Search

Background: Since the advent of COVID-19, accelerated adoption of systems that reduce face-to-face encounters has outpaced training and best practices. Electronic consultations (eConsults), structured communications between PCPs and specialists regarding a case, have been effective in reducing face-to-face specialist encounters. As the health system rapidly adapts to multiple new practices and communication tools, new mechanisms to measure and improve performance in this context are needed., Objective: To test whether feedback comparing physicians to top performing peers using co-specialists' ratings improves performance., Design: Cluster-randomized controlled trial PARTICIPANTS: Eighty facility-specialty clusters and 214 clinicians INTERVENTION: Providers in the feedback arms were sent messages that announced their membership in an elite group of "Top Performers" or provided actionable recommendations with feedback for providers that were "Not Top Performers.", Main Measures: The primary outcomes were changes in peer ratings in the following performance dimensions after feedback was received: (1) elicitation of information from primary care practitioners; (2) adherence to institutional clinical guidelines; (3) agreement with peer's medical decision-making; (4) educational value; (5) relationship building., Key Results: Specialists showed significant improvements on 3 of the 5 consultation performance dimensions: medical decision-making (odds ratio 1.52, 95% confidence interval 1.08-2.14, p<.05), educational value (1.86, 1.17-2.96) and relationship building (1.63, 1.13-2.35) (both p<.01)., Conclusions: The pandemic has shed light on clinicians' commitment to professionalism and service as we rapidly adapt to changing paradigms. Interventions that appeal to professional norms can help improve the efficacy of new systems of practice. We show that specialists' performance can be measured and improved with feedback using aspirational norms., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov NCT03784950., (© 2021. Society of General Internal Medicine.)

Background: Physician compensation incentives may have positive or negative effects on clinical quality., Objective: To assess the association between various physician compensation incentives on technical indicators of primary care quality., Design: Cross-sectional, nationally representative retrospective analysis., Participants: Visits by adults to primary care physicians in the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from 2012-2016. We analyzed 49,580 sampled visits, representing 1.45 billion primary care visits., Main Measures: We assessed the association between 5 compensation incentives - quality measure performance, patient experience scores, individual productivity, practice financial performance, or practice efficiency - and 10 high-value and 7 low-value care measures as well as high-value and low-value care composites., Key Results: Quality measure performance was an incentive in 22% of visits; patient experience scores, 17%; individual productivity, 57%; practice financial performance, 63%; and practice efficiency, 12%. In adjusted models, none of the compensation incentives were consistently associated with individual high- and low-value measures. None of the compensation incentives were associated with high- or low-value care composites. For example, quality measure performance compensation was not significantly associated with high-value care (visits with quality incentive, 47% of eligible measures met; without quality incentive, 43%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.15) or low-value care (aOR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.82-1.19). Physician compensation incentives that might be expected to increase low-value care did not: patient experience (aOR for low-value care composite, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.65-1.05), individual productivity (aOR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.88-1.22), and practice financial performance (aOR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.81-1.36)., Conclusion: In this retrospective, cross-sectional, nationally representative analysis of care in the United States, physician compensation incentives were not generally associated with more or less high- or low-value care., (© 2021. Society of General Internal Medicine.)

