Developing an electronic health record measure of low-value esophagogastroduodenoscopy for GERD at a large academic health system.

OBJECTIVES: Low-value esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGDs) for uncomplicated gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) can harm patients and raise patient and payer costs. We developed an electronic health record (EHR) 'eMeasure' to detect low-value EGDs. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort of 518 adult patients diagnosed with GERD who underwent initial EGD between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2019. SETTING: Outpatient primary care and gastroenterology clinics at a large, urban, academic health centre. PARTICIPANTS: Adult primary care patients at the University of California Los Angeles who underwent initial EGD for GERD in 2019. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: EGD appropriateness criteria were based on the American College of Gastroenterology 2012 guidelines. An initial EGD was considered low-value if it lacked a documented guideline-based indication, including alarm symptoms (eg, iron-deficiency anaemia); failure of an 8-week proton pump inhibitor trial or elevated Barrett's oesophagus risk. We performed manual chart review on a random sample of 204 patients as a gold standard of the eMeasure's validity. We estimated EGD costs using Medicare physician and facility fee rates. RESULTS: Among 518 initial EGDs performed (mean age 53 years; 54% female), the eMeasure identified 81 (16%) as low-value. The eMeasure's sensitivity was 42% (95% CI 22 to 61) and specificity was 93% (95% CI 89 to 96). Stratifying across clinics, 62 (74.6%) low-value EGDs originated from 2 (12.5%) out of 16 clinics. Total cost for 81 low-value EGDs was approximately US$75 573, including US$14 985 in patients' out-of-pocket costs. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a highly specific eMeasure that showed that low-value EGDs occurred frequently in our healthcare system and were concentrated in a minority of clinics. These results can inform future QI efforts at our institution, such as best practice alerts for the ordering physician. Moreover, this open-source eMeasure has a much broader potential impact, as it can be integrated into any EHR and improve medical decision-making at the point of care.

A Multisite Electronic Health Record Integrated Remote Monitoring Intervention for Hypertension Improvement: Protocol for a Randomized Pragmatic Comparative Effectiveness Trial.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is a major contributor to various adverse health outcomes. Although previous studies have shown the benefits of home blood pressure (BP) monitoring over office-based measurements, there is limited evidence comparing the effectiveness of whether a BP monitor integrated into the electronic health record is superior to a nonintegrated BP monitor. OBJECTIVE: In this paper, we describe the protocol for a pragmatic multisite implementation of a quality improvement initiative directly comparing integrated to nonintegrated BP monitors for hypertension improvement. METHODS: We will conduct a randomized, comparative effectiveness trial at 3 large academic health centers across California. The 3 sites will enroll a total of 660 participants (approximately n=220 per site), with 330 in the integrated BP monitor arm and 330 in the nonintegrated BP control arm. The primary outcome of this study will be the absolute difference in systolic BP in mm Hg from enrollment to 6 months. Secondary outcome measures include binary measures of hypertension (controlled vs uncontrolled), hypertension-related health complications, hospitalizations, and death. The list of possible participants will be generated from a central data warehouse. Randomization will occur after enrollment in the study. Participants will use their assigned BP monitor and join site-specific hypertension interventions. Cross-site learning will occur at regular all-site meetings facilitated by the University of California, Los Angeles Value-Based Care Research Consortium. A pre- and poststudy questionnaire will be conducted to further evaluate participants' perspectives regarding their BP monitor. Linear mixed effects models will be used to compare the primary outcome measure between study arms. Mixed effects logistic regression models will be used to compare secondary outcome measures between study arms. RESULTS: The study will start enrolling participants in the second quarter of 2023 and will be completed by the first half of 2024. Results will be published by the end of 2024. CONCLUSIONS: This pragmatic trial will contribute to the growing field of chronic care management using remote monitoring by answering whether a hypertension intervention coupled with an electronic health record integrated home BP monitor improves patients' hypertension better than a hypertension intervention with a nonintegrated BP monitor. The outcomes of this study may help health system decision makers determine whether to invest in integrated BP monitors for vulnerable patient populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05390502; clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05390502. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/45915.

A pragmatic parallel arm randomized-controlled trial of a multi-pronged electronic health record-based clinical decision support tool protocol to reduce low-value antipsychotic prescriptions among older adults with Alzheimer's and related dementias.

