Physicians' Perceptions of Proton Pump Inhibitor Risks and Recommendations to Discontinue: A National Survey.

OBJECTIVE: To provide contemporary estimates of internists' perceptions of adverse effects associated with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and self-reported clinical use. METHODS: We invited 799 internists, including specialists and postgraduate trainees, to complete an online survey. Topics included perceptions of PPI adverse effects (AEs) and effectiveness for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) prevention, changes in prescribing, and management recommendations for patients using PPIs for gastroesophageal reflux disease or UGIB prevention. We used logistic regression to identify factors associated with appropriate PPI continuation in the scenario of a patient at high risk for UGIB. RESULTS: Among 437 respondents (55% response rate), 10% were trainees and 72% specialized in general medicine, 70% were somewhat/very concerned about PPI AEs, and 76% had somewhat/very much changed their prescribing. A majority believed PPIs increase the risk for 6 of 12 AEs queried. Fifty-two percent perceived PPIs to be somewhat/very effective for UGIB prevention. In a gastroesophageal reflux disease scenario in which PPI can be safely discontinued, 86% appropriately recommended PPI discontinuation. However, in a high-risk UGIB prevention scenario in which long-term PPI use is recommended, 79% inappropriately recommended discontinuation. In this latter scenario, perceived effectiveness for bleeding prevention was strongly associated with continuing PPI (odds ratio 7.68, P < 0.001 for moderately; odds ratio 17.3, P < 0.001 for very effective). Other covariates, including concern about PPI AEs, had no significant association. DISCUSSION: Most internists believe PPIs cause multiple AEs and recommend discontinuation even in patients at high risk for UGIB. Future interventions should focus on ensuring that PPIs are prescribed appropriately according to individual risks and benefits.

Physician and Nurse Practitioner Attitudes on Generic Prescribing of Oral Contraceptive Pills and Antidepressants.

IMPORTANCE: As prescription drug costs rise, it is important to understand attitudes among primary care physicians and nurse practitioners (NPs) towards generic drugs. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine the generic skepticism index (GSI) among primary care clinicians, and their willingness to discuss and prescribe generic antidepressants (ADs) and generic oral contraceptives (OCPs). DESIGN: We used a factorial vignette design survey to test 4 factors: message source, message, brand preference, and drug class. Participants were randomized to different combinations of factors. SETTING: This was a cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: Physicians registered with the American College of Physicians (ACP) and NPs registered with the American Association of Nurse Practitioners (AANP) participated in the study. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcomes were generic skepticism as measured using the generic skepticism index (GSI), and clinician willingness to discuss and prescribe generics. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 56% of physicians (n = 369/661) and 60% of NPs (n = 493/819). Compared with physicians, NPs were younger (p < 0.001), predominantly female (p < 0.001), and differed in the race (p < 0.001). According to the GSI, 16% (n = 138/862) were identified as generic skeptics (18.5% of NPs and 12.7% of physicians, p = 0.023). Generic skeptics had lower odds of willingness to discuss switching (OR 0.22, 95% CI (0.14-0.35), p < 0.001) or prescribe (OR 0.18, 95% CI (0.11-0.28), p < 0.001) generic OCPs. Participants had lower odds of willingness to prescribe generic drugs to patients with brand preference compared with brand-neutral patients (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.50-0.82, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Generic skepticism was associated with lower willingness to discuss or prescribe generic drugs. Clinicians reported lower willingness to discuss switching or prescribe generics for OCPs than for ADs. Patient brand preference hindered generic prescribing. Message source and message type were not significantly associated with outcomes.

U.S. Internists' Perspectives on Discussing Cost of Care With Patients: Structured Interviews and a Survey.

