Search

Abstract Background Healthcare fragmentation and lack of care coordination are longstanding problems in cancer care. This study’s goal was to provide in-depth understanding of how the organization and fragmentation of healthcare impacts the experiences of patients with advanced cancer and their families, especially near the end-of-life. Methods This mixed-methods quality improvement study took place at a large multi-specialty healthcare organization in Northern California. Electronic health record data was used to identify patients with advanced cancer and their characteristics. Data were collected 10/2019-05/2022 through periodic patient surveys and in-depth interviews with sampled family members, including open-ended questions about overall healthcare experiences. Data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Results Overall, 281/482 (58.3%) patients with advanced cancer completed surveys. Surveyed patients’ mean age was 68 (SD: 12.8) years, 53% were male, 73% White, 14.2% Asian, 1.4% Black, 3.9% Other; 8.9% Hispanic, and 19.2% were deceased within 12 months. Twenty-four family members completed in-depth interviews: 17/24 (70.8%) were spouses, 62.5% were female and 50% were interviewed after the patient’s death. Respondents were generally positive about health care team interactions, but consistently brought up the negative impacts of the organization of healthcare, “It is not the fault of the health care team - it is the way the system works.” Three major challenges were identified. (1) Systemic healthcare care fragmentation, including difficulties navigating care across providers and institutions, “It seems like everything is like an isolated incident… there’s no overall, big picture viewpoint.” (2) Administrative burdens, “In the end I gave up [scheduling care] because I was tired of calling.” (3) Financial burdens, “This oncologist wanted to put him on a drug…but it was $4000 a month.” Respondents described these challenges leading to worse quality of care, health, and quality of life, and loss of trust in the national healthcare system. Conclusions These findings illustrate how care fragmentation and administrative and financial burdens lead to worse quality care and distrust of healthcare. Better coordination of patient-centered care, and a fundamental restructuring of a highly fragmented national healthcare system are required to meet the needs of patients with complex conditions like advanced cancer and their families.

Abstract Objectives To examine racial and ethnic disparities in postoperative opioid prescribing. Data sources Electronic health records (EHR) data across 24 hospitals from a healthcare delivery system in Northern California from January 1, 2015 to February 2, 2020 (study period). Study design Cross-sectional, secondary data analyses were conducted to examine differences by race and ethnicity in opioid prescribing, measured as morphine milligram equivalents (MME), among patients who underwent select, but commonly performed, surgical procedures. Linear regression models included adjustment for factors that would likely influence prescribing decisions and race and ethnicity-specific propensity weights. Opioid prescribing, overall and by race and ethnicity, was also compared to postoperative opioid guidelines. Data extraction Data were extracted from the EHR on adult patients undergoing a procedure during the study period, discharged to home with an opioid prescription. Principal findings Among 61,564 patients, on adjusted regression analysis, non-Hispanic Black (NHB) patients received prescriptions with higher mean MME than non-Hispanic white (NHW) patients (+ 6.4% [95% confidence interval: 4.4%, 8.3%]), whereas Hispanic and non-Hispanic Asian patients received lower mean MME (-4.2% [-5.1%, -3.2%] and − 3.6% [-4.8%, -2.3%], respectively). Nevertheless, 72.8% of all patients received prescriptions above guidelines, ranging from 71.0 to 80.3% by race and ethnicity. Disparities in prescribing were eliminated among Hispanic and NHB patients versus NHW patients when prescriptions were written within guideline recommendations. Conclusions Racial and ethnic disparities in opioid prescribing exist in the postoperative setting, yet all groups received prescriptions above guideline recommendations. Policies encouraging guideline-based prescribing may reduce disparities and overall excess prescribing.

Abstract Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related deaths for both men and women in the U.S., yet uptake of preventive cancer screening for people with a heavy smoking history remains low. This qualitative interview study of patients and providers from a large ambulatory healthcare system in northern and central California reevaluated perceptions of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LCS-LDCT) 5 years after Medicare coverage. We hypothesized that initial attitudes and barriers within the LCS-LDCT discussion and process have likely persisted with little change since Medicare coverage and we sought to understand how these attitudes continue to impact effective implementation and uptake of screening with the goal of identifying opportunities for improvement. Between 2019 and 2020, interviews were conducted with 10 primary care physicians and 30 patients using semi-structured interview guides. Providers and patients expressed that they were both aware and supportive of LCS-LDCT, a change from earlier studies, but continued to report little to no shared decision making nor use of a decision aid despite being Medicare requirements. Creation and incorporation of a single-page, graphic heavy decision aid may help address many of the persistent barriers around implementation for both providers and patients. Given recently expanded guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force for LCS-LDCT screening and their coverage by Medicare, it is important for healthcare systems to understand provider and patient perceptions to further improve the implementation of LCS-LDCT to ultimately reduce lung cancer mortality.