Among patients with Alzheimer's disease and its related dementias (ADRD) with behavioral disturbances, antipsychotic prescriptions have limited efficacy and increase the risk of death. Yet, physicians continue to routinely prescribe low-value antipsychotic medications for behavioral disturbances among patients with ADRD. We designed a pragmatic randomized-controlled trial to measure the impact of a behavioral economic electronic health record (EHR) clinical decision support (CDS) intervention to reduce physician prescriptions of new antipsychotic medications among patients with ADRD. Utilizing a pragmatic parallel arm randomized-controlled trial design, the study will randomize eligible physicians from a large academic health system to either receive a EHR CDS intervention or not (control) when they prescribe a new antipsychotic medication during visits with patients with ADRD. The intervention will include three components: 1) alerts prescribers that antipsychotic prescriptions increase mortality risk (motivating physicians' intrinsic desire for non-malfeasance); 2) offers non-pharmacological behavioral resources for caregivers; 3) auto-defaults the prescription to contain the lowest dose and number of pill-days (n = 30) without refills if the prescriber does not cancel the order (appealing to default bias). Over 1 year, we will compare the cumulative total of new antipsychotic pill-days prescribed (primary outcome) by physicians in the intervention group versus in the control group. The study protocol meets international SPIRIT guidelines. Behavioral economics, or the study of human behavior as a function of more than rational incentives, considering a whole host of cognitive and social psychological preferences, tendencies, and biases, is increasingly recognized as an important conceptual framework to improve physician behavior. This pragmatic trial is among the first to combine two distinct behavioral economic principles, a desire for non-malfeasance and default bias, to improve physician prescribing patterns for patients with ADRD. We anticipate this trial will substantially advance understanding of how behavioral-economic informed EHR CDS tools can potentially reduce harmful, low-value care among patients with ADRD.

Cohort design to assess the association between post-hospital primary care physician follow-up visits and hospital readmissions.

While multifaceted post-hospitalization interventions can succeed in preventing hospital readmissions, many of these interventions are labor-intensive and costly. We hypothesized that a timely post-discharge primary care physician (PCP) visit alone might prevent hospital readmission. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to assess whether post-hospitalization PCP visits within 14 days of discharge were associated with lower rates of 30-day hospital readmission. In a secondary analysis we also assessed: whether visits with a PCP at 7-days post-discharge changed rates of hospital readmissions and whether post-hospitalization PCP visits were associated with decreased 90-day hospital readmissions. We included all adults with a PCP who were discharged from an inpatient medical service in a large, urban integrated academic health system from January 1, 2019 to September 9, 2019 in our analysis. We performed unadjusted bivariate analyses to measure the associations between having a PCP visit within 14 and 7 days of discharge and hospital readmission within 30 and 90 days. Then we constructed multivariate logistic regression models including patient medical and utilization characteristics to estimate the adjusted odds of a patient with a post-hospitalization PCP visit experiencing a 30-day hospital readmission (primary outcome) and 90-day readmission (secondary outcome). A total of 9236 patients were discharged; mean age was 57.9 years and 59.7% were female. Of the study population, 35.6% (n = 3284) and 24.1% (n = 2224) of patients had a post-hospitalization PCP visit within 14 days and or 7 days, respectively. Overall, 1259 (13.6%) and 2153 (23.3%) of discharged patients were readmitted at 30 and 90 days, respectively. In unadjusted analyses, having a post discharge PCP visit was not associated with decreased hospital readmission rates, but after adjusting for sociodemographic, medical and utilization characteristics, having a post-hospitalization PCP visit at 14 and 7 days was associated with lower hospital readmission rates at 30 days: 0.68 (95% CI 0.59-0.79) and 0.76 (95% CI 0.66-0.89), respectively; and 90 days: 0.76 (95% CI 0.68-0.85) and 0.80 (95% CI 0.70-0.91), respectively. In this large integrated urban academic health system, having a post-hospitalization PCP visit within 14- and 7-days of hospital discharge was associated with lower rates of readmission at 30 and 90 days. Further studies should examine whether improving access to PCP visits post hospitalization reduces readmissions rates.

Association Between In-Person vs Telehealth Follow-up and Rates of Repeated Hospital Visits Among Patients Seen in the Emergency Department.

