Search

Introduction: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in the U.S. Combusted tobacco use, the primary risk factor, accounts for 90% of all lung cancers. Early detection of lung cancer improves survival, yet lung cancer screening rates are much lower than those of other cancer screening tests. Electronic health record (EHR) systems are an underutilized tool that could improve screening rates., Methods: This study was conducted in the Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical Group, a university-affiliated network in New Brunswick, NJ. Two novel EHR workflow prompts were implemented on July 1, 2018. These prompts included fields to determine tobacco use and lung cancer screening eligibility and facilitated low-dose computed tomography ordering for eligible patients. The prompts were designed to improve tobacco use data entry, allowing for better lung cancer screening eligibility identification. Data were analyzed in 2022 retrospectively for the period July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2019. The analyses represented 48,704 total patient visits., Results: The adjusted odds of patient record completeness to determine eligibility for low-dose computed tomography (AOR=1.19, 95% CI=1.15, 1.23), eligibility for low-dose computed tomography (AOR=1.59, 95% CI=1.38, 1.82), and whether low-dose computed tomography was ordered (AOR=1.04, 95% CI=1.01, 1.07) all significantly increased after the electronic medical record prompts were implemented., Conclusions: These findings show the utility and benefit of EHR prompts in primary care settings to increase identification for lung cancer screening eligibility as well as increased low-dose computed tomography ordering., (Copyright © 2023 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Composite indicators of quality and safety in healthcare summarise performance across multiple indicators into a single performance measure. Composite indicators can identify domains and drivers of quality, improve the ability to detect differences, aid prioritisation for quality improvement and facilitate decision making about future healthcare needs. However, the use of composite indicators can be controversial, particularly when used to rank healthcare providers. Many of the concerns around transparency, appropriateness and uncertainty may be addressed by a robust and transparent development and review process.The aim of this scoping review is to describe methodologies used at each of the stages of development of composite indicators of quality and safety in healthcare. This review will provide those tasked with developing or reviewing composite indicators with a valuable consolidated analysis of a substantial and wide-ranging literature., Methods and Analysis: The framework proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute and enhancements proposed by Peters et al (2015, 2017, 2020) will be used in conducting this scoping review, and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for scoping reviews will guide the reporting. Grey literature and peer-reviewed documents will be in-scope. Electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, ABI/INFORM and SafetyLit) will be searched, and publications will be screened by two reviewers. Discussion, policy and guidance publications will be included if they discuss any aspect of the methods used in the development of a composite indicator of quality or safety in a healthcare setting. The search period ranges from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2022. Data extraction will capture information on 11 stages of composite indicator development, augmenting a 10-stage framework developed by the European Commission Joint Research Centre., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval is not required. Review findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at scientific conferences., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)