Background: High levels of opioid prescribing in the United States has resulted in an alarming trend in opioid-related harms. The objective of Trial 2 of the Application of Economics & Social psychology to improve Opioid Prescribing Safety (AESOPS-2) is to dampen the intensity and frequency of opioid prescribing in accordance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendation to "go low and slow". We aim to accomplish this by notifying clinicians of harmful patient outcomes, which we expect to increase the mental availability of risks associated with opioid use., Methods: The trial is multi-site. Random assignment determines if prescribers to persons who suffer an opioid overdose (fatal or nonfatal) learn of this event (intervention) or practice usual care (control). Clinicians in the intervention group receive a letter notifying them of their patient's overdose. The primary outcome is the change in clinician weekly milligram morphine equivalent (MME) prescribed in a 6-month period before and after receiving the letter. Additional outcomes are the change in the proportion of patients prescribed at least 50 daily MME and in the proportion of patients referred to medication assisted treatment. Group differences in these outcomes will be compared using an intent-to-treat difference-in-differences framework with a mixed-effects regression model to estimate clinician MME., Discussion: The AESOPS-2 trial will provide new knowledge about whether increasing prescribers' awareness of patients' opioid-related overdoses leads to a reduction in opioid prescribing. Additionally, this trial may better inform how to reduce opioid use disorder and opioid overdoses by lowering population exposure to these drugs., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04758637., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Overtesting and treatment of older patients is common and may lead to harms. The Choosing Wisely campaign has provided recommendations to reduce overtesting and overtreatment of older adults. Behavioral economics-informed interventions embedded within the electronic health record (EHR) have been shown to reduce overuse in several areas. Our objective is to conduct a parallel arm, pragmatic cluster-randomized trial to evaluate the effectiveness of behavioral-economics-informed clinical decision support (CDS) interventions previously piloted in primary care clinics and designed to reduce overtesting and overtreatment in older adults., Methods/design: This trial has two parallel arms: clinician education alone vs. clinician education plus behavioral-economics-informed CDS. There are three co-primary outcomes for this trial: (1) prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in older men, (2) urine testing for non-specific reasons in older women, and (3) overtreatment of diabetes in older adults. All eligible primary care clinics from a large regional health system were randomized using a modified constrained randomization process and their attributed clinicians were included. Clinicians were recruited to complete a survey and educational module. We randomized 60 primary care clinics with 374 primary care clinicians and achieved adequate balance between the study arms for prespecified constrained variables. Baseline annual overuse rates for the three co-primary outcomes were 25%, 23%, and 17% for the PSA, urine, and diabetes measures, respectively., Discussion: This trial is evaluating behavioral-economics-informed EHR-embedded interventions to reduce overuse of specific tests and treatments for older adults. The study will evaluate the effectiveness and safety of these interventions., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: Behavioral economics recognizes that contextual, psychological, social, and emotional factors powerfully influence decision-making. Behavioral economics has the potential to provide a better understanding of, and, through subtle environmental changes, or "nudges," improve persistent quality-of-care challenges, like ambulatory antibiotic overprescribing. Despite decades of admonitions and educational initiatives, in the United States, up to 50% of ambulatory antibiotic prescriptions remain inappropriate or not associated with a diagnosis., Methods: We conducted a Medline search and performed a narrative review that examined the use of behavioral economics to understand the rationale for, and improvement of, ambulatory antibiotic prescribing., Findings: Clinicians prescribe antibiotics inappropriately because of perceived patient demand, to maintain patient satisfaction, diagnostic uncertainty, or time pressure, among other reasons. Behavioral economics-informed approaches offer additional improvements in antibiotic prescribing beyond clinician education and communication training. Precommitment, in which clinicians publicize their intent to prescribe antibiotics "only when they are absolutely necessary," leverages clinicians' self-conception and a desire to act in a manner consistent with public statements. Precommitment was associated with a 20% absolute reduction in the inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infections. Justification alerts, in which clinicians must provide a brief written rationale for prescribing antibiotics, leverages social accountability, redefines the status quo as an active choice, and helps clinicians to shift from fast to slow, careful thinking. With justification alerts, the absolute rate of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing decreased from 23% to 5%. Peer comparison, in which clinicians receive feedback comparing their performance to their top-performing peers, provides evidence of improved performance and leverages peoples' desire to conform to social norms. Peer comparison decreased absolute inappropriate antibiotic prescribing rates from 20% to 4%, a decrease that persisted for 12 months after the end of the intervention. Also, a one-time peer-comparison letter from a high-profile messenger to primary care practices with high rates of prescribing antibiotics, there was a 6-month, 3% decrease inantibiotic prescribing. Future directions in applying behavioral economics to the inappropriate antibiotic prescribing include paying careful attention to design details; improving intervention effectiveness and durability; making harms salient; participants' involvement in the development of interventions (the "Ikea effect"); factoring in patient satisfaction; and patient-facing nudges about antibiotic use and care-seeking. In addition, the COVID pandemic could aid in ambulatory antibiotic prescribing improvements due to changing cognitive frames around respiratory symptom evaluation and antibiotic prescribing., Implications: To improve ambulatory antibiotic prescribing, several behavioral economics-informed approaches-especially precommitment, justification alerts, and peer comparison-have reduced the rates of inappropriate prescribing of antibiotics to low levels., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Ambulatory antibiotic prescriptions without a clinic visit or without documentation of infection could represent overuse and contribute to adverse outcomes. We aim to describe US ambulatory antibiotic prescribing, including those without an associated visit or infection diagnosis., Methods: We conducted an observational cohort study using data of all patients receiving antibacterial, antibiotic prescriptions from 04/01/2016 to 06/30/2018 in a large US private health insurance plan. We identified outpatient antibiotic prescriptions as (1) associated with a clinician visit and an infection-related diagnosis; (2) associated with a clinician visit but no infection-related diagnosis; or (3) not associated with an in-person clinician visit in the 7 days before the prescription (non-visit-based). We then assessed whether non-visit-based antibiotic prescriptions (NVBAPs) differed from visit-based antibiotics by patient, clinician, or antibiotic characteristics using multivariable models., Results: The cohort included 8.6M enrollees who filled 22.3M antibiotic prescriptions. NVBAP accounted for 31% (6.9M) of fills, and non-infection-related prescribing accounted for 22% (4.9M). NVBAP rates were lower for children than for adults (0-17 years old, 16%; 18-64 years old, 33%; >65 years old, 34%). Among most commonly prescribed antibiotic classes, NVBAP was highest for penicillins (36%) and lowest for cephalosporins (25%) and macrolides (25%). Specialist physicians had the highest rate of NVBAP (38%), followed by internists (28%), family medicine (20%), and pediatricians (10%). In multivariable models, NVBAP was associated with increasing age, and NVBAP was less likely for patients in the South, those with more baseline clinical visits, or those with chronic lung disease., Conclusions: Over half of ambulatory antibiotic use was either non-visit-based or non-infection-related. Particularly given health care changes due to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, efforts to improve antibiotic prescribing must account for non-visit-based and non-infection-related prescribing., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Importance: More conservative prescribing has the potential to reduce adverse drug events and patient harm and cost; however, no method exists defining the extent to which individual clinicians prescribe conservatively. One potential domain is prescribing a more limited number of drugs. Personal formularies-defined as the number and mix of unique, newly initiated drugs prescribed by a physician-may enable comparisons among clinicians, practices, and institutions., Objectives: To develop a method of defining primary care physicians' personal formularies and examine how they differ among primary care physicians at 4 institutions; evaluate associations between personal formularies and patient, physician, and practice site characteristics; and empirically derive and examine the variability of the top 200 core drugs prescribed at the 4 sites., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at 4 US health care systems among 4655 internal and family medicine physicians and 4 930 707 patients who had at least 1 visit to these physicians between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2018., Exposures: Personal formulary size was defined as the number of unique, newly initiated drugs., Main Outcomes and Measures: Personal formulary size and drugs used, physician and patient characteristics, core drugs, and analysis of selected drug classes., Results: The study population included 4655 primary care physicians (2274 women [48.9%]; mean [SD] age, 48.5 [4.4] years) and 4 930 707 patients (16.5% women; mean [SD] age, 51.9 [8.3] years). There were 41 378 903 outpatient prescriptions written, of which 9 496 766 (23.0%) were new starts. Institution median personal formulary size ranged from 150 (interquartile range, 82.0-212.0) to 296 (interquartile range, 230.0-347.0) drugs. In multivariable modeling, personal formulary size was significantly associated with panel size (total number of unique patients with face-to-face encounters during the study period; 1.2 medications per 100 patients), physician's total number of encounters (5.7 drugs per 10% increase), and physician's sex (-6.2 drugs per 100 patients for female physicians). There were 1527 unique, newly prescribed drugs across the 4 sites. Fewer than half the drugs (626 [41.0%]) were used at every site. Physicians' prescribing of drugs from a pooled core list varied from 0% to 100% of their prescriptions., Conclusions and Relevance: Personal formularies, measured at the level of individual physicians and institutions, reveal variability in size and mix of drugs. Similarly, defining a list of commonly prescribed core drugs in primary care revealed interphysician and interinstitutional differences. Personal formularies and core medication lists enable comparisons and may identify outliers and opportunities for safer and more appropriate prescribing.

Importance: General health checks, also known as general medical examinations, periodic health evaluations, checkups, routine visits, or wellness visits, are commonly performed in adult primary care to identify and prevent disease. Although general health checks are often expected and advocated by patients, clinicians, insurers, and health systems, others question their value., Observations: Randomized trials and observational studies with control groups reported in prior systematic reviews and an updated literature review through March 2021 were included. Among 19 randomized trials (906 to 59 616 participants; follow-up, 1 to 30 years), 5 evaluated a single general health check, 7 evaluated annual health checks, 1 evaluated biannual checks, and 6 evaluated health checks delivered at other frequencies. Twelve of 13 observational studies (240 to 471 415 participants; follow-up, cross-sectional to 5 years) evaluated a single general health check. General health checks were generally not associated with decreased mortality, cardiovascular events, or cardiovascular disease incidence. For example, in the South-East London Screening Study (n = 7229), adults aged 40 to 64 years who were invited to 2 health checks over 2 years, compared with adults not invited to screening, experienced no 8-year mortality benefit (6% vs 5%). General health checks were associated with increased detection of chronic diseases, such as depression and hypertension; moderate improvements in controlling risk factors, such as blood pressure and cholesterol; increased clinical preventive service uptake, such as colorectal and cervical cancer screening; and improvements in patient-reported outcomes, such as quality of life and self-rated health. In the Danish Check-In Study (n = 1104), more patients randomized to receive to a single health check, compared with those randomized to receive usual care, received a new antidepressant prescription over 1 year (5% vs 2%; P = .007). In a propensity score-matched analysis (n = 8917), a higher percentage of patients who attended a Medicare Annual Wellness Visit, compared with those who did not, underwent colorectal cancer screening (69% vs 60%; P < .01). General health checks were sometimes associated with modest improvements in health behaviors such as physical activity and diet. In the OXCHECK trial (n = 4121), fewer patients randomized to receive annual health checks, compared with those not randomized to receive health checks, exercised less than once per month (68% vs 71%; difference, 3.3% [95% CI, 0.5%-6.1%]). Potential adverse effects in individual studies included an increased risk of stroke and increased mortality attributed to increased completion of advance directives., Conclusions and Relevance: General health checks were not associated with reduced mortality or cardiovascular events, but were associated with increased chronic disease recognition and treatment, risk factor control, preventive service uptake, and improved patient-reported outcomes. Primary care teams may reasonably offer general health checks, especially for groups at high risk of overdue preventive services, uncontrolled risk factors, low self-rated health, or poor connection or inadequate access to primary care.

