Web-based proactive system to improve breast cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Screening mammography is recommended for early detection of breast cancer but screening rates remain suboptimal. METHODS: A primary care portal for a large academic primary practice was developed for all preventive services. Another Web-based system (PRECARES [PREventive CAre REminder System]) was developed for appointment secretaries to manage proactive breast cancer screening. Female patients aged 40 to 75 years were randomly assigned to a control group (usual care) and an intervention group. For the intervention group, 2 monthly letters inviting patients to undergo mammography were sent starting 3 months before they were due for annual screening, followed by a telephone call to nonresponding patients. A subgroup of women employees was further randomized to receive a reminder by either US mail or e-mail. RESULTS: Of the total eligible population of 6665 women identified as having consented to participate in research, 3339 were randomly assigned to the control group and 3326 to the intervention group. The screening rate for annual mammography was 64.3% for the intervention group and 55.3% for the control group (P <.001). There were no significant differences between the 2 groups for any of the other adult preventive services. For the employee subgroup, the screening rate was 57.5% for the control group, 68.1% for the US mail group, and 72.2% for the e-mail group (intervention vs control, P <.001; e-mail vs US mail; P = .24). CONCLUSION: The breast cancer screening rate improved significantly with the practice redesign of having appointment secretaries proactively manage breast cancer screening needs.     

Research and applications: Patient-generated secure messages and eVisits on a patient portal: are patients at risk?

Background

Patient portals are becoming increasingly common, but the safety of patient messages and eVisits has not been well studied. Unlike patient-to-nurse telephonic communication, patient messages and eVisits involve an asynchronous process that could be hazardous if patients were using it for time-sensitive symptoms such as chest pain or dyspnea.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 7322 messages (6430 secure messages and 892 eVisits). To assess the overall risk associated with the messages, we looked for deaths within 30 days of the message and hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits within 7 days following the message. We also examined message content for symptoms of chest pain, breathing concerns, and other symptoms associated with high risk.

Results

Two deaths occurred within 30 days of a patient-generated message, but were not related to the message. There were six hospitalizations related to a previous secure message (0.09% of secure messages), and two hospitalizations related to a previous eVisit (0.22% of eVisits). High-risk symptoms were present in 3.5% of messages but a subject line search to identify these high-risk messages had a sensitivity of only 15% and a positive predictive value of 29%.

Conclusions

Patients use portal messages 3.5% of the time for potentially high-risk symptoms of chest pain, breathing concerns, abdominal pain, palpitations, lightheadedness, and vomiting. Death, hospitalization, or an ED visit was an infrequent outcome following a secure message or eVisit. Screening the message subject line for high-risk symptoms was not successful in identifying high-risk message content.     

Patient portal doldrums: does an exam room promotional video during an office visit increase patient portal registrations and portal use?

The patient portal is a web service which allows patients to view their electronic health record, communicate online with their care teams, and manage healthcare appointments and medications. Despite advantages of the patient portal, registrations for portal use have often been slow. Using a secure video system on our existing exam room electronic health record displays during regular office visits, the authors showed patients a video which promoted use of the patient portal. The authors compared portal registrations and portal use following the video to providing a paper instruction sheet and to a control (no additional portal promotion). From the 12,050 office appointments examined, portal registrations within 45 days of the appointment were 11.7%, 7.1%, and 2.5% for video, paper instructions, and control respectively (p<0.0001). Within 6 months following the interventions, 3.5% in the video cohort, 1.2% in the paper, and 0.75% of the control patients demonstrated portal use by initiating portal messages to their providers (p<0.0001).     

Effect of visit length and a clinical decision support tool on abdominal aortic aneurysm screening rates in a primary care practice

Rationale, aims and objectives In 2005, the US Preventive Services Task Force issued recommendations for one‐time abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening using abdominal ultrasonography in men aged 65 to 75 years with a history of smoking. However, despite a mortality rate of up to 80% for ruptured AAAs, providers order the screening for a minority of patients. We examined AAA screening rates among providers and investigated the role of visit duration and other factors in whether patients received screening. We also looked for potential interventions to improve compliance. Methods We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients who visited our clinic over a 4‐month period and met the US Preventive Services Task Force criteria for AAA screening when our practice had a real‐time decision support tool implemented to identify patients due for the screening. We also surveyed our clinic's providers about their knowledge and attitudes regarding AAA screening. Results Despite the use of physician reminders, providers ordered screening for only 12.9% of eligible patients. Screening was more likely to be ordered during longer visits versus shorter ones (24% vs. 6%). When surveyed, most providers (70.6%) indicated that a nurse‐directed ordering system would improve compliance. Conclusions This study illustrates that physician reminders alone are not sufficient to improve care and that more time is needed for preventive services. This provides additional support for the use of a multidisciplinary approach to preventive screening, as in a patient‐centred medical home. In a patient‐centred medical home, a care team of physicians, nurses and office staff use technology such as clinical decision support to provide comprehensive, coordinated patient care.     

