Dr. Khera[/caption]
Rohan Khera MD
Division of Cardiology
University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
Texas
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Response: An increasing number of studies have used administrative claims (or billing) data to study in-hospital cardiac arrest with the goal of understanding differences in incidence and outcomes at hospitals that are not part of quality improvement initiatives like the American Heart Association’s Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation (AHA’s GWTG-Resuscitation). These studies have important implications for health policies and determining targets for interventions for improving the care of patients with this cardiac arrest, where only in 1 in 5 patient survive the hospitalization.
Therefore, in our study, we evaluated the validity of such an approach. We used data from 56,678 patients in AHA’s GWTG-Resuscitation with a confirmed in-hospital cardiac arrest, which were linked to Medicare claims data. We found:
(1) While most prior studies have used a diagnosis or procedure code alone to identify cases of in-hospital cardiac arrest, we found that the majority of confirmed cases in a national registry (AHA’s GWTG-Resuscitation) would not be captured using either administrative data strategy.
(2) Survival rates using administrative data to identify cases from the same reference population varied markedly and were 52% higher (28.4% vs. 18.7%) when using diagnosis codes alone to identify in-hospital cardiac arrest.
(3) There was large hospital variation in documenting diagnosis or procedure codes for patients with in-hospital cardiac arrest, which would have consequences for using administrative data to examine hospital-level variation in cardiac arrest incidence or survival, or conducting single-center studies to validate this administrative approach.
Dr. Ratanawongsa[/caption]
Neda Ratanawongsa, MD, MPH
Associate Chief Health Informatics Officer for Ambulatory Services, San Francisco Health Network
Associate Professor, Division of General Internal Medicine
UCSF Center for Vulnerable Populations
Physician, Richard H. Fine People's Clinic (RHPC)
Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital
San Francisco, CA 94110
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Response: U.S. federal incentives allowed many safety net healthcare systems to afford fully functional electronic health record systems (EHRs). Although EHRs can help clinicians provide care to vulnerable populations, clinicians may struggle with managing the EHR workload, particularly in resource-limited settings. In addition, clinicians’ use of EHRs during clinic visits may affect how they communicate with patients.
There are two forms of EHR use during clinic visits. Clinicians can multitask, for example, by ordering laboratory tests while chatting with a patient about baseball. However, like distracted driving, using EHRs while talking with increases risks – in this case, the risk of errors in patient-provider communication or in the EHR task. Alternatively, clinicians can use EHRs in complete silence, which may be appropriate for high-risk tasks like prescribing insulin. However, silence during visits has been associated with lower patient satisfaction and less patient-centered communication.
So we studied how primary and specialty care clinicians used EHRs during visits with English- and Spanish-speaking patients in a safety net system with an EHR certified for Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services meaningful use incentive programs. We found that multitasking EHR use was more common than silent EHR use (median of 30.5% vs. 4.6% of visit time). Focused patient-clinician talk comprised one-third of visit time.
We also examined the transitions into and out of silent EHR use. Sometimes clinicians explicitly stated a need to focus on the EHR, but at times, clinicians drifted into silence without warning. Patients played a role in breaking silent EHR use, either by introducing small talk or by bringing up their health concerns.
Dr. Guirgis[/caption]
Faheem Guirgis MD
Assistant Professor of Emergency Medicine
Department of Emergency Medicine
Division of Research
UF Health Jacksonville
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Response: Sepsis is quite prevalent among hospitals and the incidence is increasing. It is a life-threatening disease that can lead to poor outcomes if patients are not recognized and treated promptly. We recognized that our institution needed a strategic approach to the problem of sepsis, therefore the Sepsis Committee was created with the goal of creating a comprehensive sepsis program.
We developed a system for sepsis recognition and rapid care delivery that would work in any area of the hospital. We found that we reduced overall mortality from sepsis, the number of patients requiring mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit length and overall hospital length of stay, and the charges to the patient by approximately $7000 per patient.
Dr. Ge Bai[/caption]
Ge Bai, PhD, CPA
Assistant Professor
The Johns Hopkins Carey Business School
Washington, DC 20036
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Response: We examined the hospital data breaches between 2009 and 2016 and found that larger hospitals and hospitals that have a major teaching mission have a higher risk of data breaches.
