, and implementation staff (n = 16) in an integrated healthcare delivery system in the United States. All participants had experience implementing digital therapeutics for depression or substance use disorders in primary care. Interviews were designed to gain insights into adaptations needed to optimize existing clinical processes, workflows, and implementation strategies for use with alcohol-focused digital therapeutics. Interviews were recorded and transcribed and then analyzed using a rapid analysis process and affinity diagramming. RESULTS: Qualitative themes were well represented across health system staff roles. Participants were enthusiastic about digital therapeutics for AUD, anticipated high patient demand for such a resource, and made suggestions for successful implementation. Key insights regarding the implementation of digital therapeutics for AUD and unhealthy alcohol use from our data include: (1) implementation strategy selection must be driven by digital therapeutic design and target population characteristics, (2) implementation strategies should seek to minimize burden on clinicians given the large numbers of patients with AUD who are likely to be interested in and eligible for digital therapeutics, and (3) digital therapeutics should be offered alongside many other treatment options to accommodate individual patients' AUD severity and treatment goals. Participants also expressed confidence that previous implementation strategies used with other digital therapeutics such as clinician training, electronic health record supports, health coaching, and practice facilitation would be effective for the implementation of digital therapeutics for AUD. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of digital therapeutics for AUD would benefit from careful consideration of the target population. Optimal integration requires tailoring workflows to meet anticipated patient volume and designing workflow and implementation strategies to meet the unique needs of patients with varying AUD severity.

Acupuncture for chronic low back pain in older adults: Design and protocol for the BackInAction pragmatic clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Back pain prevalence and burden increase with age; approximately one-third of U.S. adults 65 years of age and older experience lower back pain (LBP). For chronic low back pain (cLBP), typically defined as lasting three months or longer, many treatments for younger adults may be inappropriate for older adults given their greater prevalence of comorbidities with attendant polypharmacy. While acupuncture has been demonstrated to be safe and effective for cLBP in adults overall, few studies of acupuncture have either included or focused on adults ≥65 years old. METHODS: The BackInAction study is a pragmatic, multi-site, three-arm, parallel-groups randomized controlled trial designed to test the effectiveness of acupuncture needling for improving back pain-related disability among 807 older adults ≥65 years old with cLBP. Participants are randomized to standard acupuncture (SA; up to 15 treatment sessions across 12 weeks), enhanced acupuncture (EA; SA during first 12 weeks and up to 6 additional sessions across the following 12 weeks), and usual medical care (UMC) alone. Participants are followed for 12 months with study outcomes assessed monthly with the primary outcome timepoint at 6 months. DISCUSSION: The BackInAction study offers an opportunity to further understand the effectiveness, dose-dependence, and safety of acupuncture in a Medicare population. Additionally, study results may encourage broader adoption of more effective, safer, and more satisfactory options to the continuing over-reliance on opioid- and invasive medical treatments for cLBP among older adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04982315. Clinical trial registration date: July 29, 2021.

Perspectives from women who engaged in prenatal and postpartum cannabis use in a U.S. State with legal non-medical use.

Evidence suggests fetal risks are associated with cannabis use during pregnancy. Yet, insights into women's decision-making and cannabis use during pregnancy are limited. This study explored these concepts with postpartum women who used cannabis during and after pregnancy. We conducted interviews with 15 women (4 self-identifying a race other than White and 4 self-identifying Hispanic ethnicity) who: 1) lived in the Puget Sound region of Washington State, 2) reported past-year cannabis use on a routine screen, and 3) had documented pregnancy and delivery March 2015-May 2017. Semi-structured interviews asked about decision-making and cannabis use during pregnancy and postpartum. We used template analysis for coding and analysis. The key findings included that women: 1) gathered information about cannabis use during pregnancy primarily through internet searches and discussions with peers; 2) were reluctant to talk with health care providers about cannabis; 3) used cannabis while pregnant to treat health issues, including morning sickness, pain, and mental health conditions; 4) were comfortable with their decision to use cannabis while pregnant, but had questions about long-term effects; and 5) tried to mitigate transmission through breastmilk. Women decided about cannabis during pregnancy based on their experience, health symptoms, and information gathered from the internet and peers, often without guidance from their health care provider. Results point to opportunities for providers to become informed about and engage in discussion with patients about cannabis use during preconception, pregnancy, and postpartum.

Acceptability and Adherence to Home, Kiosk, and Clinic Blood Pressure Measurement Compared to 24-H Ambulatory Monitoring.

