Search

The management of patients with stable coronary disease and intermediate- or high-risk features on single photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (SPECT MPI) continues to be controversial as to whether they should be treated with an initial invasive strategy (catheterization and revascularization when feasible) or medical therapy alone to improve mortality. We performed a retrospective observational study of 1,946 patients with intermediate- or high-risk SPECT MPI scans performed over a 6-year period (from 2014 to 2019). Each patient was followed from the time of SPECT MPI to 16 months after the last patient was enrolled. The primary end point was all-cause mortality and the secondary end point cardiovascular mortality. Of the eligible 1,697 patients, 1,144 had an intermediate-risk scan, 553 a high-risk scan, 915 had medical therapy alone, and 782 went on an initial invasive strategy. All patients were divided into the following three groups: combined SPECT MPI (both intermediate- and high-risk), high-risk SPECT MPI, and intermediate-risk SPECT MPI groups. After propensity score matching, there was a statistically significant difference in cardiovascular death (5.9% vs 2.7%; p = 0.038) in the medical therapy cohort compared with initial invasive cohort in the combined SPECT MPI group, but no difference in all-cause death (15.7% vs 13%; p = 0.318). On subgroup analysis, in intermediate-risk SPECT MPI group, there was no significant difference in either all-cause death (13.8 vs 11.7%; p = 0.583) or cardiac death (5.4% vs 2.5%; p = 0.16) in conservative cohort compared with invasive strategy cohort. In high-risk SPECT MPI group, conservative therapy cohort had higher cardiac death (11.7% vs 2.5%; p = 0.002) compared with initial invasive strategy cohort, but there was no significant difference in all-cause death (24.5% vs 15.3%; p = 0.052). In conclusion, this study supports that patients with intermediate- or high-risk SPECT MPI scans when considered together or only with high-risk features, derive a cardiovascular mortality benefit with an initial invasive strategy. Patients who had undergone intermediate-risk SPECT MPI had similar outcomes with either medical therapy alone or initial invasive evaluation.

The ACC/AHA blood cholesterol treatment guidelines recommend statin therapy for all patients after experiencing an acute cardiovascular event. Previous analyses have shown that physicians have been slow to adopt guidelines, and many patients remain untreated or undertreated with statins after a cardiovascular event. However, reasons for this remain unknown. This analysis used electronic medical records and patient chart data from Reliant Medical Group (Worcester, Massachusetts) to evaluate physician adherence to the 2013 ACC/AHA blood cholesterol guidelines when treating patients with evidence of acute atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and the reasons for the observed treatment decisions. Less than 50% of acute atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease patients were treated according to the ACC/AHA guidelines. Nearly 42% of patients not treated according to guidelines received a lower statin intensity than recommended. The most common reason cited by 41.8% of physicians for treating with a statin intensity below the recommended intensity was low-density lipoprotein cholesterol stable or at goal, despite ACC/AHA guidelines recommending specific statin intensities rather than specific low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels. In conclusion, physician and patient education on the importance of maximizing lipid-lowering therapy in this high-risk patient population should be emphasized.