Neil Smiley[/caption]
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Neil Smiley
CEO of Loopback Analytics
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for Loopback Analytics? What are the problems Loopback Analytics is attempting to mitigate?
Response: Loopback Analytics (Loopback) is a Software-as-a-Service company that provides event-driven population health management. Founded in 2009, Loopback integrates and manages diverse data sources to support predictive analytics and intervention solutions to address health reform reimbursement challenges with the goal of achieving the Triple Aim – better care, better health and lower costs.
Loopback enabled intervention solutions address key challenges associated with value-based care, such as reducing avoidable hospitalizations, high emergency department utilization, medication adherence and optimization of post-acute care networks.
Dr. Dobscha[/caption]
Steven K. Dobscha, M.D.
Professor, Department of Psychiatry, OHSU
Director, VAPORHCS Center to Improve Veteran Involvement in Care
Oregon Health & Science University
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study?
Response: Several health care systems across the United States now offer patients online access to all of their clinical notes (sometimes referred to as progress notes) through electronic health record portals; this type of access has been referred to as OpenNotes (see www.opennotes.org for more information on the national OpenNotes initiative). Veterans have been able to use OpenNotes in the Veterans Health Care (VHA) system since 2013. However, some individuals have expressed concern that online access to clinical notes related to mental health could cause some patient harms.
We are conducting a VA-funded research project with several objectives:
1) to examine benefits and unintended negative consequences of OpenNotes use as perceived by veterans receiving VHA mental health care and by VHA mental health clinicians, and
2) to develop and evaluate brief web-based courses designed to help veterans and clinicians use OpenNotes in ways that optimize Veteran-clinician collaboration and minimize unintended consequences.
Dr. Adam Sharp[/caption]
Adam L. Sharp MD MS
Research Scientist/Emergency Physician
Kaiser Permanente Southern California
Kaiser Permanente Research
Department of Research & Evaluation
Pasadena, CA 91101
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study?
Response: Millions of head computed tomography (CT) scans are ordered annually in U.S. emergency Departments (EDs), but the extent of avoidable imaging is poorly defined. Ensuring appropriate use is important to ensure patient outcomes and limited resources are optimized. A large number of stake holders have highlighted the need to reduce “unnecessary” CT scanning as part of their recommendations for the Choosing Wisely campaign. However, despite calls for improved stewardship, the extent of avoidable CT use among adults with minor trauma in community EDs is not known.
The Canadian CT Head Rule (CCHR) is perhaps the most studied of many validated decision instruments designed to assist providers in evaluating patients with minor head trauma. This study aims to describe the scope of overuse of CT imaging by ED providers in cases where application of the CCHR could have avoided imaging.
Secondarily, we sought to describe the extent to which avoidable CTs, if averted, would have resulted in “missed” intracranial hemorrhages requiring a neurosurgical intervention.
Dr. Ilya Likhterov[/caption]
Ilya Likhterov, MD
Assistant Professor, Otolaryngology
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Response: As our understanding of thyroid cancer improves, the way these patients are diagnosed and treated is changing. It is difficult for clinicians to incorporate every individual scientific study into their practice. These studies are numerous and the results can be conflicting.
To address this difficulty, organizations such as the American Thyroid Association (ATA) create summary recommendations that account for the latest research and translate it into a format that is easily usable for physicians. Such clinical practice guidelines are available not just for thyroid cancer care, but in many other fields. The difficulty however, is how to ensure that clinicians have access to the guidelines and incorporate the recommendations into their practice.
There are a number of barriers to actually using the guidelines in practice, and we attempt to identify strategies on how to overcome these.
Dr. Michael Murray[/caption]
Michael F. Murray MD
Geisinger Health System
Danville, PA 17822
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Response: The DiscovEHR cohort was formed as a result of a research collaboration between Geisinger Health System and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. There are over 50,000 patient participants in the cohort who have volunteered to have their de-identified genomic sequence data linked to their de-identified EHR data for research purposes. We report in this paper findings around the identification of 229 individuals (1:256) with pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants in one of the three genes (LDLR, APOB, PCSK9) associated with Familial Hypercholesterolemia (FH). The study found that these individuals are unlikely to carry a diagnosis of FH and are at risk for early coronary artery disease.
Dr. Jashvant Poeran[/caption]
Jashvant Poeran MD PhD
Assistant Professor
Dept. of Population Health Science & Policy
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
New York, NY
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study?