BACKGROUND: The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends measuring blood pressure (BP) outside of clinic/office settings. While various options are available, including home devices, BP kiosks, and 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), understanding patient acceptability and adherence is a critical factor for implementation. OBJECTIVE: To compare the acceptability and adherence of clinic, home, kiosk, and ABPM measurement. DESIGN: Comparative diagnostic accuracy study which randomized adults to one of three BP measurement arms: clinic, home, and kiosk. ABPM was conducted on all participants. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (18-85 years) receiving care at 12 Kaiser Permanente Washington primary care clinics (Washington State, USA) with a high BP (≥ 138 mmHg systolic or ≥ 88 mmHg diastolic) in the electronic health record with no hypertension diagnosis and on no hypertensive medications and with high BP at a research screening visit. MEASURES: Patient acceptability was measured using a validated survey which was used to calculate an overall acceptability score (range 1-7) at baseline, after completing their assigned BP measurement intervention, and after completing ABPM. Adherence was defined based on the pre-specified number of BP measurements completed. KEY RESULTS: Five hundred ten participants were randomized (mean age 59 years), with mean BP of 150/88. Overall acceptability score was highest (i.e. most acceptable) for Home BP (mean 6.2, SD 0.7) and lowest (least acceptable) for ABPM (mean 5.0, SD 1.0); scores were intermediate for Clinic (5.5, SD 1.1) and Kiosk (5.4, SD 1.0). Adherence was higher for Home (154/170, 90.6%) and Clinic (150/172, 87.2%) than for Kiosk (114/168, 67.9%)). The majority of participants (467/510, 91.6%) were adherent to ABPM. CONCLUSIONS: Participants found home BP measurement most acceptable followed by clinic, BP kiosks, and ABPM. Our findings, coupled with recent evidence regarding the accuracy of home BP measurement, further support the routine use of home-based BP measurement in primary care practice in the US. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03130257 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03130257.

Primary care physician beliefs and practices regarding blood pressure measurement: results from BP-CHECK qualitative interviews.

BACKGROUND: Early identification and control of hypertension is critical to reducing cardiovascular disease events and death. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines recommend health care professionals screen all adults for hypertension, yet 1 in 4 adults with hypertension are unaware of their condition. This gap between guidelines and clinical practices highlights an important opportunity to improve blood pressure (BP) screening and hypertension diagnosis, including measurement outside of clinic settings. To identify targets for future diagnostic interventions, we sought to understand primary care physicians' (PCPs) beliefs and practices regarding use of common forms of BP measurement. METHODS: Study participants were PCPs (N = 27) who had patients enrolled in the BP-CHECK trial. The trial compared the accuracy of 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) to: 1) clinic-based monitoring, 2) home BP monitoring (HBPM), or 3) use of a BP kiosk in clinics or pharmacies. Physicians were interviewed by phone and compensated for their participation. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using a template analysis approach. RESULTS: Overall, PCPs preferred and trusted clinic BP measurement for diagnosing hypertension, particularly when measured with a manual sphygmomanometer. Concerns with HBPM included the belief that patients did not follow protocols for rest and body positioning at home, that home machines were not accurate, that home BPs could not be entered into the medical record, and that HBPM would make some patients anxious. Issues regarding kiosk measurement included beliefs that the public setting created stress for patients, that patients did not follow resting protocols when using kiosks, and concerns about the maintenance of these machines. ABPM was recognized as highly accurate but was not perceived as accessible. Additionally, some PCPs found it challenging to interpret the multiple readings generated by ABPM and HBPM, especially when these readings differed from clinic BPs. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that both additional physician education and training and investments in equipment and system-level processes are needed to increase the acceptance and utilization of out of office BP measurement for identification and treatment of hypertension. These changes are needed to improve ensure everyone in the U.S receive optimal care for hypertension. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03130257 . Initial registration date: 4/21/2017.

Sometimes Your Heart Says 'I Don't Know': Insights From Parents of Undervaccinated Children.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To explore drivers of suboptimal vaccination rates by understanding why parents without strong antivaccine beliefs do not fully vaccinate their children. METHODS: Four focus groups were conducted in Washington state with 41 parents of children aged 24 to 48 months who delayed, declined, or missed some but not all vaccines. During the focus groups, parents were asked about reasons their child was undervaccinated, information that might address their concerns, and additional support they needed. Transcripts were analyzed using template analysis with deductive and inductive codes. RESULTS: Focus groups identified multiple reasons for parents deciding to delay or decline vaccines for their children, including issues of individualism and control. The groups emphasized the impact of personal circumstances, such as changes in insurance, on whether children were vaccinated. Our data also shed light on the reasons that parents do vaccinate their children, including school vaccination requirements, negative experiences with vaccine-preventable diseases, and a family tradition of vaccinating. Focus group participants offered suggestions for improving vaccine communication with parents such as having more parent/patient-friendly vaccine information, providing forums to discuss their concerns, and offering vaccination information in advance of well-child appointments. CONCLUSIONS: To achieve the full benefit of vaccines on individual and community health, we need better ways to address vaccine hesitancy and decrease barriers. We suggest that many hesitant parents would benefit from more dialog with health care providers about vaccines, more approachable educational materials, and enforcement of existing policies requiring vaccines in schools and childcare facilities.