Background: The objective is to understand why physicians order tests or treatments in older adults contrary to published recommendations., Methods: Participants: Physicians above the median for ≥ 1 measures of overuse representing 3 Choosing Wisely topics., Measurements: Participants evaluated decisions in a semi-structured interview regarding: 1) Screening men aged ≥ 76 with prostate specific antigen 2) Ordering urine studies in women ≥ 65 without symptoms 3) Overtreating adults aged ≥ 75 with insulin or oral hypoglycemic medications. Two investigators independently coded transcripts using qualitative analysis., Results: Nineteen interviews were conducted across the three topics resulting in four themes. First, physicians were aware and knowledgeable of guidelines. Second, perceived patient preference towards overuse influenced physician action even when physicians felt strongly that testing was not indicated. Third, physicians overestimated benefits of a test and underemphasized potential harms. Fourth, physicians were resistant to change when patients appeared to be doing well., Conclusions: Though physicians expressed awareness to avoid overuse, deference to patient preferences and the tendency to distort the chance of benefit over harm influenced decisions to order testing. Approaches for decreasing unnecessary testing must account for perceived patient preferences, make the potential harms of overtesting salient, and address clinical inertia among patients who appear to be doing well.

Background: There is a lack of evidence that long-term opioid use offers benefit for noncancer pain and an abundance of evidence of harm. Despite clinical guidelines and education, prescribing continues at a higher rate than before the opioids crisis. The objective of trial 1 of the Application of Economics & Social psychology to improve Opioid Prescribing Safety (AESOPS-1) is to discourage unnecessary opioid prescribing in primary care by applying "behavioral insights"-empirically-tested social and psychological interventions that affect choice., Methods: AESOPS-1 randomizes primary care clinics in Illinois and California to behavioral intervention or control. Both arms receive opioid guideline education. Clinics randomized to the behavioral intervention arm receive nudges within the electronic health record (EHR) including: 1) an "accountable justification" entered in the chart, 2) a precommitment to address high-risk prescriptions, and 3) a "PainTracker" that broadens discussions about pain. The control arm receives no EHR-based intervention. The primary outcome is the change in weekly milligram morphine equivalents (MME) prescribed. The secondary outcome is the change in the proportion of patients prescribed at least 50 daily MME. To evaluate these outcomes, we will use a difference-in-differences mixed-effects regression model on clinician MME weekly or daily dose. The analysis will be "intent-to-treat." The intervention period is 18-months, with a 6-month follow-up period to measure persistence of effects., Discussion: The AESOPS-1 trial will evaluate the effect of EHR-based interventions in reducing noncancer opioid prescribing in primary care. AESOPS-1 may demonstrate practical and scalable strategies to lower unnecessary population exposure to opioids., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The proportion of sinusitis visits that meet antibiotic prescribing criteria is unknown. Of 425 randomly selected sinusitis visits, 50% (214) met antibiotic prescribing criteria. There was no significant difference in antibiotic prescribing at visits that did (205/214 [96%]) and did not (193/211 [92%]; P = .07) meet antibiotic prescribing criteria., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: The US outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) accelerated rapidly over a short time to become a public health crisis., Objective: To assess how high-risk adults' COVID-19 knowledge, beliefs, behaviors, and sense of preparedness changed from the onset of the US outbreak (March 13-20, 2020) to the acceleration phase (March 27-April 7, 2020)., Design: Longitudinal, two-wave telephone survey., Participants: 588 predominately older adults with ≥ 1 chronic condition recruited from 4 active, federally funded studies in Chicago., Main Measures: Self-reported knowledge of COVID-19 symptoms and prevention, related beliefs, behaviors, and sense of preparedness., Key Results: From the onset to the acceleration phase, participants increasingly perceived COVID-19 to be a serious public health threat, reported more changes to their daily routine and plans, and reported greater preparedness. The proportion of respondents who believed they were "not at all likely" to get the virus decreased slightly (24.9 to 22.4%; p = 0.04), but there was no significant change in the proportion of those who were unable to accurately identify ways to prevent infection (29.2 to 25.7%; p 0.14). In multivariable analyses, black adults and those with lower health literacy were more likely to report less perceived susceptibility to COVID-19 (black adults: relative risk (RR) 1.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-2.44, p = 0.02; marginal health literacy: RR 1.96, 95% CI 1.26-3.07, p < 0.01). Individuals with low health literacy remained more likely to feel unprepared for the outbreak (RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.11-2.92, p = 0.02) and to express confidence in the federal government response (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.49-3.00, p < 0.001) CONCLUSIONS: Adults at higher risk for COVID-19 continue to lack critical knowledge about prevention. While participants reported greater changes to daily routines and plans, disparities continued to exist in perceived susceptibility to COVID-19 and in preparedness. Public health messaging to date may not be effectively reaching vulnerable communities.

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer. Expert consensus recommends a risk-based approach to guide prophylactic anticoagulation to prevent VTE in ambulatory patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy. However, oncology practice patterns for VTE prevention remain unclear., Patients/methods: We conducted (i) a retrospective, single-center cohort study of patients with pancreatic and gastric cancers to examine rates of prophylactic anticoagulation prescription for eligible patients at high risk of VTE based on the validated Khorana score, and (ii) a 15-question survey of oncology clinicians at the same institution to assess current practice patterns and knowledge regarding VTE risk assessment and primary thromboprophylaxis in February 2020., Results: Of 437 patients who met study criteria, 181 (41%) had a score of ≥ 3 (high-risk), and none had an anticoagulation prescription for prophylaxis without an alternate treatment indication. In a survey sent to 98 oncology clinicians, of which 34 participated, 67% were unfamiliar with the Khorana score or guideline recommendations regarding risk-based VTE prophylaxis, and 90% "never" or "rarely" used VTE risk assessment., Conclusions: Despite available evidence and existing guideline recommendations for VTE risk assessment for ambulatory patients with cancer, and primary prophylaxis for high-risk patients, this study demonstrates that there is limited uptake in clinical practice., (© 2020 The Authors. Research and Practice in Thrombosis and Haemostasis published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH).)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and have no relevant interests to declare.

