Arsenic Exposure in Well Water From the Perspective of Patients and Providers.

BACKGROUND: Arsenic is a well-known toxin which may contaminate household water. It is harmful when ingested over prolonged periods of time. As a result, public health experts recommend that water should be screened and treated to prevent arsenic ingestion. In the United States, the responsibility of testing and treatment of private wells falls on homeowners. Despite recommendations for routine screening, this is rarely done. OBJECTIVES: To assess the prevalence of well water use in a Midwestern patient population, how patients and clinicians perceive the risks of arsenic in well water, and whether additional resources on well water testing are desired. These findings will be used to influence tools for clinicians regarding symptom and examination findings of chronic arsenic exposure and potentiate the distribution of informational resources on well water testing. METHODS: Surveys were sent via email to all actively practicing primary care clinicians at the Mayo Clinic in the United States Midwest, and all active adult patients at the Mayo Clinic in the same region. Our team analyzed survey data to determine whether both patients and clinicians are aware of the health effects of chronic arsenic toxicity from well water, the need for routine well water testing and whether each group wants more information on the associated risks. RESULTS: Both patients and primary care clinicians worry about arsenic exposure. Patients with well water are concerned about their water safety yet feel uninformed about testing options. Clinicians do not know how prevalent well water use is among their patients, feel uninformed about the chronic risks of arsenic exposure and the physical examination associated with it. Both groups unanimously want more information on testing options. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show a significant reliance on well water use in the American Midwest, and unanimous support for the need for further well water testing information and resources for patients and their clinicians.

Disparities in Diabetes Care: Differences Between Rural and Urban Patients Within a Large Health System.

PURPOSE: We sought to ascertain factors associated with the quality of diabetes care, comparing rural vs urban diabetic patients in a large health care system. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study assessing patients' attainment of the D5 metric, a diabetes care metric having 5 components (no tobacco use, glycated hemoglobin [A1c] level less than 8%, blood pressure less than 140/90 mm Hg, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level at goal or statin prescribed, and aspirin use consistent with clinical recommendations). Covariates included age, sex, race, adjusted clinical group (ACG) score as a marker of complexity, insurance type, primary care clinician type, and health care use data. RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 45,279 patients with diabetes, 54.4% of whom resided in rural locations. The D5 composite metric was met in 39.9% of rural patients and 43.2% of urban patients (P <.001). Rural patients were significantly less likely to have attained all metric goals than urban counterparts (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88-0.97). The rural group had fewer outpatient visits (mean number of visits = 3.2 vs 3.9, P <.001) and less often had an endocrinology visit (5.5% vs 9.3%, P <.001) during the 1-year study period. Patients with an endocrinology visit were less likely to have met the D5 metric (AOR = 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.86), whereas the more outpatient visits patients had, the greater their likelihood of attainment (AOR per visit = 1.03; 95% CI, 1.03-1.04). CONCLUSIONS: Rural patients had worse diabetes quality outcomes than their urban counterparts, even after adjustment for other contributing factors and despite being part of the same integrated health system. Lower visit frequency and less specialty involvement in the rural setting are possible contributing factors.

Clinician Adoption of an Artificial Intelligence Algorithm to Detect Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction in Primary Care.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinicians' characteristics of "high adopters" and "low adopters" of an artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled electrocardiogram (ECG) algorithm that alerted for possible low left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) and the subsequent effectiveness of detecting patients with low EF. METHODS: Clinicians in 48 practice sites of a US Midwest health system were cluster-randomized by the care team to usual care or to receive a notification that suggested ordering an echocardiogram in patients flagged as potentially having low EF based on an AI-ECG algorithm. Enrollment was between June 26, 2019, and July 30, 2019; participation concluded on March 31, 2020. This report is focused on those clinicians randomized to receive the notification of the AI-ECG algorithm. At the patient level, data were analyzed for the proportion of patients with positive AI-ECG results. Adoption was defined as the clinician order of an echocardiogram after prompted by the alert. RESULTS: A total of 165 clinicians and 11,573 patients were included in this analysis. Among patients with positive AI-ECG, high adopters (n=41) were twice as likely to diagnose patients with low EF (33.9%) vs low adopters, n=124, (16.9%); odds ratio, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.21 to 2.17). High adopters were more often advanced practice providers (eg, nurse practitioners and physician assistants) vs physicians, Family Medicine vs Internal Medicine specialty, and tended to have less complex patients. CONCLUSION: Clinicians who most frequently followed the recommendations of an AI tool were twice as likely to diagnose low EF. Those clinicians with less complex patients were more likely to be high adopters. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT04000087.