Background: Rising out-of-pocket costs are creating a need for cost conversations between patients and physicians. Objective: To understand the factors that influence physicians to discuss and consider cost during a patient encounter. Design: Mixed-methods study using semistructured interviews and a survey. Setting: United States. Participants: 20 internal medicine physicians were interviewed; 621 internal medicine physician members of the American College of Physicians completed the survey. Measurements: Interviews were analyzed by using thematic analysis, and surveys were analyzed by using descriptive statistics. Results: From the interviews, 4 themes were identified: Physicians are 1) aware that patients are struggling to afford medical care; 2) relying on clues from patients that hint at their cost sensitivity; 3) relying on experience to anticipate potentially high-cost treatments; and 4) aware that patients are making financial trade-offs to afford their care. Three quarters (n = 466) of survey respondents stated that they consider out-of-pocket costs when making most clinical decisions. For 31% (n = 191) of participants, there were times in the past year that they wanted to discuss out-of-pocket prescription drug costs with patients but did not. The most influential factors for ordering a test are the desire to be as thorough as possible (71% [n = 422]) and insurance coverage for the test (68% [n = 422]). Limitation: Findings are self-reported, the sample is limited to a single specialty, the survey response rate was low, information on the patient population was limited, and the survey instrument is not validated. Conclusion: Physicians are attuned to the burden of health care costs and are willing to consider alternative options based on a patient's cost sensitivity. Primary Funding Source: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Development and testing of a web module to IMPROVE generic prescribing of oral contraceptives among primary care physicians.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: The use of generic oral contraceptives (OCPs) can improve adherence and reduce healthcare costs, yet scepticism of generic drugs remains a barrier to generic OCP discussion and prescription. An educational web module was developed to reduce generic scepticism related to OCPs, improve knowledge of generic drugs and increase physician willingness to discuss and prescribe generic OCPs. METHODS: A needs assessment was completed using in-person focus groups at American College of Physicians (ACP) Annual Meeting and a survey targeting baseline generic scepticism. Insights gained were used to build an educational web module detailing barriers and benefits of generic OCP prescription. The module was disseminated via email to an ACP research panel who completed our baseline survey. Post-module evaluation measured learner reaction, knowledge and intention to change behaviour along with generic scepticism. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The module had a response rate of 56% (n = 208/369). Individuals defined as generic sceptics at baseline were significantly less likely to complete our module compared to non-sceptics (responders 9.6% vs non-responders 16.8%, P = 0.04). The majority (85%, n = 17/20) of baseline sceptics were converted to non-sceptics (P < 0.01) following completion of the module. Compared to non-sceptics, post-module generic sceptics reported less willingness to discuss (sceptic 33.3% vs non-sceptic 71.5%, P < 0.01), but not less willingness to prescribe generic OCPs (sceptic 53.3% vs non-sceptic 67.9%, P = 0.25). Non-white physicians and international medical graduates (IMG) were more likely to be generic sceptics at baseline (non-white 86.9% vs white 69.9%, P = 0.01, IMG 13.0% vs USMG 5.0% vs unknown 18.2%, P = 0.03) but were also more likely to report intention to prescribe generic OCPs as a result of the module (non-white 78.7% vs white 57.3%, P < 0.01, IMG 76.1% vs USMG 50.3% vs unknown 77.3%, P = 0.03). WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: A brief educational web module can be used to promote prescribing of generic OCPs and reduce generic scepticism.

Who is Responsible for What Happens Before, During, and After Colonoscopy? Results of a National Survey of Primary Care Physicians.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Primary care providers (PCPs) play a critical role in colon cancer screening by initiating referrals to gastroenterologists for colonoscopy, but little is known about their role in pre-colonoscopy bowel preparation selection and pre-colonoscopy follow-up care. This study aimed to better understand coordination of care between PCPs and gastroenterologists as well as the current availability of "open-access" screening colonoscopy. METHODS: A multiple-choice survey was developed to assess PCPs' experiences with open-access colonoscopy, their involvement in the pre-colonoscopy process, and follow-up after colonoscopy. The survey was distributed electronically to a nationally representative sample of PCPs, via the American College of Physicians (ACP) Research Center's Internal Medicine Insider Research Panel. RESULTS: Of 442 PCPs invited to participate, 210 responded (response rate, 210/442, 48%), and 29 were ineligible (spent <25% of their time on clinical care or placed no referrals to colonoscopy), yielding 181 completed surveys. A total of 39% reported that open access was "rarely" or "never" available in their practice setting. The majority reported that pre-colonoscopy care was coordinated by gastroenterologists rather than PCPs. For example, 93% reported that gastroenterologists were responsible for bowel preparation selection in their practice setting. Post-colonoscopy, 54% of PCPs reported that they were responsible for ordering subsequent colonoscopies. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs frequently coordinate follow-up care postprocedure but play a relatively minor role in the pre-colonoscopy bowel preparation process. Open access availability for screening colonoscopy remains limited in this national sample of PCPs.

