1
|
Morgen EK, Naugler C. Inappropriate repeats of six common tests in a Canadian city: a population cohort study within a laboratory informatics framework. Am J Clin Pathol 2015; 144:704-12. [PMID: 26486733 DOI: 10.1309/ajcpyxdaus2f8xjy] [Citation(s) in RCA: 45] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To identify inappropriate repeats of six common laboratory tests in a population sample of patients, using highly specific criteria based only on repeat time and test value. METHODS We used a laboratory informatics database to conduct a retrospective cohort study using a population sample of 103,000 patients in the city of Calgary with an index test in 2010 and uniform follow-up of 1 year. We examined six tests (cholesterol, hemoglobin A1c, thyroid-stimulating hormone, vitamin B12, vitamin D, and ferritin) with consensus-based or easily justified criteria for inappropriate repeats based solely on time to repeat and the index test value. RESULTS The percentages of tests repeated at 3, 6, and 12 months were 11%, 23%, and 41%, respectively. In total, 16% of these six tests were inappropriately repeated, representing an annual internal cost of $0.6 to $2.2 million Canadian dollars and corresponding to population-scaled national estimates for Canada and the United States of $160 million and $2.4 billion, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Objective definitions based on repeated testing identified 16% of six studied tests as inappropriate, delineating a subset of inappropriate testing that is well suited to automated identification and intervention and that provides a likely lower bound on the true burden of inappropriate testing.
Collapse
|
2
|
Reid RJ, Anderson ML, Fishman PA, McClure JB, Johnson RL, Catz SL, Green BB. Relationship between cardiovascular risk and lipid testing in one health care system: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Health Serv Res 2015. [PMID: 26201968 PMCID: PMC4511977 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-015-0884-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Background The US Preventive Services Taskforce (USPSTF) recommends routine lipid screening beginning age 35 for men [1]. For women age 20 and older, as well as men age 20–34, screening is recommended if cardiovascular risk factors are present. Prior research has focused on underutilization but not overuse of lipid testing. The objective is to document over- and under-use of lipid testing in an insured population of persons at low, moderate and high cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk for persons not already on statins. Methods The study is a retrospective cohort study that included all adults without prior CVD who were continuously enrolled in a large integrated healthcare system from 2005 to 2010. Measures included lipid test frequency extracted from administrative data and Framingham cardiovascular risk equations applied using electronic medical record data. Five year lipid testing patterns were examined by age, sex and CVD risk. Generalized linear models were used to estimate the relative risk for over testing associated with patient characteristics. Results Among males and females for whom testing is not recommended, 35.8 % and 61.5 % received at least one lipid test in the prior 5 years and 8.4 % and 24.4 % had two or more. Over-testing was associated with age, race, comorbidity, primary care use and neighborhood income. Among individuals at moderate and high-risk (not already treated with statins) and for whom screening is recommended, between 21.4 % and 25.1 % of individuals received no screening in the prior 5 years. Conclusions Based on USPSTF lipid screening recommendations, this study documents substantial over-testing among individuals with low CVD risk and under-testing among individuals with moderate to high-risk not already on statins. Opportunity exists to better focus lipid screening efforts appropriate to CVD risk.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert J Reid
- Group Health Research Institute, 1730 Minor Avenue, Suite 1600, Seattle, WA, 98122, USA. .,Group Health Physicians, Seattle, WA, USA.
| | - Melissa L Anderson
- Group Health Research Institute, 1730 Minor Avenue, Suite 1600, Seattle, WA, 98122, USA.
| | - Paul A Fishman
- Group Health Research Institute, 1730 Minor Avenue, Suite 1600, Seattle, WA, 98122, USA.
| | - Jennifer B McClure
- Group Health Research Institute, 1730 Minor Avenue, Suite 1600, Seattle, WA, 98122, USA.
| | - Ron L Johnson
- Group Health Research Institute, 1730 Minor Avenue, Suite 1600, Seattle, WA, 98122, USA.
| | - Sheryl L Catz
- Betty Irene Moore School of Nursing, University of California Davis, 4610 X Street, Sacramento, CA, 95817, USA.
