Search

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) may improve care for patients with heart failure. The Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 (KCCQ-12) is a patient survey that captures symptom frequency, symptom burden, physical limitations, social limitations, and quality of life. Despite the utility of PROs and the KCCQ-12, the implementation and routine use of these measures can be difficult. We conducted an evaluation of clinician perceptions of the KCCQ-12 to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation into clinical practice. METHODS: We conducted interviews with cardiologists from 4 institutions across the United States and Canada (n=16) and observed clinic visits at 1 institution in Northern California (n=5). Qualitative analysis was conducted in 2 rounds: (1) rapid analysis constructed around major themes related to the aims of the study and (2) content analysis with codes derived from the rapid analysis and implementation science. RESULTS: Most heart failure physicians and advanced practice clinicians reported that the KCCQ-12 was acceptable, appropriate, and useful in clinical care. Clinician engagement efforts, trialability, and the straightforward design of the KCCQ-12 facilitated its use in clinical care. Further opportunities identified to facilitate implementation include more streamlined integration into the electronic health record and comprehensive staff education on PROs. Participants highlighted that the KCCQ-12 was useful in clinic visits to improve the consistency of patient history taking, focus patient-clinician conversations, collect a more accurate account of patient quality of life, track trends in patient well-being over time, and refine clinical decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: In this qualitative study, clinicians reported that the KCCQ-12 enhanced several aspects of heart failure patient care. Use of the KCCQ-12 was facilitated by a robust clinician engagement campaign and the design of the KCCQ-12 itself. Future implementation of PROs in heart failure clinic should focus on streamlining electronic health record integration and providing additional staff education on the value of PROs. REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04164004.

Background: COVID-19 spurred rapid adoption and expansion of telemedicine. We investigated the factors driving visit modality (telemedicine vs. in-person) for outpatient visits at a large cardiovascular center. Methods: We used electronic health record data from March 2020 to February 2021 from four cardiology subspecialties (general cardiology, electrophysiology, heart failure, and interventional cardiology) at a large academic health system in Northern California. There were 21,912 new and return visits with 69% delivered by telemedicine. We used hierarchical logistic regression and cross-validation methods to estimate the variation in visit modality explained by patient, clinician, and visit factors as measured by the mean area under the curve. Results: Across all subspecialties, the clinician seen was the strongest predictor of telemedicine usage, while primary visit diagnosis was the next most predictive. In general cardiology, the model based on clinician seen had a mean area under the curve of 0.83, the model based on the primary diagnosis had a mean area under the curve of 0.69, and the model based on all patient characteristics combined had a mean area under the curve of 0.56. There was significant variation in telemedicine use across clinicians within each subspecialty, even for visits with the same primary visit diagnosis. Conclusion: Individual clinician practice patterns had the largest influence on visit modality across subspecialties in a large cardiovascular medicine practice, while primary diagnosis was less predictive, and patient characteristics even less so. Cardiovascular clinics should reduce variability in visit modality selection through standardized processes that integrate clinical factors and patient preference. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, cardiology clinics rapidly implemented telemedicine to maintain access to care. Little is known about subsequent trends in telemedicine use and visit volumes across cardiology subspecialties. We conducted a retrospective cohort study including all patients with ambulatory visits at a multispecialty cardiovascular center in Northern California from March 2019 to February 2020 (pre-COVID) and March 2020 to February 2021 (COVID). Telemedicine use increased from 3.5% of visits (1200/33,976) during the pre-COVID period to 63.0% (21,251/33,706) during the COVID period. Visit volumes were below pre-COVID levels from March to May 2020 but exceeded pre-COVID levels after June 2020, including when local COVID-19 cases peaked. Telemedicine use was above 75% of visits in all cardiology