Vaccination practices in patients with inflammatory bowel disease among general internal medicine physicians in the USA.

BACKGROUND: Increasing prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) poses significant challenges to medical community. Preventive medicine, including vaccination against opportunistic infections, is important in decreasing morbidity and mortality in patients with IBD. We conduct first study to evaluate general awareness and adherence to immunisation guidelines by primary care physicians in the USA. METHODS: We administered an electronic questionnaire to the research panel of the American College of Physicians (ACP) assessing current vaccination practices, barriers to vaccination and provider responsibility for administering vaccinations and compared responses with the European Crohn's and Colitis Organization consensus guidelines and expert opinion from the USA. RESULTS: All of surveyed physicians (276) had experience with patients with IBD and spent majority of their time in direct patient care. 49% of physicians took immunisation history frequently or always, and 76% reported never or rarely checking immunisation antibody titres with only 2% doing so routinely. 65% of physicians believed that primary care providers (PCPs) were responsible for determining patient's immunisation. Vaccine administration was felt to be the duty of primary care doctor 80% of the time. 2.5% of physicians correctly recommended vaccinations all the time. Physicians were more likely to recommend vaccination to immunocompetent than immunocompromised patients. Up to 23% of physicians would incorrectly recommend live vaccine to immunocompromised patients with IBD. CONCLUSIONS: Current knowledge and degree of comfort among PCPs in the USA in preventing opportunistic infections in IBD population remain low. Management of patients with IBD requires structured approach to their healthcare maintenance in everyday practice, including enhanced educational policy aimed at primary care physicians.

Ebola Risk and Preparedness: A National Survey of Internists.

BACKGROUND: The 2014-2015 Ebola virus disease (Ebola) epidemic centered in West Africa highlighted recurring challenges in the United States regarding risk communication and preparedness during global epidemics. OBJECTIVE: To investigate perceptions, preparedness, and knowledge among U.S. internists with regard to Ebola risk. DESIGN: Cross-sectional Web-based national survey distributed by e-mail between December 2014 and January 2015. PARTICIPANTS: Practicing U.S. internists participating in a research panel representative of American College of Physicians (ACP) membership. MAIN MEASURES: Respondents' perceptions of Ebola, reported sources of information, and reported management of possible Ebola cases. The primary predictor was the possibility of encountering Ebola (based on respondents' geographic proximity to designated airports or confirmed Ebola cases, or on their patients' travel histories). Pre-specified outcomes included reported management intensity in clinical vignettes involving patients at low risk of symptomatic Ebola as well as reported Ebola preparedness. KEY RESULTS: The survey response rate was 46.1 %. Among the 202 respondents, 9.9 % (95 % CI 6.2-14.9 %) reported that they had recently evaluated a patient who had traveled to West Africa. Seventy percent (95 % CI 63.0-76.0 %) reported a practice-level protocol. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was the most popular source for Ebola information (75.2 %, 95 % CI 68.7-81.0 %). Most respondents felt very (45.0 %) or somewhat prepared (52.0 %) to communicate information about or diagnose Ebola, especially those with the possibility of encountering Ebola and those who reported medical journals, professional groups, or government as information sources. One-fifth of respondents (19.8 %, 95 % CI 14.5-26.0 %) reported overly intensive management for low-risk patients. Those with the possibility of encountering Ebola were less likely to report overly intensive management (3.1 vs. 22.9 %, p = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: Internists had wide-ranging views and understanding of Ebola risk; those least likely to encounter Ebola were most likely to be overly aggressive in managing patients at low risk. Our findings underscore the need for better risk communication through various information channels to empower frontline providers in infectious disease outbreaks.

Internists' attitudes toward prevention of firearm injury.