Decision-making among adolescents prescribed antipsychotic medications: Interviews to gain perspectives of youth without psychosis or mania.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to understand the experiences of youth who had been prescribed antipsychotics but did not have psychosis, mania, autism spectrum disorder, or developmental disability. METHODS: Twenty-three qualitative telephone interviews were conducted with youth aged 11-18 who had been prescribed an antipsychotic medication but did not have a diagnosis of psychotic disorder, bipolar disorder, autism spectrum disorder, or developmental disability. Participants were recruited from four U.S. healthcare systems participating in the pragmatic trial Safer Use of Antipsychotics in Youth (SUAY). Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed using template analysis techniques. RESULTS: Prior to initiating an antipsychotic medication, most participants experienced behavioral health crises; many felt that they had no options other than to start the medication. Other core themes included: (1) antipsychotics had both positive psychosocial outcomes, such as improvement of family life, and adverse effects, such as drowsiness or weight gain, (2) antipsychotics were only one part of a broader treatment plan, (3) efforts were made to maximize benefits and minimize side effects through careful titration, (4) feedback from friends and family was important in the decision to continue. CONCLUSIONS: The findings provide valuable insights into how to engage youth in conversations around the use of antipsychotics.

Comparison of Medical Cannabis Use Reported on a Confidential Survey vs Documented in the Electronic Health Record Among Primary Care Patients.

Importance: Patients who use cannabis for medical reasons may benefit from discussions with clinicians about health risks of cannabis and evidence-based treatment alternatives. However, little is known about the prevalence of medical cannabis use in primary care and how often it is documented in patient electronic health records (EHR). Objective: To estimate the primary care prevalence of medical cannabis use according to confidential patient survey and to compare the prevalence of medical cannabis use documented in the EHR with patient report. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is a cross-sectional survey performed in a large health system that conducts routine cannabis screening in Washington state where medical and nonmedical cannabis use are legal. Among 108 950 patients who completed routine cannabis screening (between March 28, 2019, and September 12, 2019), 5000 were randomly selected for a confidential survey about cannabis use, using stratified random sampling for frequency of past-year use and patient race and ethnicity. Data were analyzed from November 2020 to December 2021. Exposures: Survey measures of patient-reported past-year cannabis use, medical cannabis use (ie, explicit medical use), and any health reason(s) for use (ie, implicit medical use). Main Outcomes and Measures: Survey data were linked to EHR data in the year before screening. EHR measures included documentation of explicit and/or implicit medical cannabis use. Analyses estimated the primary care prevalence of cannabis use and compared EHR-documented with patient-reported medical cannabis use, accounting for stratified sampling and nonresponse. Results: Overall, 1688 patients responded to the survey (34% response rate; mean [SD] age, 50.7 [17.5] years; 861 female [56%], 1184 White [74%], 1514 non-Hispanic [97%], and 1059 commercially insured [65%]). The primary care prevalence of any past-year patient-reported cannabis use on the survey was 38.8% (95% CI, 31.9%-46.1%), whereas the prevalence of explicit and implicit medical use were 26.5% (95% CI, 21.6%-31.3%) and 35.1% (95% CI, 29.3%-40.8%), respectively. The prevalence of EHR-documented medical cannabis use was 4.8% (95% CI, 3.45%-6.2%). Compared with patient-reported explicit medical use, the sensitivity and specificity of EHR-documented medical cannabis use were 10.0% (95% CI, 4.4%-15.6%) and 97.1% (95% CI, 94.4%-99.8%), respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that medical cannabis use is common among primary care patients in a state with legal use, and most use is not documented in the EHR. Patient report of health reasons for cannabis use identifies more medical use compared with explicit questions about medical use.

Blood Pressure Checks for Diagnosing Hypertension: Health Professionals' Knowledge, Beliefs, and Practices.

