Comparing Diagnostic Evaluations for Rectal Bleeding and Breast Lumps in Primary Care: a Retrospective Cohort Study

Health information technology tools to accelerate gastrointestinal evaluation in patients with iron deficiency anaemia: a cluster randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

System-level safety measures do not exist to ensure that patients with iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) undergo proper diagnostic evaluations. We sought to determine if a set of EHR (electronic health record) tools and an expedited referral workflow increase short-term completion of bidirectional endoscopy in higher risk patients with IDA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a pragmatic, cluster-randomised trial randomised by primary care physician (PCP) that included 16 PCPs and 316 patients with IDA. Physicians were randomised to intervention or control groups. Intervention components included a patient registry visible within the EHR, point-of-care alert and expedited diagnostic evaluation workflow for IDA. Outcomes were assessed at 120 days. The primary outcome was completion of bidirectional endoscopy. Secondary outcomes were any endoscopy completed or scheduled, gastroenterology consultation completed, and gastroenterology referral or endoscopy ordered or completed.

RESULTS

There were no differences in the primary or secondary outcomes. At 120 days, the primary outcome had occurred for 7 (4%) of the intervention group and 5 (3.5%) of the control group. For the three secondary outcomes, rates were 15 (8.6%), 12 (6.9%) and 39 (22.4%) for the immediate intervention group and 10 (7.0%), 9 (6.3%) and 25 (17.6%) for the control group, respectively, p>0.2. Lack of physician time to use the registry tools was identified as a barrier.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Providing PCPs with lists of patients with IDA and a pathway for expedited evaluation did not increase rates of completing endoscopic evaluation in the short term.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05365308.

Team-Based Primary Care Practice Transformation Initiative and Changes in Patient Experience and Recommended Cancer Screening Rates

Team-based care has emerged as a promising strategy for primary care practices to provide high-quality care. We examine changes in patient experience of care and recommended cancer screening rates associated with a primary care transformation initiative that established team-based care. Our observational study included 13 academically affiliated primary care practices in the Boston, Massachusetts area that participated in 2 learning collaboratives: the first (2012-2014) aimed to establish team-based primary care, while the second (2014-2016) focused on improving patient safety and cancer screening. We identified 37 comparison practices of similar size and network affiliation. Using a difference-in-differences approach, we compared pre (2013) and post (2015) patient experience and recommended cancer screening rates between intervention and comparison practices. We estimated linear regression models, using inverse probability weighting to balance on observable differences. Massachusetts Health Quality Partners data on patient experience comes from surveys (with communication, integration, knowledge of patient, access, office staff, and willingness to recommend domains), and its data on screening rates for breast, colorectal, and cervical cancers is derived from chart abstraction. Relative to comparison practices, the communication score in intervention practices increased by 1.47 percentage points on a 100-point scale (P = .02) between pre and post periods. We did not detect immediate improvements in other measures of patient experience of care and recommended cancer screening rates. Communication may be the first dimension of patient experience that improves following establishment of team-based primary care, and changing care processes may require more time or attention in the transition to team-based care. Our findings also suggest a need to better understand the variation in implementation factors that facilitate some practices’ successful transitions to team-based care, and to use teams effectively to improve cancer screening processes.

Preventing Diagnostic Errors in Ambulatory Care: An Electronic Notification Tool for Incomplete Radiology Tests

BACKGROUND

Failure to complete recommended diagnostic tests may increase the risk of diagnostic errors.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to develop and evaluate an electronic monitoring tool that notifies the responsible clinician of incomplete imaging tests for their ambulatory patients.

METHODS

A results notification workflow engine was created at an academic medical center. It identified future appointments for imaging studies and notified the ordering physician of incomplete tests by secure email. To assess the impact of the intervention, the project team surveyed participating physicians and measured test completion rates within 90 days of the scheduled appointment. Analyses compared test completion rates among patients of intervention and usual care clinicians at baseline and follow-up. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to control for secular trends and differences between cohorts.

RESULTS

A total of 725 patients of 16 intervention physicians had 1,016 delayed imaging studies; 2,023 patients of 42 usual care clinicians had 2,697 delayed studies. In the first month, physicians indicated in 23/30 cases that they were unaware of the missed test prior to notification. The 90-day test completion rate was lower in the usual care than intervention group in the 6-month baseline period (18.8 vs. 22.1%, p = 0.119). During the 12-month follow-up period, there was a significant improvement favoring the intervention group (20.9 vs. 25.5%, p = 0.027). The change was driven by improved completion rates among patients referred for mammography (21.0 vs. 30.1%, p = 0.003). Multivariate analyses showed no significant impact of the intervention.

CONCLUSION

There was a temporal association between email alerts to physicians about missed imaging tests and improved test completion at 90 days, although baseline differences in intervention and usual care groups limited the ability to draw definitive conclusions. Research is needed to understand the potential benefits and limitations of missed test notifications to reduce the risk of delayed diagnoses, particularly in vulnerable patient populations.