BACKGROUND: Professional organizations have called for the medical community's attention to the prevention of firearm injury. However, little is known about physicians' attitudes and practices in preventing firearm injury. OBJECTIVE: To determine internists' attitudes and practices about firearms and to assess whether opinions differ according to whether there are gun owners in a physician's home. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Internal medicine practices. PARTICIPANTS: 573 internists representative of American College of Physicians' members. MEASURES: Respondents' experiences and reported practice behaviors related to firearms and their opinions about contributors and public policies related to firearm violence, as well as physician education and training in firearm safety. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 56.5%. Eighty-five percent of respondents believed that firearm injury is a public health issue, and 71% believed that it is a bigger problem today than a decade ago. Seventy-six percent of respondents believed that stricter gun control legislation would help reduce the risks for gun-related injuries or deaths. Although 66% of respondents believed that physicians should have the right to counsel patients on preventing deaths and injuries from firearms, 58% reported never asking whether patients have guns in their homes. LIMITATIONS: The generalizability of these findings to non-American College of Physicians' member internists and other physicians is unknown. Responses may not reflect actual behavior. CONCLUSION: Most respondents believed that firearm-related violence is a public health issue and favored policy initiatives aimed at reducing it. Although most internists supported a physician's right to counsel patients about gun safety, few reported currently doing it. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Development of a high-value care subscore on the internal medicine in-training examination.

BACKGROUND: Although high-value care (HVC) that balances benefits of tests or treatments against potential harms and costs has been a recently emphasized competency for internal medicine (IM) residents, few tools to assess residents' knowledge of HVC are available. OBJECTIVE: To describe the development and initial results of an HVC subscore of the Internal Medicine In-Training Examination (IM-ITE). DESIGN: The HVC concepts were introduced to IM-ITE authors during question development. Three physicians independently reviewed each examination question for selection in the HVC subscore according to 6 HVC principles. The final subscore was determined by consensus. Data from the IM-ITE administered in October 2012 were analyzed at the program level. SETTING: U.S. IM residency programs. PARTICIPANTS: 362 U.S. IM residency programs with IM-ITE data for at least 10 residents. MEASUREMENTS: Program-level performance on the HVC subscore was compared with performance on the overall IM-ITE, the Dartmouth Atlas hospital care intensity (HCI) index of the program's primary training hospital, and residents' attitudes about HVC assessed with a voluntary survey. RESULTS: The HVC subscore comprised 38 questions, including 21 (55%) on managing conservatively when appropriate and 14 (37%) on identifying low-value care. Of the 362 U.S. IM programs in the sample, 41% were in a different quartile when ranked based on the HVC subscore compared with overall IM-ITE performance. Rankings by HVC subscore and HCI index were modestly inversely associated, with 30% of programs ranked in the same quartile based on both measures. LIMITATION: Knowledge of HVC assessed from examination vignettes may not reflect practice of HVC. CONCLUSION: Although the HVC subscore has face validity and can contribute to evaluation of residents' HVC knowledge, additional tools are needed to accurately measure residents' proficiency in HVC. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Hospitalist career decisions among internal medicine residents.

BACKGROUND: Hospital medicine is a rapidly growing field of internal medicine. However, little is known about internal medicine residents' decisions to pursue careers in hospital medicine (HM). OBJECTIVE: To identify which internal medicine residents choose a career in HM, and describe changes in this career choice over the course of their residency education. DESIGN: Observational cohort using data collected from the annual Internal Medicine In-Training Examination (IM-ITE) survey. PARTICIPANTS: 16,781 postgraduate year 3 (PGY-3) North American internal medicine residents who completed the annual IM-ITE survey in 2009-2011, 9,501 of whom completed the survey in all 3 years of residency. MAIN MEASURES: Self-reported career plans for individual residents during their postgraduate year 1 (PGY-1), postgraduate year 2 (PGY-2) and PGY-3. KEY RESULTS: Of the 16,781 graduating PGY-3 residents, 1,552 (9.3 %) reported HM as their ultimate career choice. Of the 951 PGY-3 residents planning a HM career among the 9,501 residents responding in all 3 years, 128 (13.5 %) originally made this decision in PGY-1, 192 (20.2 %) in PGY-2, and 631 (66.4 %) in PGY-3. Only 87 (9.1 %) of these 951 residents maintained a career decision of HM during all three years of residency education. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital medicine is a reported career choice for an important proportion of graduating internal medicine residents. However, the majority of residents do not finalize this decision until their final year.