Introduction COVID-19 continues to impact vulnerable populations disproportionally. Identifying modifiable risk factors could lead to targeted interventions to reduce infections. The purpose of this study is to identify risk factors for testing positive for SARS-CoV-2. Methods Using electronic health records collected from a large ambulatory care system in northern and central California, the study identified patients who had a test for SARS-CoV-2 between 2/20/2020 and 3/31/2021. The adjusted effect of active and passive smoking and other risk factors on the probability of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 were estimated using multivariable logistic regression. Analyses were conducted in 2021. Results Of 556 690 eligible patients in our sample, 70 564 (12.7%) patients tested positive for SARS-CoV-2. Younger age, being male, racial/ethnic minorities, and having mild major comorbidities were significantly associated with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Current smokers (adjusted OR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.66-0.73) and former smokers (adjusted OR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.89-0.95) were less likely than nonsmokers to be lab-confirmed positive, but no statistically significant differences were found when comparing passive smokers with non-smokers. The patients with missing smoking status (25.7%) were more likely to be members of vulnerable populations with major comorbidities (adjusted OR ranges from severe: 2.52, 95% CI = 2.36-2.69 to mild: 3.28, 95% CI = 3.09-3.48), lower income (adjusted OR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.85-0.86), aged 80 years or older (adjusted OR: 1.11, 95% CI: 1.07-1.16), have less access to primary care (adjusted OR: 0.07, 95% CI: 0.07-0.07), and identify as racial ethnic minorities (adjusted OR ranges from Hispanic: 1.61, 95% CI = 1.56-1.65 to Non-Hispanic Black: 2.60, 95% CI = 2.5-2.69). Conclusions Our findings suggest that the odds of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 were significantly lower in smokers compared to nonsmokers. Other risk factors include missing data on smoking status, being under 18, being male, being a racial/ethnic minority, and having mild major comorbidities. Since those with missing data on smoking status were more likely to be members of vulnerable populations with higher smoking rates, the risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 among smokers may have been underestimated due to missing data on smoking status. Future studies should investigate the risk of severe outcomes among active and passive smokers, the role that exposure to tobacco smoke constitutes among nonsmokers, the role of comorbidities in COVID-19 disease course, and health disparities experienced by disadvantaged groups.

Introduction Surgical patients are commonly prescribed more opioids at discharge than needed to manage their postoperative pain. These excess opioids increase the risks of new persistent opioid use, opioid-induced ventilatory impairment and opioid diversion. This study tests the effectiveness of two behavioural nudges, one based on peer behaviour and one based on best practice guidelines, in reducing excessive postoperative opioid prescriptions.Methods and analysis The study will be conducted at 19 hospitals within a large healthcare delivery system in northern California, USA. Three surgical specialties (general surgery, orthopaedic surgery and obstetric/gynaecological surgery) at each hospital will be randomised either to a control group or to one of two active intervention arms. One intervention is grounded in the theory of injunctive norms, and provides feedback to surgeons on their postoperative opioid prescribing relative to prescribing guidelines endorsed by their institution. The other intervention draws from the theory of descriptive norms, and provides feedback similar to the first intervention but using peers’ behaviour rather than guidelines as the benchmark for the surgeon’s prescribing behaviour. The interventions will be delivered by a monthly email. Both interventions will be active for twelve months. The effects of each intervention relative to the control group and to each other will be tested using a four-level hierarchical model adjusted for multiple hypothesis testing.Ethics and dissemination Using behavioural nudges rather than rigid policy changes allows us to target excessive prescribing without preventing clinicians from using their clinical judgement to address patient pain. All study activities have been approved by the RAND Human Subjects Protection Committee (ID 2018-0988). Findings will be disseminated through conference presentations, peer-reviewed publications and social media accounts.Trial registration number NCT05070338.