Background: The evolving outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is requiring social distancing and other measures to protect public health. However, messaging has been inconsistent and unclear., Objective: To determine COVID-19 awareness, knowledge, attitudes, and related behaviors among U.S. adults who are more vulnerable to complications of infection because of age and comorbid conditions., Design: Cross-sectional survey linked to 3 active clinical trials and 1 cohort study., Setting: 5 academic internal medicine practices and 2 federally qualified health centers., Patients: 630 adults aged 23 to 88 years living with 1 or more chronic conditions., Measurements: Self-reported knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors related to COVID-19., Results: A fourth (24.6%) of participants were "very worried" about getting the coronavirus. Nearly a third could not correctly identify symptoms (28.3%) or ways to prevent infection (30.2%). One in 4 adults (24.6%) believed that they were "not at all likely" to get the virus, and 21.9% reported that COVID-19 had little or no effect on their daily routine. One in 10 respondents was very confident that the federal government could prevent a nationwide outbreak. In multivariable analyses, participants who were black, were living below the poverty level, and had low health literacy were more likely to be less worried about COVID-19, to not believe that they would become infected, and to feel less prepared for an outbreak. Those with low health literacy had greater confidence in the federal government response., Limitation: Cross-sectional study of adults with underlying health conditions in 1 city during the initial week of the COVID-19 U.S. outbreak., Conclusion: Many adults with comorbid conditions lacked critical knowledge about COVID-19 and, despite concern, were not changing routines or plans. Noted disparities suggest that greater public health efforts may be needed to mobilize the most vulnerable communities., Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health.

Objectives: At least 30% of outpatient antibiotic prescriptions are unnecessary. Outpatient antibiotic stewardship is needed to improve prescribing and address the threat of antibiotic resistance. A better understanding of primary care physicians (PCPs) attitudes towards antibiotic prescribing and outpatient antibiotic stewardship is needed to identify barriers to stewardship implementation and help tailor stewardship strategies. The aim of this study was to assess PCPs current attitudes towards antibiotic resistance, inappropriate antibiotic prescribing and the feasibility of outpatient stewardship efforts., Design: Eight focus groups with PCPs were conducted by an independent moderator using a moderator guide. Focus groups were audio recorded, transcribed and coded for major themes using deductive and inductive content analysis methods., Setting: Focus groups were conducted in four US cities: Philadelphia, Birmingham, Chicago and Los Angeles., Participants: Two focus groups were conducted in each city-one with family medicine and internal medicine physicians and one with paediatricians. A total of 26 family medicine/internal medicine physicians and 26 paediatricians participated., Results: Participants acknowledged that resistance is an important public health issue, but not as important as other pressing problems (eg, obesity, opioids). Many considered resistance to be more of a hospital issue. While participants recognised inappropriate prescribing as a problem in outpatient settings, many felt that the key drivers were non-primary care settings (eg, urgent care clinics, retail clinics) and patient demand. Participants reacted positively to stewardship efforts aimed at educating patients and clinicians. They questioned the validity of antibiotic prescribing metrics. This scepticism was due to a number of factors, including the feasibility of capturing prescribing quality, a belief that physicians will 'game the system' to improve their measures, and dissatisfaction and distrust of quality measurement in general., Conclusions: Stakeholders will need to consider physician attitudes and beliefs about antibiotic stewardship when implementing interventions aimed at improving prescribing., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JAL, JSG and JND all received honoraria for time dedicated to this research project. JND has received consultant fees from Precision Health Economics and University of Pennsylvania Health System. JND was supported by grants from the National Institutes of on Aging (R21AG057395, R21AG057400, R21AG057396, R21AG057383, P30AG024968, R33AG057395), the National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01 DA046226), the National Institute of Arthirist and Musculoskeletal Conditions (R01 AR073486), the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01 HS026506) and the Patient-CenteredCentred Outcome Research Institute (CDRN-1306–04864). JAL was supported by grants from the National Institute on AgingAgeing (R21AG057400, R21AG057396, R21AG057383, R21AG057395), Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS024930, R01HS026506), The Peterson Center on Healthcare, and a contract from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (HHSP2332015000201)., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Outpatient antibiotic stewardship is needed to reduce inappropriate prescribing and minimize the development of resistant bacteria. We assessed primary care physicians' perceptions of antibiotic resistance, antibiotic use, and the need for stewardship activities., Methods: We conducted a national online survey of 1550 internal, family, and pediatric medicine physicians in the United States recruited from an opt-in panel of healthcare professionals. Descriptive statistics were generated for respondent demographics and question responses. Responses were also stratified by geographic region and medical specialty, with a χ  2 test used to assess for differences., Results: More respondents agreed that antibiotic resistance was a problem in the United States (94%) than in their practice (55%) and that inappropriate antibiotic prescribing was a problem in outpatient settings (91%) than in their practice (37%). In addition, 60% agreed that they prescribed antibiotics more appropriately than their peers. Most respondents (91%) believed that antibiotic stewardship was appropriate in office-based practices, but they ranked antibiotic resistance as less important than other public health issues such as obesity, diabetes, opioids, smoking, and vaccine hesitancy. Approximately half (47%) believed they would need a lot of help to implement stewardship. Respondents indicated that they were likely to implement antibiotic stewardship efforts in response to feedback or incentives provided by payers or health departments., Conclusions: Primary care physicians generally did not recognize antibiotic resistance and inappropriate prescribing as issues in their practice. This poses a challenge for the success of outpatient stewardship. Healthcare stakeholders will need to explore opportunities for feedback and incentive activities to encourage stewardship uptake., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Importance: The extent of clinician-level variation in the overuse of testing or treatment in older adults is not well understood., Objective: To examine clinician-level variation for three new measures of potentially inappropriate use of medical services in older adults., Design: Retrospective analysis of overall means and clinician-level variation in performance on three new measures., Subjects: Adults aged 65 years and older who had office visits with outpatient primary or immediate care clinicians within a single academic medical center health system between July 1, 2016, and June 30, 2017., Measures: Two electronic clinical quality measures representing potentially inappropriate use of medical services in older adults: prostate-specific antigen testing against guidelines (PSA) in men aged 76 and older; urinalysis or urine culture for non-specific reasons in women aged 65 and older; and one intermediate outcome measure: hemoglobin A1c less than 7.0 in adults aged 75 and older with diabetes mellitus treated with insulin or oral hypoglycemic medication., Results: Sixty-nine clinicians and 2009 patients contributed observations to the PSA measure, 144 clinicians and 5933 patients contributed to the urinalysis/urine culture measure, and 42 clinicians and 665 patients contributed to the diabetes measure. Meaningful clinician-level performance variation was greatest for the PSA measure (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.27), followed by the urinalysis/urine culture measure (ICC = 0.18), and the diabetes measure (ICC = 0.024). The range of possible overuse across clinician quartiles was 8-54% for the PSA measure, 3-35% for the urinalysis/urine culture measure, and 13-49% for the diabetes measure. The odds ratios of overuse in the highest quartile compared with the lowest for the PSA, urinalysis/urine culture, and diabetes measures were 99.3 (95% CI 43 to 228), 15.7 (10 to 24), and 6.0 (3.3 to 11), respectively., Conclusions: Within the same health system, rates of potential overuse in elderly patients varied greatly across clinicians, particularly for the process measures examined.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: The BMJ has judged that there are no disqualifying financial ties to commercial companies. The authors declare the following other interests: JAL is supported by a contract from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (HHSP233201500020I), and is also supported by grants from the National Institute on Ageing (R21AG057400, R21AG057396, R33AG057383), National Institute on Drug Abuse (R33AG057395), and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS026506), the Peterson Center on Healthcare. The BMJ policy on financial interests is here: https://www.bmj.com/sites/default/files/attachments/resources/2016/03/16-current-bmj-education-coi-form.pdf.