INTRODUCTION: The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends out-of-office blood pressure (BP) measurement before making a new hypertension diagnosis and initiating treatment, using 24-hour ambulatory (ABPM) or home BP monitoring. However, this approach is not common. METHODS: e-mail-linked surveys were sent to primary care team members (n = 421) from 10 clinics. The sample included medical assistants, licensed practical nurses, registered nurses, and advanced practice registered nurses (LPN/RN/APRNs), physician assistants (PAs), and physicians. Those licensed to diagnosis hypertension (physician/PA/APRNs) received additional questions. Data were collected from November 2017 to July 2019. RESULTS: 2-thirds of invitees responded (163 MA/LPN/RNs, 86 physicians, and 33 PA/APRNs). When making a new hypertension diagnosis, most respondents believed that BP measured manually with a stethoscope (78.6%) or ABPM (84.2%) were very or highly accurate. In contrast, most did not believe that automated clinic BPs, home BP, or kiosk BP measurements were very or highly accurate. Almost all reported always or almost always relying on clinic BP measurements in making a diagnosis (95.7%), but most physician/PA/APRNs (60.5%) would prefer ABPM if it was readily available. Very few physician/PA/APRNs used the guideline-concordant diagnostic threshold (135/85 mmHg) with home monitoring (14.0%) or ABPM (8.4%), with 140/90 mmHg the most commonly reported threshold for home (59.4%) and ABPM (49.6%). DISCUSSION: Our study found health care professional knowledge, beliefs, and practices gaps in diagnosing hypertension. These gaps could lead to clinical care that is not aligned with guidelines. CONCLUSION: System changes and interventions to increase use of evidence-based practices could improve hypertension diagnosis and outcomes.

Clinical documentation of patient-reported medical cannabis use in primary care: Toward scalable extraction using natural language processing methods.

Background: Most states have legalized medical cannabis, yet little is known about how medical cannabis use is documented in patients' electronic health records (EHRs). We used natural language processing (NLP) to calculate the prevalence of clinician-documented medical cannabis use among adults in an integrated health system in Washington State where medical and recreational use are legal. Methods: We analyzed EHRs of patients ≥18 years old screened for past-year cannabis use (November 1, 2017-October 31, 2018), to identify clinician-documented medical cannabis use. We defined medical use as any documentation of cannabis that was recommended by a clinician or described by the clinician or patient as intended to manage health conditions or symptoms. We developed and applied an NLP system that included NLP-assisted manual review to identify such documentation in encounter notes. Results: Medical cannabis use was documented for 16,684 (5.6%) of 299,597 outpatient encounters with routine screening for cannabis use among 203,489 patients seeing 1,274 clinicians. The validated NLP system identified 54% of documentation and NLP-assisted manual review the remainder. Language documenting reasons for cannabis use included 125 terms indicating medical use, 28 terms indicating non-medical use and 41 ambiguous terms. Implicit documentation of medical use (e.g., "edible THC nightly for lumbar pain") was more common than explicit (e.g., "continues medical cannabis use"). Conclusions: Clinicians use diverse and often ambiguous language to document patients' reasons for cannabis use. Automating extraction of documentation about patients' cannabis use could facilitate clinical decision support and epidemiological investigation but will require large amounts of gold standard training data.

Clinic, Home, and Kiosk Blood Pressure Measurements for Diagnosing Hypertension: a Randomized Diagnostic Study.

BACKGROUND: The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends blood pressure (BP) measurements using 24-h ambulatory monitoring (ABPM) or home BP monitoring before making a new hypertension diagnosis. OBJECTIVE: Compare clinic-, home-, and kiosk-based BP measurement to ABPM for diagnosing hypertension. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Diagnostic study in 12 Washington State primary care centers, with participants aged 18-85 years without diagnosed hypertension or prescribed antihypertensive medications, with elevated BP in clinic. INTERVENTIONS: Randomization into one of three diagnostic regimens: (1) clinic (usual care follow-up BPs); (2) home (duplicate BPs twice daily for 5 days); or (3) kiosk (triplicate BPs on 3 days). All participants completed ABPM at 3 weeks. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcome was difference between ABPM daytime and clinic, home, and kiosk mean systolic BP. Differences in diastolic BP, sensitivity, and specificity were secondary outcomes. KEY RESULTS: Five hundred ten participants (mean age 58.7 years, 80.2% white) with 434 (85.1%) included in primary analyses. Compared to daytime ABPM, adjusted mean differences in systolic BP were clinic (-4.7mmHg [95% confidence interval -7.3, -2.2]; P<.001); home (-0.1mmHg [-1.6, 1.5];P=.92); and kiosk (9.5mmHg [7.5, 11.6];P<.001). Differences for diastolic BP were clinic (-7.2mmHg [-8.8, -5.5]; P<.001); home (-0.4mmHg [-1.4, 0.7];P=.52); and kiosk (5.0mmHg [3.8, 6.2]; P<.001). Sensitivities for clinic, home, and kiosk compared to ABPM were 31.1% (95% confidence interval, 22.9, 40.6), 82.2% (73.8, 88.4), and 96.0% (90.0, 98.5), and specificities 79.5% (64.0, 89.4), 53.3% (38.9, 67.2), and 28.2% (16.4, 44.1), respectively. LIMITATIONS: Single health care organization and limited race/ethnicity representation. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to ABPM, mean BP was significantly lower for clinic, significantly higher for kiosk, and without significant differences for home. Clinic BP measurements had low sensitivity for detecting hypertension. Findings support utility of home BP monitoring for making a new diagnosis of hypertension. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03130257 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03130257.