Background Patient reminders for influenza vaccination, delivered via an electronic health record patient portal and interactive voice response calls, offer an innovative approach to engaging patients and improving patient care. Objective The goal of this study was to test the effectiveness of portal and interactive voice response outreach in improving rates of influenza vaccination by targeting patients in early September, shortly after vaccinations became available. Methods Using electronic health record portal messages and interactive voice response calls promoting influenza vaccination, outreach was conducted in September 2015. Participants included adult patients within a large multispecialty group practice in central Massachusetts. Our main outcome was electronic health record–documented early influenza vaccination during the 2015-2016 influenza season, measured in November 2015. We randomly assigned all active portal users to 1 of 2 groups: (1) receiving a portal message promoting influenza vaccinations, listing upcoming clinics, and offering online scheduling of vaccination appointments (n=19,506) or (2) receiving usual care (n=19,505). We randomly assigned all portal nonusers to 1 of 2 groups: (1) receiving interactive voice response call (n=15,000) or (2) receiving usual care (n=43,596). The intervention also solicited patient self-reports on influenza vaccinations completed outside the clinic. Self-reported influenza vaccination data were uploaded into the electronic health records to increase the accuracy of existing provider-directed electronic health record clinical decision support (vaccination alerts) but were excluded from main analyses. Results Among portal users, 28.4% (5549/19,506) of those randomized to receive messages and 27.1% (5294/19,505) of the usual care group had influenza vaccinations documented by November 2015 (P=.004). In multivariate analysis of portal users, message recipients were slightly more likely to have documented vaccinations when compared to the usual care group (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02-1.12). Among portal nonusers, 8.4% (1262/15,000) of those randomized to receive calls and 8.2% (3586/43,596) of usual care had documented vaccinations (P=.47), and multivariate analysis showed nonsignificant differences. Over half of portal messages sent were opened (10,112/19,479; 51.9%), and over half of interactive voice response calls placed (7599/14,984; 50.7%) reached their intended target, thus we attained similar levels of exposure to the messaging for both interventions. Among portal message recipients, 25.4% of message openers (2570/10,112) responded to a subsequent question on receipt of influenza vaccination; among interactive voice response recipients, 72.5% of those reached (5513/7599) responded to a similar question. Conclusions Portal message outreach to a general primary care population achieved a small but statistically significant improvement in rates of influenza vaccination (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02-1.12). Interactive voice response calls did not significantly improve vaccination rates among portal nonusers (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96-1.10). Rates of patient engagement with both modalities were favorable. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02266277; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02266277

Patient reminders for influenza vaccination, delivered via electronic health record (EHR) patient portal messages and interactive voice response (IVR) calls, offer an innovative approach to improving patient care. To test the effectiveness of portal and IVR outreach in improving rates of influenza vaccination. Randomized controlled trial of EHR portal messages and IVR calls promoting influenza vaccination. Adults with no documented influenza vaccination 2 months after the start of influenza season (2014–2015). Using a factorial design, we assigned 20,000 patients who were active portal users to one of four study arms: (a) receipt of a portal message promoting influenza vaccines, (b) receipt of IVR call with similar content, (c) both a and b, or (d) neither (usual care). We randomized 10,000 non-portal users to receipt of IVR call or usual care. In all intervention arms, information on pneumococcal vaccination was included if the targeted patient was overdue for pneumococcal vaccine. EHR-documented influenza vaccination during the 2014–2015 influenza season, measured April 2015. Among portal users, 14.0% (702) of those receiving both portal messages and calls, 13.4% (669) of message recipients, 12.8% (642) of call recipients, and 11.6% (582) of those with usual care received vaccines. On multivariable analysis of portal users, those receiving portal messages alone (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.06–1.35) or IVR calls alone (OR 1.15 95% CI 1.02–1.30) were more likely than usual care recipients to be vaccinated. Those receiving both messages and calls were also more likely than the usual care group to be vaccinated (ad hoc analysis, using a Bonferroni correction: OR 1.29, 97.5% CI 1.13, 1.48). Among non-portal users, 8.5% of call recipients and 8.6% of usual care recipients received influenza vaccines (p = NS). Pneumococcal vaccination rates showed no significant improvement. Our outreach achieved a small but significant improvement in influenza vaccination rates. Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02266277 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02266277 ).