Importance: For patients discharged from the emergency department (ED), timely outpatient in-person follow-up is associated with improved mortality, but the effectiveness of telehealth as follow-up modality is unknown. Objective: To evaluate whether the rates of ED return visits and hospitalization differ between patients who obtain in-person vs telehealth encounters for post-ED follow-up care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study included adult patients who presented to either of 2 in-system EDs of a single integrated urban academic health system from April 1, 2020, to September 30, 2021; were discharged home; and obtained a follow-up appointment with a primary care physician within 14 days of their index ED visit (15 total days). Exposures: In-person vs telehealth post-ED discharge follow-up within 14 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the odds of ED return visits (primary outcome) or hospitalization (secondary outcome) within 30 days of an ED visit based on the modality of post-ED discharge follow-up. Models were adjusted for age, sex, primary language, race, ethnicity, Social Vulnerability Index, insurance type, distance to the ED, ambulatory billing codes for the index visit, and the time from ED discharge to follow-up. Results: Overall, 12 848 patients with 16 987 ED encounters (mean [SD] age, 53 [20] years; 9714 [57%] women; 2009 [12%] Black or African American; 3806 [22%] Hispanic or Latinx; and 9858 [58%] White) were included; 11 818 (70%) obtained in-person follow-up, and 5169 (30%) obtained telehealth follow-up. Overall, 2802 initial ED encounters (17%) led to returns to the ED, and 676 (4%) led to subsequent hospitalization. In adjusted analyses, telehealth vs in-person follow-up visits were associated with increased rates of ED returns (28.3 [95% CI, 11.3-45.3] more ED returns per 1000 encounters) and hospitalizations (10.6 [95% CI, 2.9-18.3] more hospitalizations per 1000 encounters). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients in an urban integrated health care system, those with telehealth follow-up visits after an ED encounter were more likely to return to the ED and be hospitalized than patients with in-person follow-up. The use of telehealth warrants further evaluation to examine its effectiveness as a modality for continuing care after an initial ED presentation for acute illness.

Protocol for pragmatic randomised trial: integrating electronic health record-based behavioural economic 'nudges' into the electronic health record to reduce preoperative testing for patients undergoing cataract surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Robust randomised trial data have shown that routine preoperative (pre-op) testing for cataract surgery patients is inappropriate. While guidelines have discouraged testing since 2002, cataract pre-op testing rates have remained unchanged since the 1990s. Given the challenges of reducing low-value care despite strong consensus around the evidence, innovative approaches are needed to promote high-value care. This trial evaluates the impact of an interdisciplinary electronic health record (EHR) intervention that is informed by behavioural economic theory. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This pragmatic randomised trial is being conducted at UCLA Health between June 2021 and June 2022 with a 12-month follow-up period. We are randomising all UCLA Health physicians who perform pre-op visits during the study period to one of the three nudge arms or usual care. These three nudge alerts address (1) patient harm, (2) increased out-of-pocket costs for patients and (3) psychological harm to the patients related to pre-op testing. The nudges are triggered when a physician starts to order a pre-op test. We hypothesise that receipt of a nudge will be associated with reduced pre-op testing. The primary outcome will be the change in the percentage of patients undergoing pre-op testing at 12 months. Secondary outcomes will include the percentage of patients undergoing specific categories of pre-op tests (labs, EKGs, chest X-rays (CXRs)), the efficacy of each nudge, same-day surgery cancellations and cost savings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board of the University of California, Los Angeles as well as a nominated Data Safety Monitoring Board. If successful, we will have created a tool that can be disseminated rapidly to EHR vendors across the nation to reduce inappropriate testing for the most common low-risk surgical procedures in the country. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04104256.

Racial Disparities in Potentially Avoidable Hospitalizations During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: Potentially avoidable hospitalizations are disproportionately experienced by racial and ethnic minorities and expose these groups to unnecessary iatrogenic harm (including the risk of nosocomial COVID-19) and undue financial burden. In working toward an overarching goal of eliminating racial and ethnic health disparities, it is important to understand whether and to what extent potentially avoidable hospitalizations have changed by race and ethnicity during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This single-center pre-post study included patients admitted to any UCLA Health hospital for an ambulatory care-sensitive condition between March-August 2019 (prepandemic period) and March-August 2020 (postpandemic period). Investigators measured the change in the number of potentially avoidable hospitalizations (defined per the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality guidelines) stratified by race and ethnicity and calculated the 95% CIs for these hospitalizations using a cluster bootstrap procedure. RESULTS: Between March 1, 2020 and August 31, 2020, 347 of 4,838 hospitalizations (7.2%) were potentially avoidable, compared with 557 of 6,248 (8.9%) during the same 6-month period in 2019. Potentially avoidable hospitalizations decreased by 50.3% (95% CI=41.2, 60.9) among non-Hispanic Whites but only by 8.0% (95% CI= -16.2, 39.9) among African Americans (50.3% vs 8.0%, p=0.015). CONCLUSIONS: Racial disparities in potentially avoidable hospitalizations increased during the COVID-19 pandemic at a large urban health system. Given that the prepandemic rates of potentially avoidable hospitalizations were already higher among racial and ethnic minorities, especially among African Americans, this finding should cause alarm and lead to further exploration of the complex factors contributing to these disparities.