Response: Falls are an important patient safety issue among elderly patients and may lead to extended hospitalization and patient harm. Particularly important in elderly patients are high risk drugs such as sleep medications which are known to increase fall risk and should be dosed lower in elderly patients.
In this study we looked at patients aged 65 years or older who fell during hospitalization. We found that in 62%, patients had been given at least one high risk medication that was linked to fall risk, within 24 hours before their fall. Interestingly, we found that also a substantial proportion of these medications were given at doses higher than generally recommended for elderly patients.
Dr. Lee Kallenbach[/caption]
Lee Kallenbach, PhD, MPH
Principal Investigator
Practice Fusion
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study?
Response: Clinical inertia, or the tendency for patients and providers to continue using the same course of treatment even when clinical markers may suggest that treatment intensification is necessary, is an ongoing factor that can contribute to inadequate diabetes care. This is especially true when the treatment intensification may involve a switch from an oral medication to an injectable medication. It is less challenging for a patient to take a pill than it is to give themselves a shot.
Even with all the new diabetes treatments available, clinical inertia is still common among patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes (T2D). To further understand the extent of clinical inertia among patients with T2D, the study assessed treatment intensification patterns and associated demographic and clinical characteristics for patients with uncontrolled T2D who were already taking two or more oral anti-diabetes medications.
The study consisted of a retrospective observational analysis leveraging data from Practice Fusion’s de-identified clinical database, which includes more than 38 million records, representing 6.7 percent of all practices across the United States.1 Using a cohort of 25,365 de-identified records, we studied the care given by providers in independent practices to patients in need of intensifying their antidiabetic therapy for managing T2D. To our knowledge, this is one of the largest real world evidence (RWE) studies of T2D that has leveraged a de-identified clinical database from an electronic health record (EHR) platform.
Dr. Douglas Krakower[/caption]
Douglas Krakower, MD
Infectious Disease Division
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
Boston, MA,
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Response: There are 45,000 new HIV infections in the US annually, so effective HIV prevention strategies are needed. HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), whereby a person who is HIV-uninfected uses an HIV treatment medication on a daily basis to protect themselves from becoming infected with HIV, is over 90% effective when taken with high adherence. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that there are 1.2 million Americans who are likely to benefit from using PrEP. However, only 80,000 persons have been prescribed PrEP. One of the barriers to implementing PrEP is that clinicians face challenges with identifying persons who are most likely to benefit from PrEP, given infrequent sexual health history assessments during routine clinical care. We thus sought to develop an automated algorithm that uses structured data from electronic health records (EHRs) to identify patients who are most likely to benefit from using PrEP. Our methods included extracting potentially relevant EHR data for patients with incident HIV and without HIV from nearly a decade of EHR data from a large ambulatory practice in Massachusetts. We then used machine learning algorithms to predict HIV infection in those with incident HIV and those without HIV. We found that some algorithms could offer clinically useful predictive power to identify persons who were more likely to become infected with HIV as compared to controls. When we applied these algorithms to the general population and identified a subset of about 1% of the population with risk scores above an inflection point in the total distribution of risk scores; these persons may be appropriate for HIV testing and/or discussions about PrEP.
Dr. Saul Blecker,[/caption]
Saul Blecker, MD, MHS
Department of Population Health
New York University Langone School of Medicine,
New York, NY 10016
Saul.Blecker@nyumc.org
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Response: The identification of conditions or diseases in the electronic health record (EHR) is critical in clinical practice, for quality improvement, and for clinical interventions. Today, a disease such as heart failure is typically identified in real-time using a “problem list”, i.e., a list of conditions for each patient that is maintained by his or her providers, or using simple rules drawn from structured data. In this study, we examined the comparative benefit of using more sophisticated approaches for identifying hospitalized patients with heart failure.
Prof. Tom Marshall[/caption]
Tom Marshall, PhD, MRCGP, FFPH
Professor of public health and primary care
Institute of Applied Health Research
University of Birmingham
Edgbaston, Birmingham
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Response: Shortly before the Health Checks programme began, a programme of targeted case finding was set up in Sandwell in the West Midlands. In general practices in the area a programme nurse searched electronic medical records to identify untreated patients at high risk of cardiovascular disease. The nurse then invited high risk patients for assessment in the practice and those who needed treatment were referred to their GP for further action.