subspecialties in April 2020 and stabilized at rates ranging from over 95% in electrophysiology to under 25% in heart transplant and vascular medicine. From June 2020 to February 2021, subspecialties delivering a greater percentage of visits through telemedicine experienced larger increases in new patient visits (r = 0.81, p = 0.029). Telemedicine can be used to deliver a significant proportion of outpatient cardiovascular care though utilization varies across subspecialties. Higher rates of telemedicine adoption may increase access to care in cardiology clinics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Exercise stress echocardiograms (stress echos) are overused, whereas exercise stress electrocardiograms (stress ECGs) can be an appropriate, lower‐cost substitute. In this post hoc, mixed methods evaluation, we assessed an initiative promoting value‐based, guideline‐concordant ordering practices in primary care (PC) and cardiology clinics. Methods: Change in percent of stress ECGs ordered of all exercise stress tests (stress ECGs and echos) was calculated between three periods: baseline (January 2019–February 2020); Period 1 with reduced stress ECG report turnaround time + PC‐targeted education (began June 2020); and Period 2 with the addition of electronic health record‐based alternative alert (AA) providing point‐of‐care clinical decision support. The AA was deployed in two of five PC clinics in July 2020, two additional PC clinics in January 2021, and one of four cardiology clinics in February 2021. Nineteen primary care providers (PCPs) and five cardiologists were interviewed in Period 2. Results: Clinicians reported reducing ECG report turnaround time was crucial for adoption. PCPs specifically reported that value‐based education helped change their practice. In PC, the percent of stress ECGs ordered increased by 38% ± 6% (SE) (p < 0.0001) from baseline to Period 1. Most PCPs identified the AA as the most impactful initiative, yet stress ECG ordering did not change (6% ± 6%; p = 0.34) between Periods 1 and 2. In contrast, cardiologists reportedly relied on their expertise rather than AAs, yet their stress ECGs orders increased from Period 1 to 2 to a larger degree in the cardiology clinic with the AA (12% ± 5%; p = 0.01) than clinics without the AA (6% ± 2%; p = 0.01). The percent of stress ECGs ordered was higher in Period 2 than baseline for both specialties (both p < 0.0001). Conclusions: This initiative influenced ordering behaviour in PC and cardiology clinics. However, clinicians' perceptions of the initiative varied between specialties and did not always align with the observed behaviour change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinicians typically estimate heart failure health status using the New York Heart Association Class, which is often discordant with patient-reported health status. It is unknown whether collecting patient-reported health status improves the accuracy of clinician assessments. Methods: The PRO-HF trial (Patient-Reported Outcomes in Heart Failure Clinic) is a randomized, nonblinded trial evaluating routine Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 (KCCQ-12) collection in heart failure clinic. Patients with a scheduled visit to Stanford heart failure clinic between August 30, 2021 and June 30, 2022 were enrolled and randomized to KCCQ-12 assessment or usual care. In this prespecified substudy, we evaluated whether access to the KCCQ-12 improved the accuracy of clinicians' New York Heart Association assessment or patients' perspectives on their clinician interaction. We surveyed clinicians regarding their patients' New York Heart Association Class, quality of life, and symptom frequency. Clinician responses were compared with patients' KCCQ-12 responses. We surveyed patients regarding their clinician interactions. Results: Of the 1248 enrolled patients, 1051 (84.2%) attended a visit during the substudy. KCCQ-12 results were given to the clinicians treating the 528 patients in the KCCQ-12 arm; the 523 patients in the usual care arm completed the KCCQ-12 without the results being shared. The correlation between New York Heart Association Class and KCCQ-12 Overall Summary Score was stronger when clinicians had access to the KCCQ-12 (r=−0.73 versus r=−0.61, P <0.001). More patients in the KCCQ-12 arm strongly agreed that their clinician understood their symptoms (95.2% versus 89.7% of respondents [odds ratio‚ 2.27; 95% CI‚ 1.32–3.87]). However, patients in both arms reported similar quality of clinician communication and therapeutic alliance. Conclusions: Collecting the KCCQ-12 in heart failure clinic improved clinicians' accuracy of health status assessment; correspondingly, patients believed their clinicians better understood their symptoms. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04164004. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]