BACKGROUND Patient reminders for influenza vaccination, delivered via an electronic health record patient portal and interactive voice response calls, offer an innovative approach to engaging patients and improving patient care. OBJECTIVE The goal of this study was to test the effectiveness of portal and interactive voice response outreach in improving rates of influenza vaccination by targeting patients in early September, shortly after vaccinations became available. METHODS Using electronic health record portal messages and interactive voice response calls promoting influenza vaccination, outreach was conducted in September 2015. Participants included adult patients within a large multispecialty group practice in central Massachusetts. Our main outcome was electronic health record–documented early influenza vaccination during the 2015-2016 influenza season, measured in November 2015. We randomly assigned all active portal users to 1 of 2 groups: (1) receiving a portal message promoting influenza vaccinations, listing upcoming clinics, and offering online scheduling of vaccination appointments (n=19,506) or (2) receiving usual care (n=19,505). We randomly assigned all portal nonusers to 1 of 2 groups: (1) receiving interactive voice response call (n=15,000) or (2) receiving usual care (n=43,596). The intervention also solicited patient self-reports on influenza vaccinations completed outside the clinic. Self-reported influenza vaccination data were uploaded into the electronic health records to increase the accuracy of existing provider-directed electronic health record clinical decision support (vaccination alerts) but were excluded from main analyses. RESULTS Among portal users, 28.4% (5549/19,506) of those randomized to receive messages and 27.1% (5294/19,505) of the usual care group had influenza vaccinations documented by November 2015 (P=.004). In multivariate analysis of portal users, message recipients were slightly more likely to have documented vaccinations when compared to the usual care group (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02-1.12). Among portal nonusers, 8.4% (1262/15,000) of those randomized to receive calls and 8.2% (3586/43,596) of usual care had documented vaccinations (P=.47), and multivariate analysis showed nonsignificant differences. Over half of portal messages sent were opened (10,112/19,479; 51.9%), and over half of interactive voice response calls placed (7599/14,984; 50.7%) reached their intended target, thus we attained similar levels of exposure to the messaging for both interventions. Among portal message recipients, 25.4% of message openers (2570/10,112) responded to a subsequent question on receipt of influenza vaccination; among interactive voice response recipients, 72.5% of those reached (5513/7599) responded to a similar question. CONCLUSIONS Portal message outreach to a general primary care population achieved a small but statistically significant improvement in rates of influenza vaccination (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02-1.12). Interactive voice response calls did not significantly improve vaccination rates among portal nonusers (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96-1.10). Rates of patient engagement with both modalities were favorable. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02266277; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02266277

Background This paper describes a protocol for determining the incidence of serious fall injuries for Strategies to Reduce Injuries and Develop Confidence in Elders (STRIDE), a large, multicenter pragmatic clinical trial with limited resources for event adjudication. We describe how administrative data (from participating health systems and Medicare claims) can be used to confirm participant-reported events, with more time- and resource-intensive full-text medical record data used only on an “as-needed” basis. Methods STRIDE is a pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial involving 5451 participants age ≥ 70 and at increased risk for falls, served by 86 primary care practices in 10 US health systems. The STRIDE intervention involves a nurse falls care manager who assesses a participant’s underlying risks for falls, suggests interventions using motivational interviewing, and then creates, implements and longitudinally follows up on an individualized care plan with the participant (and caregiver when appropriate), in partnership with the participant’s primary care provider. STRIDE’s primary outcome is serious fall injuries, defined as a fall resulting in: (1) medical attention billable according to Medicare guidelines with a) fracture (excluding isolated thoracic vertebral and/or lumbar vertebral fracture), b) joint dislocation, or c) cut requiring closure; OR (2) overnight hospitalization with a) head injury, b) sprain or strain, c) bruising or swelling, or d) other injury determined to be “serious” (i.e., burn, rhabdomyolysis, or internal injury). Two sources of data are required to confirm a serious fall injury. The primary data source is the participant’s self-report of a fall leading to medical attention, identified during telephone interview every 4 months, with the confirmatory source being (1) administrative data capturing encounters at the participating health systems or Medicare claims and/or (2) the full text of medical records requested only as needed. Discussion Adjudication is ongoing, with over 1000 potentially qualifying events adjudicated to date. Administrative data can be successfully used for adjudication, as part of a hybrid approach that retrieves full-text medical records only when needed. With the continued refinement and availability of administrative data sources, future studies may be able to use administrative data completely in lieu of medical record review to maximize the quality of adjudication with finite resources. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02475850). Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s40621-019-0190-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objectives Older adults are often transferred from hospitals to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) for post-acute care. Patients may be at risk for adverse outcomes after SNF discharges, but little research has focused on this period. Design Assessment of the feasibility of a transitional care intervention based on a combination of manual information transmission and health information technology to provide automated alert messages to primary care physicians and staff; pre-post analysis to assess potential impact. Setting A multispecialty group practice. Participants Adults aged 65 and older, discharged from SNFs to home; comparison group drawn from SNF discharges during the previous 1.5 years, matched on facility, patient age, and sex. Measurements For the pre-post analysis, we tracked rehospitalization within 30 days after discharge and adverse drug events within 45 days. Results The intervention was developed and implemented with manual transmission of information between 8 SNFs and the group practice followed by entry into the electronic health record. The process required a 5-day delay during which a large portion of the adverse events occurred. Over a 1-year period, automated alert messages were delivered to physicians and staff for the 313 eligible patients discharged from the 8 SNFs to home. We compared outcomes to those of individually matched discharges from the previous 1.5 years and found similar percentages with 30-day rehospitalizations (31% vs 30%, adjusted HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.80–1.4). Within the adverse drug event (ADE) study, 30% of the discharges during the intervention period and 30% of matched discharges had ADEs within 45 days. Conclusion Older adults discharged from SNFs are at high risk of adverse outcomes immediately following discharge. Simply providing alerts to outpatient physicians, especially if delivered multiple days after discharge, is unlikely to have any impact on reducing these rates.