Background: Overactive bladder (OAB) is common and morbid. Medication and diagnosis claims may be specific, but lack sensitivity to identify patients with overactive bladder. We used an "electronic health record (EHR) phenotype" to identify cases and describe treatment choices and anticholinergic burden for OAB., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study in a large, integrated health delivery system between July 2011 and June 2012 (2-year follow-up). We examined care from primary care and specialty clinics, medication and procedure use, and anticholinergic burden for each patient., Results: There were 7362 patients with an EHR OAB phenotype; 50% of patients were > 65 years old, 74% were female, and 83% were white. The distribution of care included primary care physician (PCP)/specialty co-management (25% of patients); PCP care only (18%); urology only (13%); or some other combination of specialty care (33%). Only 40% of patients were prescribed at least 1 OAB medication during the study. The mean duration of prescribed medication was 1.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4 to 1.6 months; range, < 1 month to 24 months). Independent predictors of receipt of an OAB medication included increasing age (odds ratio [OR], 1.4 for every 10 years; 95% CI, 1.4 to 1.5), women (OR, 1.6 compared with men; 95% CI, 1.4 to 1.8), diabetes (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.1 to 1.5), and certain sources of care compared with PCP-only care: PCP/specialty co-management (OR, 1.8; 95% CI, 1.5 to 2.0), urology (OR, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.8 to 2.6), and multiple specialists (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 1.2 to 1.8). Very few patients received other treatments: biofeedback (< 1%), onabotulinumtoxinA (2%), or sacral nerve stimulation (1%). Patients who received OAB medications had significantly higher anticholinergic burden than patients who did not (anticholinergic total standardized daily dose, 125 versus 46; P < .001)., Conclusions: Although OAB is common and morbid, in a longitudinal study using an EHR OAB phenotype 40% of patients were treated with OAB medication and only briefly.

Background: Evidence for the diagnosis and management of cough due to acute bronchitis in immunocompetent adult outpatients was reviewed as an update to the 2006 "Chronic Cough Due to Acute Bronchitis: American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines.", Methods: Acute bronchitis was defined as an acute lower respiratory tract infection manifested predominantly by cough with or without sputum production, lasting no more than 3 weeks with no clinical or any recent radiographic evidence to suggest an alternative explanation. Two clinical population, intervention, comparison, outcome questions were addressed by systematic review in July 2017: (1) the role of investigations beyond the clinical assessment of patients presenting with suspected acute bronchitis, and (2) the efficacy and safety of prescribing medication for cough in acute bronchitis. An updated search was undertaken in May 2018., Results: No eligible studies relevant to the first question were identified. For the second question, only one relevant study met eligibility criteria. This study found no difference in number of days with cough between patients treated with an antibiotic or an oral nonsteroidal antiinflammatory agent compared with placebo. Clinical suggestions and research recommendations were made based on the consensus opinion of the CHEST Expert Cough Panel., Conclusions: The panelists suggested that no routine investigations be ordered and no routine medications be prescribed in immunocompetent adult outpatients first presenting with cough due to suspected acute bronchitis, until such investigations and treatments have been shown to be safe and effective at making cough less severe or resolve sooner. If the cough due to suspected acute bronchitis persists or worsens, a reassessment and consideration of targeted investigations should be considered., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Perceived patient demand for antibiotics drives unnecessary antibiotic prescribing in outpatient settings, but little is known about how clinicians experience this demand or how this perceived demand shapes their decision-making., Objective: To identify how clinicians perceive patient demand for antibiotics and the way these perceptions stimulate unnecessary prescribing., Methods: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with clinicians in outpatient settings who prescribe antibiotics. Interviews were analyzed using conventional and directed content analysis., Results: Interviews were conducted with 25 clinicians from nine practices across three states. Patient demand was the most common reason respondents provided for why they prescribed non-indicated antibiotics. Three related factors motivated clinically unnecessary antibiotic use in the face of perceived patient demand: (i) clinicians want their patients to regard clinical visits as valuable and believe that an antibiotic prescription demonstrates value; (ii) clinicians want to avoid negative repercussions of denying antibiotics, including reduced income, damage to their reputation, emotional exhaustion, and degraded relationships with patients; (iii) clinicians believed that certain patients are impossible to satisfy without an antibiotic prescription and felt that efforts to refuse antibiotics to such patients wastes time and invites the aforementioned negative repercussions. Clinicians in urgent care settings were especially likely to describe being motivated by these factors., Conclusion: Interventions to improve antibiotic use in the outpatient setting must address clinicians' concerns about providing value for their patients, fear of negative repercussions from denying antibiotics, and the approach to inconvincible patients., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Ambulatory antibiotic stewardship policies focus on prescribing decisions made when patients present to clinicians with possible infections. They do not capture antibiotics prescribed outside of clinician visits or without clear indications for use. Antibiotic prescribing for vulnerable patients in the US has not been comprehensively measured. We measured the frequency with which all filled antibiotic prescriptions were associated with infections and in-person visits for Medicaid patients in the period 2004-13. We found that among 298 million antibiotic fills (62 percent for children) for 53 million patients, 55 percent were for clinician visits with an infection-related diagnosis, 17 percent were for clinician visits without an infection-related diagnosis, and 28 percent were not associated with a visit. Non-visit-based antibiotic prescriptions were less common for children than for adults and more common in the West than in other US regions. Large fractions of antibiotic prescriptions are filled without evidence of infection-related diagnoses or accompanying clinician visits. Current ambulatory antibiotic stewardship policies miss about half of antibiotic prescribing.

Polypharmacy is common in older adults and associated with inappropriate medication use, adverse drug events, medication nonadherence, higher costs, and increased mortality compared with those without polypharmacy. Deprescribing, the clinically supervised process of stopping or reducing the dose of medications when they cause harm or no longer provide benefit, may improve outcomes. Although potentially beneficial, clinicians struggle to overcome structural, organizational, technological, and cognitive barriers to deprescribing, limiting its use in clinical practice. Deprescribing science would benefit from a unifying conceptual framework to prioritize research. Current deprescribing conceptual frameworks have made important contributions to the field but often with a focus on specific medication classes or aspects of deprescribing. To further this relatively nascent field, we developed a broader deprescribing conceptual framework that builds on prior frameworks and includes patient, prescriber, and system influences; the process of deprescribing; outcomes; and dissemination. Patient factors include patients' biology, experience, values, and preferences. Prescriber factors include rational (eg, based on explicit knowledge) and nonrational (eg, behavioral tendencies, biases, and heuristics) decision making. System factors include resources, incentives, goals, and culture that contribute to deprescribing. The framework separates the deprescribing decision from the deprescribing process. The framework captures the results of deprescribing by examining changes in clinical structures, performance processes, patient experience, health outcomes, and cost. Through testing and refinement, this novel, more comprehensive conceptual framework has the potential to advance deprescribing research by organizing the existing evidence, identifying evidence gaps, and categorizing deprescribing interventions and the settings in which they are applied. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:2018-2022, 2019., (© 2019 The American Geriatrics Society.)

