Screening Positive for Cognitive Impairment: Impact on Healthcare Utilization and Provider Action in Primary and Specialty Care Practices.

BACKGROUND: Alzheimer's disease, the most common cause of dementia, goes unrecognized in half of patients presenting to healthcare providers and is associated with increased acute care utilization. Routine cognitive screening of older adults in healthcare settings could improve rates of dementia diagnosis and patterns of healthcare utilization. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of screening positive for cognitive impairment on provider action in primary and specialty care practices and patient healthcare utilization. DESIGN: Individuals asymptomatic for cognitive impairment completed cognitive screening with the Mini-Cog (MC). Outcomes included MC screen-positive rates, provider follow-up actions, and healthcare utilization for all participants over a period of 36 months (18 months prior to and following MC screening). Data were extracted from the electronic medical record (EMR). Healthcare provider interventions and healthcare utilization for screen-positive and -negative groups, before and after screening, were compared. PARTICIPANTS: Primary and specialty care patients (n = 787) aged ≥ 65 without history of cognitive impairment seen in HealthPartners, an integrated healthcare system in Minnesota and Western Wisconsin. KEY RESULTS: In primary care and neurology practices combined, over the entire 36-month study window, individuals screening positive showed 32% higher rates of ED visits (p < 0.05) pre and post-screening compared to those screening negative. Screen positive also showed 39% higher rates of hospitalizations pre-screening (p < 0.05) and 58% higher rates post-screening (p < 0.01). While screen-detected cognitive impairment was associated with some relevant provider follow-up action in 32% of individuals, subsequent healthcare utilization did not change between the 18-month pre- and post-screening periods. CONCLUSION: Despite being associated with higher rates of healthcare utilization, screening positive on the MC led to a change in provider action in a minority of cases and did not reduce post-screening healthcare utilization. Screening for cognitive impairment alone is not sufficient to alter patterns of provider practice or patient healthcare utilization.

Protocol of a patient randomized clinical trial to improve medication adherence in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced awareness of poor medication adherence could improve patient care. This article describes the original and adapted protocols of a randomized trial to improve medication adherence for cardiometabolic conditions. METHODS: The original protocol entailed a cluster randomized trial of 28 primary care clinics allocated to either (i) medication adherence enhanced chronic disease care clinical decision support (eCDC-CDS) integrated within the electronic health record (EHR) or (ii) usual care (non-enhanced CDC-CDS). Enhancements comprised (a) electronic interfaces printed for patients and clinicians at primary care encounters that encouraged discussion about specific medication adherence issues that were identified, and (b) pharmacist phone outreach. Study subjects were individuals who at an index visit were aged 18-74 years and not at evidence-based care goals for hypertension (HTN), diabetes mellitus (DM), or lipid management, along with low medication adherence (proportion of days covered [PDC] <80%) for a corresponding medication. The primary study outcomes were improved medication adherence and clinical outcomes (BP and A1C) at 12 months. Protocol adaptation became imperative in response to major implementation challenges: (a) the availability of EHR system-wide PDC calculations that superseded our ability to limit PDC adherence information solely to intervention clinics; (b) the unforeseen closure of pharmacies committed to conducting the pharmacist outreach; and (c) disruptions and clinic closures due to the Covid-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: This manuscript details the protocol of a study to assess whether enhanced awareness of medication adherence issues in primary care settings could improve patient outcomes. The need for protocol adaptation arose in response to multiple implementation challenges.

Opioid Use During Pregnancy, Observations of Opioid Use, and Secular Trend From 2006 to 2014 at HealthPartners Medical Group.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of opioid use before, during, and after pregnancy and describe its use based on patient-specific characteristics. Determine secular trend of opioid use 2006 to 2014. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective cohort study. A large Upper Midwest integrated health care system and insurer. Female individuals age 10 to 50 years with a delivery diagnosis from July 1, 2006 through June 30, 2014. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: prevalence of opioid use before, during, and after pregnancy; description of opioid use during these time periods. RESULTS: From 11,565 deliveries among 9690 unique women, 862 (7.5%) deliveries were associated with significant opioid use. Significant opioid use was associated with single marital status, Cesarean section, Medicaid coverage, tobacco use, depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, substance use disorder, nonopioid analgesic use, and referral to physical therapy, psychotherapy, or pain specialists. From 2006 to 2014 opioid use decreased from 9% to 6% before, during, and after pregnancy with a rate of change per year of -0.2%. DISCUSSION: Known risk factors including tobacco and alcohol use, mental health diagnoses, substance use disorder, or Medicaid enrollment may enable enhanced assessments and targeted interventions to reduce unnecessary prescribing and use of opioids among pregnant women and those who might become pregnant. Strategies to decrease opioid use during pregnancy should be considered by health care systems and health plans to reduce opioid prescribing in this patient population.

Patient-Centered Outcomes Measurement: Does It Require Information From Patients?

PURPOSE: Since collecting outcome measure data from patients can be expensive, time-consuming, and subject to memory and nonresponse bias, we sought to learn whether outcomes important to patients can be obtained from data in the electronic health record (EHR) or health insurance claims. METHODS: We previously identified 21 outcomes rated important by patients who had advanced imaging tests for back or abdominal pain. Telephone surveys about experiencing those outcomes 1 year after their test from 321 people consenting to use of their medical record and claims data were compared with audits of the participants' EHR progress notes over the time period between the imaging test and survey completion. We also compared survey data with algorithmically extracted data from claims files for outcomes for which data might be available from that source. RESULTS: Of the 16 outcomes for which patients' survey responses were considered to be the best information source, only 2 outcomes for back pain and 3 for abdominal pain had kappa scores above a very modest level of ≥ 0.2 for chart audit of EHR data and none for algorithmically obtained EHR/claims data. Of the other 5 outcomes for which claims data were considered to be the best information source, only 2 outcomes from patient surveys and 3 outcomes from chart audits had kappa scores ≥ 0.2. CONCLUSIONS: For the types of outcomes studied here, medical record or claims data do not provide an adequate source of information except for a few outcomes where patient reports may be less accurate.

System Transformation in Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH): Variable Impact on Chronically Ill Patients' Utilization.

BACKGROUND: Research connecting patient-centered medical homes (PCMHs) with improved quality and reduced utilization is inconsistent, possibly because individual domains of change, and the stage of change, are not incorporated in the research design. The objective of this study was to examine the association between stage and domain of change and patterns of health care utilization. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional observational study that including 87 Minnesota clinics certified as medical homes. Patients included those receiving management for diabetes or cardiovascular disease with insurance coverage by payers participating in the study. PCMH transformation stage was defined by practice systems in place, with measurements summarized in 5 domains. Health care utilization was measured by total utilization, frequency of outpatient visits and prescriptions, and occurrence of inpatient and emergency department visits. RESULTS: PCMH transformation was associated with few changes in utilization, but there were important differences by the underlying domains of change. We demonstrate meaningful differences in the impact of PCMH transformation by diagnosis cohort and comorbidity status of the patient. CONCLUSIONS: Because the association of health care utilization with PCMH transformation varied by transformation domain and patient diagnosis, practice leaders need to be supported by research incorporating detailed measures of PCMH transformation.