| | - Beverly B Green
- Group Health Research Institute, 1730 Minor Avenue, Suite 1600, Seattle, WA, 98122, USA. .,Group Health Physicians, Seattle, WA, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Beadles CA, Voils CI, Crowley MJ, Farley JF, Maciejewski ML. Continuity of medication management and continuity of care: Conceptual and operational considerations. SAGE Open Med 2014; 2:2050312114559261. [PMID: 26770750 PMCID: PMC4607236 DOI: 10.1177/2050312114559261] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/26/2014] [Accepted: 10/16/2014] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective: Continuity of care is considered foundational to high-quality care. Traditional continuity of care constructs may adequately characterize care quality in general populations, but may merit reconceptualization for patients with multiple chronic conditions. Specifically, interactions between multiple chronic condition patients and providers involve complex medication management; therefore care continuity measurement may be more relevant if focused on the provider subset who prescribes essential medications for chronic conditions—a construct we call continuity of medication management. Our objective was to explore conceptual distinctions between continuity of medication management and continuity of care, survey existing evidence in this area, and discuss implications of our findings for future research and intervention development. Methods: In this topical review, we discuss conceptual distinctions between continuity of medication management and continuity of care, review the limited continuity of medication management–related empirical evidence, and discuss implications for future research and interventions. Results: Continuity of medication management represents a potential conceptual and measurement advance by reflecting interpersonal continuity and management continuity, and may provide a means of identifying patients at high-risk of adverse events. Empirical evidence also establishes support for continuity of medication management as a meaningful measure of care continuity. Finally, continuity of medication management may also be a potential target for future intervention to improve care delivery among multiple chronic condition patients. Conclusion: If continuity of medication management is validated in diverse populations, correlated with patient outcomes, and responsive to change, then it may be an important target for improving the health and health care of multiple chronic condition patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christopher A Beadles
- Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care (152), Durham VA Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Corrine I Voils
- Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care (152), Durham VA Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA; Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Matthew J Crowley
- Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care (152), Durham VA Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA; Division of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Joel F Farley
- Division of Pharmaceutical Outcomes and Policy, School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
| | - Matthew L Maciejewski
- Center for Health Services Research in Primary Care (152), Durham VA Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA; Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Mittal S, Lin YL, Tan A, Kuo YF, El-Serag HB, Goodwin JS. Limited life expectancy among a subgroup of medicare beneficiaries receiving screening colonoscopies. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 12:443-450.e1. [PMID: 23973925 PMCID: PMC3944371 DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2013.08.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/01/2013] [Revised: 08/08/2013] [Accepted: 08/13/2013] [Indexed: 01/15/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS Life expectancy is an important consideration when assessing appropriateness of preventive programs for older individuals. Most studies on this subject have used age cutoffs as a proxy for life expectancy. We analyzed patterns of utilization of screening colonoscopy in Medicare enrollees by using estimated life expectancy. METHODS We used a 5% random national sample of Medicare claims data to identify average-risk patients who underwent screening colonoscopies from 2008 to 2010. Colonoscopies were considered to be screening colonoscopies in the absence of diagnoses for nonscreening indications, which were based on either colonoscopies or any claims in the preceding 3 months. We estimated life expectancies by using a model that combined age, sex, and comorbidity. Among patients who underwent screening colonoscopies, we calculated the percentage of those with life expectancies <10 years. RESULTS Among the 57,597 Medicare beneficiaries 66 years old or older who received at least 1 screening colonoscopy, 24.8% had an estimated life expectancy of <10 years. There was a significant positive association between total Medicare per capita costs in hospital referral regions and the proportion of patients with limited life expectancies (<10 years) at the time of screening colonoscopy (R = 0.25; P < .001, Pearson correlation test). In a multivariable analysis, men were substantially more likely than women to have limited life expectancy at the time of screening colonoscopy (odds ratio, 2.25; 95% confidence interval, 2.16-2.34). CONCLUSIONS Nearly 25% of Medicare beneficiaries, especially men, had life expectancies <10 years at the time of screening colonoscopies. Life expectancy should therefore be incorporated in decision-making for preventive services.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sahil Mittal
- Section of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas; Houston VA Health Services Research and Development Center of Excellence, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, Texas.
| | - Yu-Li Lin
- Department of Medicine and Sealy Center of Aging, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas
| | - Alai Tan
- Department of Medicine and Sealy Center of Aging, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas
| | - Yong-Fang Kuo
- Department of Medicine and Sealy Center of Aging, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas
| | - Hashem B El-Serag
- Section of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas; Houston VA Health Services Research and Development Center of Excellence, Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, Texas
| | - James S Goodwin
- Department of Medicine and Sealy Center of Aging, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Provider continuity prior to the diagnosis of advanced lung cancer and end-of-life care. PLoS One 2013; 8:e74690. [PMID: 24019974 PMCID: PMC3760849 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0074690] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/09/2013] [Accepted: 08/06/2013] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Little is known about the effect of provider continuity prior to the diagnosis of advanced lung cancer and end-of-life care. Methods Retrospective analysis of 69,247 Medicare beneficiaries aged 67 years or older diagnosed with Stage IIIB or IV lung cancer between January 1, 1993 and December 31, 2005 who died within two years of diagnosis. We examined visit patterns to a primary care physician (PCP) and/or any provider one year prior to the diagnosis of advanced lung cancer as measures of continuity of care. Outcome measures were hospitalization, ICU use and chemotherapy use during the last month of life, and hospice use during the last week of life. Results Seeing a PCP or any provider in the year prior to the diagnosis of advanced lung cancer increased the likelihood of hospitalization, ICU care, chemotherapy and hospice use during the end of life. Patients with 1–3, 4–7 or >7 visits to their PCP in the year prior to the diagnosis of lung cancer had 1.0 (reference), 1.08 (95% CI; 1.04–1.13), and 1.14 (95% CI; 1.08–1.19) odds of hospitalization during the last month of life, respectively. Odds of hospice use during the last week of life were higher in patients with visits to multiple PCPs (OR 1.10: 95% CI; 1.06–1.15) compared to those whose visits were all to the same PCP. Conclusion Provider continuity in the year prior to the diagnosis of advanced lung cancer was not associated with lower use of aggressive care during end of life. Our study did not have information on patient preferences and result should be interpreted accordingly.
Collapse
|
6
|
Current world literature. Curr Opin Endocrinol Diabetes Obes 2012; 19:142-7. [PMID: 22374141 DOI: 10.1097/med.0b013e3283520fe6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
|