Introduction : Inappropriate antibiotic use and antibiotic resistance are major public health threats. In the United States, most antibiotic use occurs in ambulatory care and 30% to 50% may be inappropriate. The National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria set a goal of reducing inappropriate outpatient antibiotics by 50% by 2020. Areas covered : This review summarizes the epidemiology of antibiotic use in ambulatory care and explores evidence-based, novel approaches for improving ambulatory antibiotic use. Expert opinion : We leveraged insights from behavioral science and social psychology to implement novel peer comparison - a form of audit-and-feedback - and accountable justification alert interventions that reduced inappropriate antibiotic prescribing to 5% or less. We and others have been successful in reducing inappropriate antibiotic prescribing with precommitment posters, communication training, combined patient/clinician education, and clinical decision support. Other commonly employed, but unsound approaches to reducing inappropriate antibiotic prescribing include point-of-care testing and delayed antibiotic prescriptions. These approaches are not durable (e.g. CRP testing), have not been proven in primary care (e.g. procalcitonin), or are conceptually flawed, such as using testing for non-antibiotic-appropriate diagnoses or using delayed antibiotic prescriptions. To decrease inappropriate ambulatory antibiotic use, clinicians, pharmacists, practices, and health systems need to collect antibiotic prescribing data, select concrete improvement targets, and implement evidence-based interventions such as peer comparison, accountable justification, precommitment, and communication training.

Background: Overall reduction of antibiotic use is a widely adopted public health goal. Given evidence that consuming probiotics reduce the incidence, duration and/or severity of certain types of common acute infections, we hypothesized that probiotics are associated with reduced antibiotic use. This systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessed the impact of probiotic supplementation (any strain, dose or duration), compared to placebo, on antibiotic utilization for common, acute infections in otherwise healthy people of all ages., Methods: We searched 13 electronic databases including MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL from inception to 17th January 2017. Backward and forward citation searches were also conducted. Two reviewers independently selected studies for inclusion and extracted study data. We assessed risk of bias for individual studies using criteria adapted from the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, and the quality of evidence for each outcome was assessed using the GRADE system. Studies that evaluated similar outcomes were pooled statistically in meta-analyses using a random-effects model., Results: We screened 1533 citations, and of these, 17 RCTs met our predefined inclusion criteria. All 17 were conducted in infants and/or children with a primary aim of preventing acute respiratory tract infections, acute lower digestive tract infections or acute otitis media. Included studies used 13 probiotic formulations, all comprising single or combination Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium delivered in a range of food or supplement products. Mean duration of probiotic supplementation ranged from 4 days to 9 months. Trial quality was variable. Meta-analysis demonstrated that infants and children who received probiotics to prevent acute illnesses had a lower risk of being prescribed antibiotics, relative to those who received placebo (Pooled Relative Risk = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.54-0.94). When restricted to five studies with a low risk of bias, the pooled relative risk was 0.46 (95% CI: 0.23-0.97). Significant statistical heterogeneity was present in effect size estimates, which appeared to be due to one trial which could partly be considered as an outlier., Conclusions: Probiotics, provided to reduce the risk for common acute infections, may be associated with reduced antibiotic use in infants and children. Additional well-designed studies are needed to substantiate these findings in children and explore similar findings in other population groups., (© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association.)

Importance: The US health care system is typically organized around hospitals and specialty care. The value of primary care remains unclear and debated., Objective: To determine whether an association exists between receipt of primary care and high-value services, low-value services, and patient experience., Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a nationally representative analysis of noninstitutionalized US adults 18 years or older who participated in the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Propensity score-weighted quality and experience of care were compared between 49 286 US adults with and 21 133 adults without primary care from 2012 to 2014. Temporal trends were also analyzed from 2002 to 2014., Exposures: Patient-reported receipt of primary care, determined by the 4 "Cs" of primary care: first-contact care that is comprehensive, continuous, and coordinated., Main Outcomes and Measures: Thirty-nine clinical quality measures and 7 patient experience measures aggregated into 10 clinical quality composites (6 high-value and 4 low-value services), an overall patient experience rating, and 2 experience composites., Results: From 2002 to 2014, the mean annual survey response rate was 58% (range, 49%-65%). Between 2012 and 2014, compared with respondents without primary care (before adjustment), those with primary care were older (50 [95% CI, 50-51] vs 38 [95% CI, 38-39] years old), more often female (55% [95% CI, 54%-55%] vs 42% [95% CI, 41%-43%]), and predominately white individuals (50% [95% CI, 49%-52%] vs 43% [95% CI, 41%-45%]). After propensity score weighting, US adults with or without primary care had the same mean numbers of outpatient (6.7 vs 5.9; difference, 0.8 [95% CI, -0.2 to 1.8]; P = .11), emergency department (0.2 for both; difference, 0.0 [95% CI, -0.1 to 0.0]; P = .17), and inpatient (0.1 for both; difference, 0.0 [95% CI, 0.0-0.0]; P = .92) encounters annually, but those with primary care filled more prescriptions (mean, 14.1 vs 10.7; difference, 3.4 [95% CI, 2.0-4.7]; P < .001) and were more likely to have a routine preventive visit in the past year (mean, 72.2% vs 57.5%; difference, 14.7% [95% CI, 12.3%-17.1%]; P < .001). From 2012 to 2014, Americans with primary care received more high-value care in 4 of 5 composites. For example, 78% of those with primary care received high-value cancer screening compared with 67% without primary care (difference, 10.8% [95% CI, 8.5%-13.0%]; P < .001). Americans with or without primary care received low-value care with similar frequencies on 3 of 4 composites, although Americans with primary care received more low-value antibiotics (59% vs 48%; difference, 11.0% [95% CI, 2.8%-19.3%] P < .001). Respondents with primary care also reported significantly better health care access and experience. For example, physician communication was highly rated for a greater proportion of those with (64%) vs without (54%) primary care (difference, 10.2%; 95% CI, 7.2%-13.1%; P < .001). Differences in quality and experience between Americans with or without primary care were essentially stable between 2002 and 2014., Conclusions and Relevance: Receipt of primary care was associated with significantly more high-value care, slightly more low-value care, and better health care experience. Policymakers and health system leaders seeking to improve value should consider increasing investments in primary care.

Purpose: Health care utilization during Ramadan has not been examined in the United States., Methods: A retrospective review of billing and electronic health record data for Muslims (n = 2,919) and non-Muslims (n = 184,803) in primary care practices in Eastern Massachusetts., Results: Muslim patients were younger, less educated, less often commercially insured, more likely to have Medicare, and less likely to be primary English speakers (p &lt; .0001 for all comparisons). In multivariate models, during Ramadan, Muslims, compared with non-Muslims, had a higher rate of primary care visits (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.11), emergency department visits (IRR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.34-1.91), and hospitalizations (IRR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.03-1.34)., Conclusions: Important demographic differences exist between Muslim and non-Muslim patients. Muslims, compared with non-Muslims, had higher health care utilization during Ramadan.

