Specialist wait time reporting using family physicians' electronic medical record data: a mixed method study of feasibility and clinical utility.

BACKGROUND: More than 50% of Canadian adult patients wait longer than four weeks to see a specialist after referral from primary care. Access to accurate wait time information may help primary care physicians choose the timeliest specialist to address a patient's specific needs. We conducted a mixed-methods study to assess if primary to specialist care wait times can be extracted from electronic medical records (EMR), analyzed the wait time information, and used focus groups and interviews to assess the potential clinical utility of the wait time information. METHODS: Two family practices were recruited to examine primary care physician to specialist wait times between January 2016 and December 2017, using EMR data. The primary outcome was the median wait time from physician referral to specialist appointment for each specialty service. Secondary outcomes included the physician and patient characteristics associated with wait times as well as qualitative analyses of physician interviews about the resulting wait time reports. RESULTS: Wait time data can be extracted from the primary care EMR and converted to a report format for family physicians and specialists to review. After data cleaning, there were 7141 referrals included from 4967 unique patients. The 5 most common specialties referred to were Dermatology, Gastroenterology, Ear Nose and Throat, Obstetrics and Gynecology and Urology. Half of the patients were seen by a specialist within 42 days, 75% seen within 80 days and all patients within 760 days. There were significant differences in wait times by specialty, for younger patients, and those with urgently labelled medical situations. Overall, wait time reports were perceived by clinicians to be important since they could help family physicians decide how to triage referrals and might lead to system improvements. CONCLUSIONS: Wait time information from primary to specialist care can aid in decision-making around specialist referrals, identify bottlenecks, and help with system planning. This mixed method study is a starting point to review the importance of providing wait time data for both family physicians, specialists and local health systems. Future work can be directed towards developing wait time reporting functionality and evaluating if wait time information will help increase system efficiency and/or improve provider and patient satisfaction.

The Effect of Changes in Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines on Chlamydia Testing.

PURPOSE: Many chlamydia infections are identified through screening, which is frequently offered to females concomitantly with cervical cancer screening. Recent cervical cancer screening guidelines recommend screening less frequently and starting later. We sought to evaluate the impact of the May 2012 Ontario, Canada, cervical cancer screening guideline change on Papanicolaou (Pap) and chlamydia trachomatis (chlamydia) testing and incidence. METHODS: We extracted population-based physician billing claims data to identify Pap and chlamydia tests and public health surveillance data to identify chlamydia cases. We used interrupted time series analysis of quarterly data spanning 2 years before and after the guideline change and fitted segmented linear regression or rational functions to the outcomes using autoregressive integrated moving average models. Outcomes were stratified by sex and age group. RESULTS: Two years after the guideline change, we observed reduced chlamydia testing in females, with the greatest relative reduction (25.5%) among those aged 15 to 19 years. We also observed decreases in reported chlamydia incidence for females aged 15 to 19 years and 20 to 24 years (relative reductions of 16.8% and 14.4%, respectively). Chlamydia incidence remained the same for males, despite increased chlamydia testing. CONCLUSIONS: Recent cervical cancer screening guideline changes in Ontario were associated with reduced chlamydia testing and reported new cases of chlamydia in females. Females aged 15 to 19 years, who are at high risk for chlamydia if sexually active, and who no longer warrant cervical cancer screening, were disproportionately affected. Females should be tested for chlamydia based on risk, regardless of need for Pap testing.