ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Multilevel barriers to colonoscopy after a positive fecal blood test for colorectal cancer (CRC) are well-documented. A less-explored barrier to appropriate follow-up is repeat fecal testing after a positive test. We investigated this phenomenon using mixed methods. DESIGN: This sequential mixed methods study included quantitative data from a large cohort of patients 50-89 years from four healthcare systems with a positive fecal test 2010-2018 and qualitative data from interviews with physicians and patients. MAIN MEASURES: Logistic regression was used to evaluate whether repeat testing was associated with failure to complete subsequent colonoscopy and to identify factors associated with repeat testing. Interviews were coded and analyzed to explore reasons for repeat testing. KEY RESULTS: A total of 316,443 patients had a positive fecal test. Within 1 year, 76.3% received a colonoscopy without repeat fecal testing, 3% repeated testing and then received a colonoscopy, 4.4% repeated testing without colonoscopy, and 16.3% did nothing. Among repeat testers (7.4% of total cohort, N = 23,312), 59% did not receive a colonoscopy within 1 year. In adjusted models, those with an initial positive test followed by a negative second test were significantly less likely to receive colonoscopy than those with two successive positive tests (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.35-0.40). Older age (65-75 vs. 50-64 years: OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.33-1.41) and higher comorbidity score (≥ 4 vs. 0: OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.67-1.83) were significantly associated with repeat testing compared to those who received colonoscopy without repeat tests. Qualitative interview data revealed reasons underlying repeat testing, including colonoscopy avoidance, bargaining, and disbelief of positive results. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients in this cohort, 7.4% repeated fecal testing after an initial positive test. Of those, over half did not go on to receive a colonoscopy within 1 year. Efforts to improve CRC screening must address repeat fecal testing after a positive test as a barrier to completing colonoscopy.
ABSTRACT
Purpose: Transgender individuals who pursue gender affirmation medical procedures often need to navigate a complex health system and interact with multiple health care providers in primary and specialty care. We sought to better understand patient, provider, and system level barriers to transgender care in a large integrated health care system in California. Methods: Three 90-min focus groups were conducted with 13 transgender individuals who received specialty care between April and August 2018 in Kaiser Permanente Southern California. Results: Participants cited common adversities such as misgendering and system-wide insensitivity during health care encounters and low levels of understanding of their transgender experience among primary care providers. Provider-patient relationship improvements were recommended for pre- and postsurgical care and service-provider sensitivity training. Suggestions include better care coordination, reducing redundancy in clearance for specialty care services, and enhancing patient support for navigation of gender affirmation services. Participants requested careful consideration when implementing systemwide routine processes such as using pronouns and names when calling patients in for visits or describing procedures on service invoices. Conclusions: Education and training programs for improving transgender care competency and enhancing care coordination between primary care and specialty care for transgender patients are warranted. Including transgender voices with lived-experience as active stakeholders in ongoing efforts such as community advisory boards to identify care gaps may facilitate patient-centered and culturally sensitive transgender care and increased patient satisfaction. Policy Implications: There is a need for systematic training for transgender care competent providers and enhancement of care coordination between primary care and specialty care.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to develop a natural language processing algorithm to identify suicidal ideation/attempt from free-text clinical notes. METHODS: Clinical notes containing prespecified keywords related to suicidal ideation/attempts from 2010 to 2018 were extracted from our organization's electronic health record system. A random sample of 864 clinical notes was selected and equally divided into 4 subsets. These subsets were reviewed and classified as 1 of the following 3 suicidal ideation/attempt categories (current, historical, and no) by experienced research chart abstractors. The first 3 data sets were used to develop the rule-based computerized algorithm sequentially and the fourth data set was used to evaluate the algorithm's performance. The validated algorithm was then applied to the entire study sample of clinical notes. RESULTS: The computerized algorithm correctly identified 23 of the 26 confirmed current suicidal ideation/attempts and all 10 confirmed historical suicidal ideation/attempts in the validation data set. It produced an 88.5% sensitivity and a 100.0% positive predictive value for current suicidal ideation/attempts, and a 100.0% sensitivity and positive predictive value for historical suicidal ideation/attempts. After applying the computerized algorithm to the entire set of study notes, we identified a total of 1,050,287 current ideation/attempt events and 293,037 historical ideation/attempt events documented in clinical notes. Those for which current ideation/attempt events were documented were more likely to be female (59.5%), 25-44 years old (28.3%), and White (43.4%). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated that a computerized algorithm can effectively identify suicidal ideation/attempts from clinical notes. This algorithm can be utilized in support of suicide prevention research programs and patient care quality improvement initiatives.