Introduction: Numerous initiatives over the past decade have targeted the problem of antibiotic overuse in the US; however, the cumulative impact of such initiatives upon recent patterns of use is not known., Objectives: The aims of this study were to (1) describe general trends in outpatient antibiotic use among adults over the period 2006-2015; and (2) identify rapid shifts in use during this time period as potential indicators for key events., Methods: This was an observational study set in the ambulatory setting. Patients ≥ 18 years of age were selected from the Optum Clinformatics Datamart™, a commercial insurance claims database. The outcome measures of interest were prescriptions filled/1000 enrolled individuals, by year or quarter. We used linear regression to identify trends in use over multiple years, and change-point regression to identify rapid shifts in use within individual years., Results: From 2006 to 2015, antibiotic use declined significantly, decreasing by 12% for adults younger than 65 years of age (913-807 prescriptions/1000 individuals, p = 0.0001) and by 5% for adults ≥ 65 years of age (991-943 prescriptions/1000 individuals, p = 0.018). With change-point regression, we identified a number of rapid shifts in the use of specific antibiotic classes, such as downward shifts in the use of quinolones and macrolides during the second quarter of 2008 and 2013, respectively., Conclusions: Over the period 2006-2015 outpatient use of antibiotics decreased substantially among adults. Rapid shifts in use occurring in 2008 and 2013 may reflect the presence of key drivers of change, such as abrupt changes in access to care or perceived antibiotic safety.

Background: Newer classes of targeted drugs for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis are more effective and more expensive than older classes, posing a difficult and potentially costly decision about whether to use them as initial targeted treatments., Objective: To estimate the clinical and economic outcomes of initial targeted treatment for the following drugs: adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab (TNFα inhibitors); apremilast (PDE4 inhibitor); ustekinumab (IL-12/23 inhibitor); and ixekizumab, secukinumab, and brodalumab (IL-17 inhibitors)., Methods: We developed a Markov model to simulate patient outcomes as measured by quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and health care costs over a 10-year period. We assumed that patients who fail initial targeted treatment either proceed to subsequent therapy or discontinue targeted treatment. Effectiveness estimates for initial treatment were defined as improvement in Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) from baseline and derived from a 2018 network meta-analysis. Wholesale acquisition drug costs were discounted by a class-specific, empirically derived rebate percentage off of 2016 costs. We conducted one-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to assess uncertainty in results., Results: The incremental benefits compared with no targeted treatment were, in descending order: ixekizumab 1.68 QALYs (95% credible range [CR] = 1.11-2.02), brodalumab 1.64 QALYs (95% CR = 1.08-1.98), secukinumab 1.51 QALYs (95% CR = 1.00-1.83), ustekinumab 1.43 QALYs (95% CR=0.94-1.74), infliximab 1.27 QALYs (95% CR = 0.89-1.55), adalimumab 1.15 QALYs (95% CR = 0.76-1.44), etanercept 0.97 QALYs (95% CR = 0.61-1.25), and apremilast 0.87 QALYs (95% CR = 0.52-1.17). Costs of care without targeted treatment totaled $66,451, and costs of targeted treatment ranged from $137,080 (apremilast) to $255,422 (ustekinumab). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis results indicated that infliximab and apremilast are likely to be the most cost-effective initial treatments at willingness-to-pay thresholds around $100,000 per QALY, while IL-17 drugs are more likely to be cost-effective at thresholds approaching $150,000 per QALY. Acquisition cost of the initial targeted drug and utility of clinical response were the most influential parameters., Conclusions: Our findings suggest that initial targeted treatment with IL-17 inhibitors is the most effective treatment strategy for plaque psoriasis patients who have failed methotrexate and phototherapy. Apremilast, brodalumab, infliximab, ixekizumab, and secukinumab are cost-effective at different willingness-to-pay thresholds. Additional research is needed on whether the effectiveness of targeted agents changes when used after previously targeted agents., Disclosures: Funding for this study was contributed by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER). Ollendorf, Chapman, Pearson, and Kumar are current employees, and Loos and Liu are former employees, of ICER, an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions, which is funded by grants from the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Blue Shield of California Foundation, and the California HealthCare Foundation. ICER's annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, AHIP, Anthem, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Blue Shield of California, Cambia Health Solutions and MedSavvy, CVS Caremark, Editas, Express Scripts, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Health Care Service Corporation, OmedaRx, United Healthcare, Johnson & Johnson, Kaiser Permanente, Premera Blue Cross, Merck, National Pharmaceutical Council, Takeda, Pfizer, Novartis, Lilly, Humana, Prime Therapeutics, Sanofi, and Spark Therapeutics. Linder owns stock in Amgen, Biogen, and Eli Lilly; has contingent value rights in Sanofi Genzyme (related to alemtuzumab for multiple sclerosis); has received grant support from Astellas Pharma not related to this study and Clintrex, which was supported by AstraZeneca on an unrelated topic; and has received an honorarium from the Society of Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) as part of the SHEA Antimicrobial Stewardship Research Workshop Planning Committee, an educational activity supported by Merck. No other authors have potential conflicts of interest.

Background: Optimal management of hypertension requires frequent monitoring and follow-up. Novel, pragmatic interventions have the potential to engage patients, maintain blood pressure control, and enhance access to busy primary care practices. "Virtual visits" are structured asynchronous online interactions between a patient and a clinician to extend medical care beyond the initial office visit., Objective: To compare blood pressure control and healthcare utilization between patients who received virtual visits compared to usual hypertension care., Design: Propensity score-matched, retrospective cohort study with adjustment by difference-in-differences., Participants: Primary care patients with hypertension., Exposure: Patient participation in at least one virtual visit for hypertension. Usual care patients did not use a virtual visit but were seen in-person for hypertension., Main Measures: Adjusted difference in mean systolic blood pressure, primary care office visits, specialist office visits, emergency department visits, and inpatient admissions in the 180 days before and 180 days after the in-person visit., Key Results: Of the 1051 virtual visit patients and 24,848 usual care patients, we propensity score-matched 893 patients from each group. Both groups were approximately 61 years old, 44% female, 85% White, had about five chronic conditions, and about 20% had a mean pre-visit systolic blood pressure of 140-160 mmHg. Compared to usual care, virtual visit patients had an adjusted 0.8 (95% CI, 0.3 to 1.2) fewer primary care office visits. There was no significant adjusted difference in systolic blood pressure control (0.6 mmHg [95% CI, - 2.0 to 3.1]), specialist visits (0.0 more visits [95% CI, - 0.3 to 0.3]), emergency department visits (0.0 more visits [95% CI, 0.0 to 0.01]), or inpatient admissions (0.0 more admissions [95% CI, 0.0 to 0.1])., Conclusions: Among patients with reasonably well-controlled hypertension, virtual visit participation was associated with equivalent blood pressure control and reduced in-office primary care utilization.