Internists' attitudes about assessing and maintaining clinical competence.

BACKGROUND: Important changes are occurring in how the medical profession approaches assessing and maintaining competence. Physician support for such changes will be essential for their success. OBJECTIVE: To describe physician attitudes towards assessing and maintaining competence. DESIGN: Cross-sectional internet survey. PARTICIPANTS: Random sample of 1,000 American College of Physicians members who were eligible to participate in the American Board of Internal Medicine Maintenance of Certification program. MAIN MEASURES: Questions assessed physicians' attitudes and experiences regarding: 1) self-regulation, 2) feedback on knowledge and clinical care, 3) demonstrating knowledge and clinical competence, 4) frequency of use and effectiveness of methods to assess or improve clinical care, and 5) transparency. KEY RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 446 of 943 eligible respondents (47%). Eighty percent reported it was important (somewhat/very) to receive feedback on their knowledge, and 94% considered it important (somewhat/very) to get feedback on their quality of care. However, only 24% reported that they receive useful feedback on their knowledge most/all of the time, and 27% reported receiving useful feedback on their clinical care most/all of the time. Seventy-five percent agreed that participating in programs to assess their knowledge is important to staying up-to-date, yet only 52% reported participating in such programs within the last 3 years. The majority (58%) believed physicians should be required to demonstrate their knowledge via a secure examination every 9-10 years. Support was low for Specialty Certification Boards making information about physician competence publically available, with respondents expressing concern about patients misinterpreting information about their Board Certification activities. CONCLUSIONS: A gap exists between physicians' interest in feedback on their competence and existing programs' ability to provide such feedback. Educating physicians about the importance of regularly assessing their knowledge and quality of care, coupled with enhanced systems to provide such feedback, is needed to close this gap.

Physician Perspectives on Deprescribing Cardiovascular Medications for Older Adults.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Guideline-based management of cardiovascular disease often involves prescribing multiple medications, which contributes to polypharmacy and risk for adverse drug events in older adults. Deprescribing is a potential strategy to mitigate these risks. We sought to characterize and compare clinician perspectives regarding deprescribing cardiovascular medications across three specialties. DESIGN: National cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Ambulatory. PARTICIPANTS: Random sample of geriatricians, general internists, and cardiologists from the American College of Physicians. MEASUREMENTS: Electronic survey assessing clinical practice of deprescribing cardiovascular medications, reasons and barriers to deprescribing, and choice of medications to deprescribe in hypothetical clinical cases. RESULTS: In each specialty, 750 physicians were surveyed, with a response rate of 26% for geriatricians, 26% for general internists, and 12% for cardiologists. Over 80% of respondents within each specialty reported that they had recently considered deprescribing a cardiovascular medication. Adverse drug reactions were the most common reason for deprescribing for all specialties. Geriatricians also commonly reported deprescribing in the setting of limited life expectancy. Barriers to deprescribing were shared across specialties and included concerns about interfering with other physicians' treatment plans and patient reluctance. In hypothetical cases, over 90% of physicians in each specialty chose to deprescribe when patients experienced adverse drug reactions. Geriatricians were most likely and cardiologists were least likely to consider deprescribing cardiovascular medications in cases of limited life expectancy (all P < .001), such as recurrent metastatic cancer (84% of geriatricians, 68% of general internists, and 45% of cardiologists), Alzheimer dementia (92% of geriatricians, 81% of general internists, and 59% of cardiologists), or significant functional impairment (83% of geriatricians, 68% of general internists, and 45% of cardiologists). CONCLUSIONS: While barriers to deprescribing cardiovascular medications are shared across specialties, reasons for deprescribing, especially in the setting of limited life expectancy, varied. Implementing deprescribing will require improved processes for both physician-physician and physician-patient communication. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:78-86, 2019.

Development and testing of a module to promote generic oral contraceptive prescribing among nurse practitioners.