Use of a Web-based clinical decision support system to improve abdominal aortic aneurysm screening in a primary care practice

Rationale, aims and objectives The United States Preventive Services Task Force recommends a one‐time screening for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) with ultrasonography for men aged 65 to 75 years who have ever smoked. However, despite a mortality rate of up to 80% for ruptured AAAs, providers order the screening for a minority of patients. We sought to determine the effect of a Web‐based point‐of‐care clinical decision support system on AAA screening rates in a primary care practice. Methods We conducted a retrospective review of medical records of male patients aged 65 to 75 years who were seen at any of our practice sites in 2007 and 2008, before and after implementation of the clinical decision support system. Results Overall screening rates were 31.36% in 2007 and 44.09% in 2008 (P‐value: <0.001). Of patients who had not had AAA screening prior to the visit, 3.22% completed the screening after the visit in 2007, compared with 18.24% in 2008 when the clinical support system was implemented, 5.36 times improvement (P‐value: <0.001). Conclusions A Web‐based clinical decision support for primary care physicians significantly improved delivery of AAA screening of eligible patients. Carefully developed clinical decision support systems can optimize care delivery, ensuring that important preventive services are delivered to eligible patients.     

Intravenous bamlanivimab use associates with reduced hospitalization in high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19

BACKGROUNDClinical data to support the use of bamlanivimab for the treatment of outpatients with mild to moderate coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) are needed.METHODS2335 Patients who received single-dose bamlanivimab infusion between November 12, 2020, and February 17, 2021, were compared with a propensity-matched control of 2335 untreated patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 at Mayo Clinic facilities across 4 states. The primary outcome was the rate of hospitalization at days 14, 21, and 28.RESULTSThe median age of the population was 63 years; 47.3% of the bamlanivimab-treated cohort were 65 years or more; 49.3% were female and 50.7% were male. High-risk characteristics included hypertension (54.2%), BMI greater than or equal to 35 (32.4%), diabetes mellitus (26.5%), chronic lung disease (25.1%), malignancy (16.6%), and renal disease (14.5%). Patients who received bamlanivimab had lower all-cause hospitalization rates at days 14 (1.5% vs. 3.5%; risk ratio [RR], 0.41), 21 (1.9% vs. 3.9%; RR, 0.49), and 28 (2.5% vs. 3.9%; RR, 0.63). Secondary exploratory outcomes included lower intensive care unit (ICU) admission rates at days 14 (0.14% vs. 1%; RR, 0.14), 21 (0.25% vs.1%; RR, 0.25), and 28 (0.56% vs.1.1%; RR. 0.51) and lower all-cause mortality at days 14 (0% vs. 0.33%), 21 (0.05% vs. 0.4%; RR,0.13), and 28 (0.11% vs. 0.44%; RR, 0.26). Adverse events were uncommon with bamlanivimab, occurring in 19 of 2355 patients, and were most commonly fever (n = 6), nausea (n = 5), and lightheadedness (n = 3).CONCLUSIONSAmong high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, treatment with bamlanivimab was associated with a statistically significant lower rate of hospitalization, ICU admission, and mortality compared with usual care.FUNDINGMayo Clinic.     

Predictors of osteoporosis screening completion rates in a primary care practice

The United States Preventive Services Task Force and the National Osteoporosis Foundation recommend routine osteoporosis screening for women aged 65 years or older. Previous studies have shown that the use of a clinical decision-support tool significantly improves screening rates. In a recently published study, a statistically significant improvement was found in the screening rates for eligible women with use of the tool. To evaluate whether a clinical decision-support tool independently predicts completion of osteoporosis screening tests and to identify predictors of screening completion, we examined the records of 2462 female patients who were eligible for osteoporosis screening but had no prior baseline screening and who were seen in our primary care practices in 2007 and 2008. Patient and provider characteristics and clinic visit type were identified, and their association with screening test completion was statistically analyzed using both univariate and multivariate models. Screening completion rates increased significantly from 2007 to 2008. Factors associated with increased likelihood of screening completion included race, marital status, residence, presence of comorbidity (cancer, rheumatologic disease), and the year and type of visit. Screening was less likely for women aged 80 years or older. The use of a point-of-care decision-support tool not only improved osteoporosis screening rates significantly but appeared to be an independent predictor of screening completion. It potentially can facilitate the systematic and effective delivery of preventive health services to patients in the primary care setting.