Improving Quality Improvement Capacity and Clinical Performance in Small Primary Care Practices.

PURPOSE: We undertook a study to assess whether implementing 7 evidence-based strategies to build improvement capacity within smaller primary care practices was associated with changes in performance on clinical quality measures (CQMs) for cardiovascular disease. METHODS: A total of 209 practices across Washington, Oregon, and Idaho participated in a pragmatic clinical trial that focused on building quality improvement capacity as measured by a validated questionnaire, the 12-point Quality Improvement Capacity Assessment (QICA). Clinics reported performance on 3 cardiovascular CQMs-appropriate aspirin use, blood pressure (BP) control (<140/90 mm Hg), and smoking screening/cessation counseling-at baseline (2015) and follow-up (2017). Regression analyses with change in CQM as the dependent variable allowed for clustering by practice facilitator and adjusted for baseline CQM performance. RESULTS: Practices improved QICA scores by 1.44 points (95% CI, 1.20-1.68; P <.001) from an average baseline of 6.45. All 3 CQMs also improved: aspirin use by 3.98% (average baseline = 66.8%; 95% CI for change, 1.17%-6.79%; P = .006); BP control by 3.36% (average baseline = 61.5%; 95% CI for change, 1.44%-5.27%; P = .001); and tobacco screening/cessation counseling by 7.49% (average baseline = 73.8%; 95% CI for change, 4.21%-10.77%; P <.001). Each 1-point increase in QICA score was associated with a 1.25% (95% CI, 0.41%-2.09%, P = .003) improvement in BP control; the estimated likelihood of reaching a 70% BP control performance goal was 1.24 times higher (95% CI, 1.09-1.40; P <.001) for each 1-point increase in QICA. CONCLUSION: Improvements in clinic-level performance on BP control may be attributed to implementation of 7 evidence-based strategies to build quality improvement capacity. These strategies were feasible to implement in small practices over 15 months.

Intersecting systemic and personal barriers to accessing social services: qualitative interviews in northern California.

BACKGROUND: Addressing social risks in the clinical setting can increase patient confidence in the availability of community resources and may contribute to the development of a therapeutic alliance which has been correlated with treatment adherence and improved quality of life in mental health contexts. It is not well understood what barriers patients face when trying to connect to community resources that help address social risks. This paper aims to describe patient-reported barriers to accessing and using social needs-related resources to which they are referred by a program embedded in a safety net primary care clinic. METHODS: This is a qualitative assessment of patient-reported barriers to accessing and using social needs assistance programs. We conducted over 100 in-depth interviews with individuals in Northern California who participated in a navigation and referral program to help address their social needs and describe a unique framework for understanding how policies and systems intersect with an individual's personal life circumstances. RESULTS: Individuals described two distinct domains of barriers: 1) systems-level barriers that were linked to the inequitable distribution of and access to resources, and 2) personal-level barriers that focused on unique limitations experienced by each patient and impacted the way that they accessed services in their communities. While these barriers often overlapped or manifested in similar outcomes, this distinction was key because the systems barriers were not things that individuals could control or overcome through their own initiative or by increasing individual capacity. CONCLUSIONS: Respondents describe intersecting systemic and personal barriers that compound patients' challenges to getting their social needs met; this includes both a picture of the inequitable distribution of and access to social services and a profile of the limitations created by individual life histories. These results speak to the need for structural changes to improve adequacy, availability, and accessibility of social needs resources. These findings highlight the need for advocacy to address systems barriers, especially the stigma that is faced by people who struggle with a variety of health and social issues, and investment in incentives to strengthen relationships between health care settings and social service agencies.