Background: The comparative effectiveness of available targeted immunomodulators for moderate-to-severe psoriasis has not been evaluated., Objective: To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of targeted immunomodulators for adults with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis., Methods: Systematic literature review of placebo-controlled and head-to-head randomized trials of 8 targeted immunomodulators that evaluated clinical benefits or harm. The primary outcome was a 75% improvement on the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index. We also conducted a network meta-analysis adjusted for placebo response to perform indirect comparisons between agents., Results: In the network meta-analysis, the targeted immunomodulators ordered by increasing relative risk (demonstrating greater likelihood) of achieving a 75% improvement on the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index relative to placebo were as follows: apremilast (6.2), etanercept (9.6), adalimumab (13.0), ustekinumab (14.0), secukinumab (15.4), infliximab (16.2), brodalumab (17.3), and ixekizumab (17.9). Ixekizumab, brodalumab, and infliximab were all statistically superior to ustekinumab, adalimumab, etanercept, and apremilast; results were similar to those of head-to-head studies where data were available., Limitations: Much of the evidence is short-term (covering 10-16 weeks); limited direct comparisons., Conclusions: The interleukin 17A inhibitors are more effective in achieving clearance than ustekinumab, and they are generally more effective than etanercept, adalimumab, and apremilast., (Copyright © 2018 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: In the United States, most antibiotics are prescribed in ambulatory settings. Human factors engineering, which explores interactions between people and the place where they work, has successfully improved quality of care. However, human factors engineering models have not been explored to frame what is known about ambulatory antibiotic stewardship (AS) interventions and barriers and facilitators to their implementation., Methods: We conducted a systematic review and searched OVID MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and CINAHL to identify controlled interventions and qualitative studies of ambulatory AS and determine whether and how they incorporated principles from a human factors engineering model, the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety 2.0 model. This model describes how a work system (ambulatory clinic) contributes to a process (antibiotic prescribing) that leads to outcomes. The work system consists of 5 components, tools and technology, organization, person, tasks, and environment, within an external environment., Results: Of 1,288 abstracts initially identified, 42 quantitative studies and 17 qualitative studies met inclusion criteria. Effective interventions focused on tools and technology (eg, clinical decision support and point-of-care testing), the person (eg, clinician education), organization (eg, audit and feedback and academic detailing), tasks (eg, delayed antibiotic prescribing), the environment (eg, commitment posters), and the external environment (media campaigns). Studies have not focused on clinic-wide approaches to AS., Conclusions: A human factors engineering approach suggests that investigating the role of the clinic's processes or physical layout or external pressures' role in antibiotic prescribing may be a promising way to improve ambulatory AS., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: none declared., (© Copyright 2018 by the American Board of Family Medicine.)

Background: Despite new incentives for US primary care, concerns abound that patient-centered practice capabilities are lagging., Objective: Describe the practice structure, patient-centered capabilities, and payment relationships of US primary care practices; identify disparities in practice capabilities., Design: Analysis of the 2015 Medical Organizations Survey (MOS), part of the nationally representative Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS)., Setting: Practice-reported information from primary care practices of MEPS respondents who reported receiving primary care and made at least one visit in 2015 to that practice., Participants: Surveyed primary care practices (n = 4318; 77% response rate) providing primary care to 7161 individuals, representing 101,159,263 Americans., Main Measures: Practice structure (ownership and personnel); practice capabilities (certification as a patient-centered medical home [PCMH], electronic health record [EHR] use, and x-ray capability); and payment orientation (accountable care organization [ACO] and capitation)., Key Results: Independently owned practices served 55% of patients, hospital-owned practices served 19%, and nonprofit/government/academic-owned served 20%. Solo practices served 25% of patients and practices with 2-10 physicians served 53% of patients. Forty-one percent of patients were served by practices certified as PCMHs. Practices with EHRs cared for 90% of patients and could exchange secure messages with 78% of patients. Practices with in-office x-ray capability cared for 34% of patients. Practices participating in ACOs and capitation served 44% and 46% of patients, respectively. Primary care patients in the South, compared to the rest of the country, had less access to nearly all practice capabilities, including patient care coordination (adjusted difference, 13% [95% CI, 8-18]) and secure EHR messaging (adjusted difference, 6% [95% CI, 1-10]). Uninsured patients were less likely to be served at a practice that used an EHR (adjusted difference, 9% [95% CI, 2-16])., Conclusions: Participants' primary care practices were mostly independently owned, nearly always used EHRs (albeit of varying capability), and frequently participated in innovative payment arrangements for a portion of their patients. Patient practices in the South had fewer capabilities than the rest of the country.

Background: U.S. seniors' digital health and everyday technology use when their health declines are unknown., Methods: Longitudinal cohort using the National Health and Aging Trends Study, a nationally representative, annually administered sample of community-dwelling Medicare beneficiaries (n = 4,037). We used difference-in-differences to assess the adjusted difference (AD) in technology use from 2011 to 2014 between those with and without health declines. Health decline measures included new-onset dementia; new-onset depression; decreases in activities of daily living (ADLs), short physical performance battery (SPPB), grip strength, and self-reported health; relocation to nursing facility; increased hospitalizations; and new-onset comorbidity. Digital health included use of the Internet to research health conditions, contact clinicians, fill prescriptions, and address insurance matters., Results: Between 2011 and 2014, seniors experiencing health decline used various digital health technologies at low absolute rates (range: 1%-20%). Between 2011 and 2014, use of everyday technology decreased significantly among seniors with new-onset dementia (from 73% to 51%; AD, -26%), decreased ADLs (from 76% to 67%; AD, -10%), decreased SPPB (from 88% to 86%; AD, -3%), and relocation to a nursing facility (from 49% to 22%; AD, -31%) compared to seniors without comparable decline (all p < .05). Use of digital health decreased significantly among seniors with new-onset probable dementia (from 9% to 4%; AD, -6%) and decreased SPPB (from 24% to 25%; AD, -4%; all p < .05)., Conclusions: The type of health decline a senior experiences predicts technology use, which may allow better targeting of digital health to specific seniors. Seniors with new dementia, relocation to a nursing home, and declining physical performance seem especially poor candidates for technology interventions.

Introduction: Project CLIQ (Community Link to Quit) was a proactive population-outreach strategy using an electronic health records-based smoker registry and interactive voice recognition technology to connect low- to moderate-income smokers with cessation counseling, medications, and social services. A randomized trial demonstrated that the program increased cessation. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of CLIQ from a provider organization's perspective if implemented outside the trial framework., Methods: We calculated the cost, cost per smoker, incremental cost per additional quit, and, secondarily, incremental cost per additional life year saved of the CLIQ system compared to usual care using data from a 2011-2013 randomized trial assessing the effectiveness of the CLIQ system. Sensitivity analyses considered economies of scale and initial versus ongoing costs., Results: Over a 20-month period (the duration of the trial) the program cost US $283 027 (95% confidence interval [CI] $209 824-$389 072) more than usual care in a population of 8544 registry-identified smokers, 707 of whom participated in the program. The cost per smoker was $33 (95% CI 28-40), incremental cost per additional quit was $4137 (95% CI $2671-$8460), and incremental cost per additional life year saved was $7301 (95% CI $4545-$15 400). One-time costs constituted 28% of costs over 20 months. Ongoing costs were dominated by personnel costs (71% of ongoing costs). Sensitivity analyses showed sharp gains in cost-effectiveness as the number of identified smokers increased because of the large initial costs., Conclusions: The CLIQ system has favorable cost-effectiveness compared to other smoking cessation interventions. Cost-effectiveness will be greatest for health systems with high numbers of smokers and with the high smoker participation rates., Implications: Health information systems capable of establishing registries of patients who are smokers are becoming more prevalent. This economic analysis illustrates the cost implications for health care systems adopting a proactive tobacco treatment outreach strategy for low- and middle-income smokers. We find that under many circumstances, the CLIQ system has a favorable cost-per-quit compared to other population-based tobacco treatment strategies. The strategy could be widely disseminable if health systems leverage economies of scale., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)