Artificial intelligence-enabled electrocardiograms for identification of patients with low ejection fraction: a pragmatic, randomized clinical trial.

We have conducted a pragmatic clinical trial aimed to assess whether an electrocardiogram (ECG)-based, artificial intelligence (AI)-powered clinical decision support tool enables early diagnosis of low ejection fraction (EF), a condition that is underdiagnosed but treatable. In this trial ( NCT04000087 ), 120 primary care teams from 45 clinics or hospitals were cluster-randomized to either the intervention arm (access to AI results; 181 clinicians) or the control arm (usual care; 177 clinicians). ECGs were obtained as part of routine care from a total of 22,641 adults (N = 11,573 intervention; N = 11,068 control) without prior heart failure. The primary outcome was a new diagnosis of low EF (≤50%) within 90 days of the ECG. The trial met the prespecified primary endpoint, demonstrating that the intervention increased the diagnosis of low EF in the overall cohort (1.6% in the control arm versus 2.1% in the intervention arm, odds ratio (OR) 1.32 (1.01-1.61), P = 0.007) and among those who were identified as having a high likelihood of low EF (that is, positive AI-ECG, 6% of the overall cohort) (14.5% in the control arm versus 19.5% in the intervention arm, OR 1.43 (1.08-1.91), P = 0.01). In the overall cohort, echocardiogram utilization was similar between the two arms (18.2% control versus 19.2% intervention, P = 0.17); for patients with positive AI-ECGs, more echocardiograms were obtained in the intervention compared to the control arm (38.1% control versus 49.6% intervention, P < 0.001). These results indicate that use of an AI algorithm based on ECGs can enable the early diagnosis of low EF in patients in the setting of routine primary care.

Clinician Care Team Composition and Health Care Utilization.

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that a greater proportion of physician time on primary care teams are associated with decreased emergency department (ED) visits, hospital admissions, and readmissions, and to determine clinician and care team characteristics associated with greater utilization. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed administrative data collected from January 1 to December 31, 2017, of 420 family medicine clinicians (253 physicians, 167 nurse practitioners/physician assistants [NP/PAs]) with patient panels in an integrated health system in 59 Midwestern communities serving rural and urban areas in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa. These clinicians cared for 419,581 patients through 110 care teams, with varying numbers of physicians and NP/PAs. Primary outcome measures were rates of ED visits, hospitalizations, and readmissions. RESULTS: The proportion of physician full-time equivalents on the team was unrelated to rates of ED visits (rate ratio [RR] = 0.826; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.624 to 1.063), hospitalizations (RR = 0.894; 95% CI, 0.746 to 1.072), or readmissions (RR = -0.026; 95% CI, 0.364 to 0.312). In separate multivariable models adjusted for clinician and practice-level characteristics, the rate of ED visits was positively associated with mean panel hierarchical condition category (HCC) score, urban vs rural setting, NP/PA vs physician, and lower years in practice. The rate of inpatient admissions was associated with HCC score, and 30-day hospital readmissions were positively associated with HCC score, lower years in practice, and male clinicians. CONCLUSION: Care team physician and NP/PA composition was not independently related to utilization. More complex panels had higher rates of ED visits, hospitalization, and readmissions. Statistically significant differences between physician and NP/PA panels were only evident for ED visits.

Relationship of Clinician Care Team Composition and Diabetes Quality Outcomes.

The objective was to determine if a greater proportion of physician full-time equivalent (FTE%) relative to nurse practitioners/physician assistants (NPs/PAs) on care teams was associated with improved individual clinician diabetes quality outcomes. The authors conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study of 420 family medicine clinicians in 110 care teams in a Midwest health system, using administrative data from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. Poisson regression was used to examine the relationship between physician FTE% and the number of patients meeting 5 criteria included in a composite metric for diabetes management (D5). Covariates included panel size, clinician type, sex, years in practice, region, patient satisfaction, care team size, rural location, and panel complexity. Of the 420 clinicians, 167 (40%) were NP/PA staff and 253 (60%) were physicians. D5 criteria were achieved in 37.9% of NP/PA panels compared with 44.5% of physician panels (P < .001). In adjusted analysis, rate of patients achieving D5 was unrelated to physician FTE% on the care team (P = .78). Physicians had a 1.082 (95% confidence interval 1.007-1.164) times greater rate of patients with diabetes achieving D5 than NPs/PAs. Clinicians at rural locations had a .904 (.852-.959) times lower rate of achieving D5 than those at urban locations. Physicians had a greater rate of patients achieving D5 compared with NPs/PAs, but physician FTE% on the care team was unrelated to D5 outcomes. This suggests that clinician team composition matters less than team roles and the dynamics of collaborative care between members.