Although generic oral contraceptives (OCPs) can improve adherence and reduce health care expenditures, use of generic OCPs remains low, and the factors that affect generic prescribing are not well understood. We aimed to understand the barriers and facilitators of generic OCP prescribing and potential solutions to increase generic OCP prescribing, as well as pilot an educational module to address clinician misconceptions about generic OCPs. We developed focus group scripts using the 4D model of appreciative inquiry. A total of four focus groups occurred, two at the American Association of Nurse Practitioners (AANP) national conference and two at the American College of Physicians (ACP) Internal Medicine meeting. Focus group transcripts were analyzed using a constant comparative method with no a priori hypothesis to generate emerging and reoccurring themes. Findings from these focus groups were used to develop an educational module promoting generic OCP prescribing. Participants were recruited from the AANP Network for Research and the ACP Research Panel. This study demonstrates that health system factors, workflow factors, clinician factors, and patient factors were the main barriers to and facilitators of generic OCP prescribing. Nurse practitioners were responsive to an educational module and reported increased willingness to discuss and prescribe generic OCPs after completing the module. Interventions to increase generic OCP prescribing must address clinician and patient factors within the context of workflow and larger health system factors.

Use of Filters for Residency Application Review: Results From the Internal Medicine In-Training Examination Program Director Survey.

BACKGROUND: The increase in applications to residency programs, known as "application inflation," creates challenges for program directors (PDs). Prior studies have shown that internal medicine (IM) PDs utilize criteria, such as United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step examination performance, when reviewing applications. However, little is known about how early these filters are utilized in the application review cycle. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to assess the frequency and types of filters utilized by IM PDs during initial residency application screening and prior to more in-depth application review. METHODS: A web-based request for the 2016 Internal Medicine In-Training Examination (IM-ITE) PD Survey was sent to IM PDs. Responses from this survey were analyzed, excluding non-US programs. RESULTS: With a 50% response rate (214 of 424), IM PDs responded that the most commonly used data points to filter applicants prior to in-depth application review were the USMLE Step 2 Clinical Knowledge score (32%, 67 of 208), USMLE Step 1 score (24%, 50 of 208), and medical school attended (12%, 25 of 208). Over half of US IM PD respondents (55%, 114 of 208) indicated that they list qualifying interview criteria on their program website, and 31% of respondents (50 of 160) indicated that more than half of their applicant pool does not meet the program's specified interview criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Results from the 2016 IM-ITE PD Survey indicate many IM PDs use filters for initial application screening, and that these filters, when available to applicants, do not affect many applicants' decisions to apply.

Cascades of Care After Incidental Findings in a US National Survey of Physicians.

Importance: Incidental findings on screening and diagnostic tests are common and may prompt cascades of testing and treatment that are of uncertain value. No study to date has examined physician perceptions and experiences of these cascades nationally. Objective: To estimate the national frequency and consequences of cascades of care after incidental findings using a national survey of US physicians. Design, Setting, and Participants: Population-based survey study using data from a 44-item cross-sectional, online survey among 991 practicing US internists in a research panel representative of American College of Physicians national membership. The survey was emailed to panel members on January 22, 2019, and analysis was performed from March 11 to May 27, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Physician report of prior experiences with cascades, features of their most recently experienced cascade, and perception of potential interventions to limit the negative consequences of cascades. Results: This study achieved a 44.7% response rate (376 completed surveys) and weighted responses to be nationally representative. The mean (SE) age of respondents was 43.4 (0.7) years, and 60.4% of respondents were male. Almost all respondents (99.4%; percentages were weighted) reported experiencing cascades, including cascades with clinically important and intervenable outcomes (90.9%) and cascades with no such outcome (94.4%). Physicians reported cascades caused their patients psychological harm (68.4%), physical harm (15.6%), and financial burden (57.5%) and personally caused the physicians wasted time and effort (69.1%), frustration (52.5%), and anxiety (45.4%). When asked about their most recent cascade, 33.7% of 371 respondents reported the test revealing the incidental finding may not have been clinically appropriate. During this most recent cascade, physicians reported that guidelines for follow-up testing were not followed (8.1%) or did not exist to their knowledge (53.2%). To lessen the negative consequences of cascades, 62.8% of 376 respondents chose accessible guidelines and 44.6% chose decision aids as potential solutions. Conclusions and Relevance: The survey findings indicate that almost all respondents had experienced cascades after incidental findings that did not lead to clinically meaningful outcomes yet caused harm to patients and themselves. Policy makers and health care leaders should address cascades after incidental findings as part of efforts to improve health care value and reduce physician burnout.