This was implemented in stages across 26 general practices, allowing it to be evaluated as a stepped wedge randomised controlled trial. The programme was successful, resulting in a 15.5% increase in the number of untreated high risk patients started on either antihypertensives or statins.
Dr. Stephanie Mueller[/caption]
Stephanie Mueller, MD MPH FHM
Division of General Medicine
Brigham and Women's Hospital
Boston, MA 02120
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study?
Response: Failures in communication among healthcare personnel are known threats to patient safety, and occur all too commonly during times of care transition, such as when patient care responsibility is transferred from one provider to another (i.e., handoff). Such failures in communication put patients at risk for adverse outcomes.
Dr. Daniel Murphy[/caption]
Daniel R. Murphy MD MBA
Assistant Professor - Interim Director of GIM at Baylor Clinic
Department of Medicine
Health Svc Research & General Internal Medicine
Baylor College of Medicine
Houston, TX, US
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Dr. Murphy: Electronic health records (EHRs) have enabled a large number of messages to be transmitted to physicians each day, including new types of messages that were not present in the pre-EHR era. Lack of support and policies to assist physicians with this workload creates opportunities for important information, such as abnormal tests results, to be missed among the vast amount of other information. We found that primary care physicians (PCPs) at three clinics using commercial EHRs received an average of 77 messages per day, of which only about 20% were test results. Specialists received an average of 29 total messages per day. Extrapolating time needed to process these messages from prior work suggests that PCPs would require an average of 67 minutes per day to process these messages.
Dr. Shayna Henry[/caption]
Shayna L. Henry, PhD
Postdoctoral Research Fellow
Department of Research & Evaluation
Kaiser Permanente Southern California
Medical Research: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Dr. Henry: In this study, we analyzed the electronic health records of 838,638 Kaiser Permanente members in Southern California. We decided to conduct this study because Kaiser Permanente always strives to advance standards of excellence for care, and even with all the outreach resources available to health care providers and staff, gaps in preventive care still arise. It can be hard to get patients engaged in managing their preventive care, because there are so many tasks for them to keep track of – many of which don’t happen on a very regular basis. Online patient portals have been very useful at helping patients get more engaged in their care, but patients still have to make the first move, and put all the pieces together. Our tool, the Online Personal Action Plan (oPAP), puts our members’ health status and preventive and chronic care tasks in a single dashboard, and alerts them via email to their upcoming care needs, prompting them to log in, view their upcoming health care tasks such as annual vaccinations, tests and blood draws for chronic conditions, and routine cancer screenings, and make the necessary medical appointments to close those gaps in care. We wanted to better understand if having access to the oPAP tools was associated with a higher likelihood of taking care of those outstanding health care tasks in a timely manner.
We found that members who used oPAP were more likely to get a mammogram, Pap smear, receive colorectal cancer screenings, and more likely to complete HbA1c testing for diabetes within 90 days of their coming due compared to members who were not registered on our patient portal.
Mr. Noel Eldridge[/caption]
Mr. Noel Eldridge
Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Medical Research: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Mr. Eldridge: We used existing data on adverse events from the Medicare Patient Safety Monitoring System, which AHRQ, CMS, and Qualidigm have been analyzing for years, and focused on the question as to whether rates of the adverse event measures were higher or lower in patients whose charts indicated that they had been treated with a full electronic health record (EHR) or a partial EHR during their inpatient stay.
The main finding was that the adverse event rates were lower in the full EHR patients. We saw three different diagnosis groups of patients (cardiovascular, pneumonia, and major surgery), and looked at combined rates for all adverse event types, as well as for four combined subtypes separately: hospital-acquired infections, adverse drug events, post-procedural events, and falls and pressure ulcers combined. Not all of our findings were what people unfamiliar with our measures would have expected.
Dr. David Ouyang[/caption]
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
David Ouyang MD
Department of Internal Medicine
Stanford University School of Medicine
Stanford, California
Medical Research: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Dr. Ouyang: In American teaching hospitals, trainee resident physicians are an integral part of the medical team in performing procedures, writing notes, and coordinating care. As more care is being facilitated by electronic medical record (EMR) systems, we are just now finally able to understand how much residents work and how residents spend their time. In our study, we examined the types and timing of electronic actions performed on the EMR system by residents and found that residents spend about a third (36%) of their day in front of the computer and frequently perform many simultaneous tasks across the charts of multiple patients. Additionally, residents often do work long hours, with a median of 69.2 hours per week when on the inpatient medicine service.