Background: Clinical decision support (CDS), including computerized reminders for providers and patients, can improve health outcomes. CDS promoting influenza vaccination, delivered directly to patients via an electronic health record (EHR) patient portal and interactive voice recognition (IVR) calls, offers an innovative approach to improving patient care. Objective: To test the effectiveness of an EHR patient portal and IVR outreach to improve rates of influenza vaccination in a large multispecialty group practice in central Massachusetts. Methods: We describe a nonblinded, randomized controlled trial of EHR patient portal messages and IVR calls designed to promote influenza vaccination. In our preparatory phase, we conducted qualitative interviews with patients, providers, and staff to inform development of EHR portal messages with embedded questionnaires and IVR call scripts. We also provided practice-wide education on influenza vaccines to all physicians and staff members, including information on existing vaccine-specific EHR CDS. Outreach will target adult patients who remain unvaccinated for more than 2 months after the start of the influenza season. Using computer-generated randomization and a factorial design, we will assign 20,000 patients who are active users of electronic patient portals to one of the 4 study arms: (1) receipt of a portal message promoting influenza vaccines and offering online appointment scheduling; (2) receipt of an IVR call with similar content but without appointment facilitation; (3) both (1) and (2); or (4) neither (1) nor (2) (usual care). We will randomize patients without electronic portals (10,000 patients) to (1) receipt of IVR call or (2) usual care. Both portal messages and IVR calls promote influenza vaccine completion. Our primary outcome is percentage of eligible patients with influenza vaccines administered at our group practice during the 2014-15 influenza season. Both outreach methods also solicit patient self-report on influenza vaccinations completed outside the clinic or on barriers to influenza vaccination. Self-reported data from both outreach modes will be uploaded into the EHR to increase accuracy of existing provider-directed EHR CDS (vaccine alerts). Results: With our proposed sample size and using a factorial design, power calculations using baseline vaccination rate estimates indicated that 4286 participants per arm would give 80% power to detect a 3% improvement in influenza vaccination rates between groups (α=.05; 2-sided). Intention-to-treat unadjusted chi-square analyses will be performed to assess the impact of portal messages, either alone or in combination with the IVR call, on influenza vaccination rates. The project was funded in January 2014. Patient enrollment for the project described here completed in December 2014. Data analysis is currently under way and first results are expected to be submitted for publication in 2016. Conclusions: If successful, this study’s intervention may be adapted by other large health care organizations to increase vaccination rates among their eligible patients. ClinicalTrial: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02266277; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02266277 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6fbLviHLH).