Dr. Ratanawongsa[/caption]
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Neda Ratanawongsa, MD, MPH
CMIO for CareLinkSF
Associate Professor, Division of General Internal Medicine
UCSF Center for Vulnerable Populations
Physician, Richard H. Fine People's Clinic (RHPC)
San Francisco, CA 94110
Medical Research: What is the background for this study?
Dr. Ratanawongsa: Many people are concerned about the growing intrusion of computers into the patient-provider relationship. Touted as systems that will make care safer and more cost-effective, electronic health records (EHRs) have proliferated rapidly across the country, fueled by HITECH funding. However, some health care professionals feel like computers keep them from connecting with their patients. Also prior research has shown that computer use can change communication in the exam room and shift agenda from patients' concerns toward medical talk.
Safety net patients already face communication barriers in routine care, particularly language and literacy barriers. Although EHRs could help improve care and communication with these vulnerable patients by helping clinicians fill in the gaps (e.g., what happened in the ED, what medication were you given by that specialist), EHRs could also worsen communication by drawing clinicians' focus away from patients during visits.
Dr. Enriquez[/caption]
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Jonathan R. Enriquez, MD
Assistant Professor of Medicine
Division of Cardiology
University of Missouri- Kansas City
Director, Coronary Care Unit
Truman Medical Center
Medical Research: What is the background for this study?
Dr. Enriquez:
Dr. Franco[/caption]
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
Dr. Pablo Moreno Franco MD
Assistant Professor of Medicine
MAYO Clinic
Medical Research: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Dr. Pablo Franco: Early alerts and prompt management of patient with severe sepsis and septic shock (SS/S) starting in the emergency department (ED) have been shown to improve mortality and other pertinent outcomes. With this in mind, we formed a multidisciplinary sepsis and shock response team (SSRT) in September 2013. Automated electronic sniffer alerted ED providers for possible sepsis and when S/SS was identified, they were encouraged to activate SSRT.
Two blinded reviewers retrospectively abstracted data on clinical trajectory and outcomes of all patients with sepsis and SS/S admitted at a single academic medical center between September 2013 and September 2014. Given importance of timely recognition and interventions in S/SS, we specifically focused on 2 periods: 0-4 hours and 4-12 hours after hospital admission. Additionally, we compared the compliance to “standard of care” between the SSRT pre-implementation period and the study period.
There were 167 patients admitted with sepsis, among which there were 3 SSRT activations and sepsis mortality was 3.6%. There were 176 patients with SS, SSRT was called in 42 (23%) and SS mortality was 8.5%. CCS was involved in 66 patients and mortality was 6.9% if SSRT was activated, versus 21.6% if SSRT was not activated. There were 76 patients with septic shock, SSRT was called in 44 (57%) and septic shock mortality was 25%. Critical Care Service (CCS) was involved in 68 patients and mortality rates with and without SSRT were 30.9% and 15.4%, respectively. The all-or-none compliance with applicable goals of resuscitation improved from the baseline 0% to over 50% at the study period end. Overall observed/expected sepsis mortality index improved from 1.38 pre-SSRT to 0.68 post-SSRT implementation.
Talley Holman, PhD, MBA
Senior eHealth Systems Analyst, Practice Advancement
American Academy of Family Physicians
Leawood, KS 66211 and
John Beasley MD
Professor of Family Medicine
School of Medicine and Public Health and the
Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering
University of Wisconsin Madison, WI
Medical Research: What is the background for this study?
Dr. Holman: From an engineering standpoint, tools such as EHRs are designed based on objectives, and the workflows that are created are developed to achieve those objectives. In health care, workflows have not been well understood, so designers have made assumptions when pressed to create tools to address specific situations, problems, or issues. However, the effectiveness of many of these tools is lacking, based on feedback. This led us to take a step back and ask if there is a standard workflow, and if so, what is it?
Dr. Beasley: Physicians (and staff) have noted that the EHR is not doing a good job of supporting their work - and changes are made that appear to disrupt the physician’s workflow. There appears to have been an assumption on the part of designers/implementers that workflow is linear.