Trends in Utilization of Electronic Consultations Associated With Patient Payer and Language Among US Academic Medical Centers During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Importance: Electronic consultations (eConsultations) are increasingly used to obtain specialist guidance, avoiding unnecessary face-to-face patient visits for certain clinical questions. During the COVID-19 pandemic, when in-person care was limited, eConsultations may have helped clinicians obtain specialist input to guide patient care. Objective: To understand how the use of eConsultations changed during the COVID-19 pandemic and whether trends in eConsultation utilization differed based on patient's payer and primary language. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at 6 academic medical centers in the United States, all participating in the Association of American Colleges Coordinating Optimal Referral Experiences program. Participants included adult patients who had an outpatient visit, referral, or eConsultation during the study period. Data were analyzed from June 4, 2019, to July 28, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the eConsultation proportion of specialty contact, defined as the number of completed eConsultations divided by the sum of the number of completed eConsultations and specialty referrals, expressed as a percentage. eConsultation percentages of specialty contact were further stratified by payer type and language. Payers included commercial, Medicare, Medicaid, self-pay or uninsured, and other. Primary language included English and non-English languages. Results: A total of 14 545 completed eConsultations and 189 776 referrals were included. More eConsultations were completed for English-speaking patients (11 363 eConsultations [95.0%]) than non-English-speaking patients (597 eConsultations [5.0%]). Patients with commercial insurance represented the highest number of completed eConsultations (8848 eConsultations [60.8%]) followed by Medicare (3891 eConsultations [26.8%]), Medicaid (930 eConsultations [6.4%]), other insurance (745 eConsultations [5.1%]), and self-pay or no insurance (131 eConsultations [0.9%]). At the start of the pandemic, across all academic medical centers, the percentage of specialty contact conducted via eConsultation significantly increased by 6.21% (95% CI, 4.97%-7.44%; P < .001). When stratified by payer and language, the percentage of specialty contact conducted via eConsultation significantly increased at the beginning of the pandemic for both English-speaking patients (change, 6.09% (95% CI, 4.82% to 7.37%; P < .001) and non-English-speaking patients (change, 8.48% [95% CI, 5.79% to 11.16%]; P < .001) and for all payers, except self-pay and uninsured patients (change, -0.21% [95% CI, [-1.35% to 0.92%]; P = .70). Conclusions and Relevance: This retrospective cohort study found that eConsultations provided an accessible mechanism for clinicians to receive specialist input when in-person care was limited.

Clinical Use of an Electronic Pre-Visit Questionnaire Soliciting Patient Visit Goals and Interim History: A Retrospective Comparison Between Safety-net and Non-Safety-net Clinics.

INTRODUCTION/OBJECTIVES: We examined an initial step towards co-generation of clinic notes by inviting patients to complete a pre-visit questionnaire that could be inserted into clinic notes by providers and describe the experience in a safety-net and non-safety-net clinic. METHODS: We sent an electronic pre-visit questionnaire on visit goals and interim history to patients at a safety-net clinic and a non-safety-net clinic before clinic visits. We compared questionnaire utilization between clinics during a one-year period and performed a chart review of a sample of patients to examine demographics, content and usage of patient responses to the questionnaire. RESULTS: While use was low in both clinics, it was lower in the safety-net clinic (3%) compared to the non-safety-net clinic (10%). We reviewed a sample of respondents and found they were more likely to be White compared to the overall clinic populations (p < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in patient-typed notes (word count and number of visit goals) between the safety-net and non-safety-net samples however, patients at the safety-net clinic were less likely to have all of their goals addressed within the PCP documentation, compared to the non-safety-net clinic. CONCLUSIONS: Given potential benefits of this questionnaire as a communication tool, addressing barriers to use of technology among vulnerable patients is needed, including access to devices and internet, and support from caregivers or culturally concordant peer navigators.

Care partners reading patients' visit notes via patient portals: Characteristics and perceptions.

BACKGROUND: Care partners are key members of patients' health care teams, yet little is known about their experiences accessing patient information via electronic portals. OBJECTIVE: To better understand the characteristics and perceptions of care partners who read patients' electronic visit notes. PATIENT INVOLVEMENT: Focus groups with diverse patients from a community health center provided input into survey development. METHODS: We contacted patient portal users at 3 geographically distinct sites in the US via email in 2017 for an online survey including open ended questions which we qualitatively analyzed. RESULTS: Respondents chose whether to answer as care partners (N = 874) or patients (N = 28,782). Among care partner respondents, 44% were spouses, 43% children/other family members, and 14% friends/neighbors/other. Both care partners and patients reported that access to electronic notes was very important for promoting positive health behaviors, but care partners' perceptions of importance were consistently more positive than patients' perceptions of engagement behaviors. Open-ended comments included positive benefits such as: help with remembering the plan for care, coordinating care with other doctors, decreasing stress of care giving, improving efficiency of visits, and supporting patients from a geographical distance. They also offered suggestions for improving electronic portal and note experience for care partners such as having a separate log on for care partners; having doctors avoid judgmental language in their notes; and the ability to prompt needed medical care for patients. DISCUSSION: Care partners value electronic access to patients' health information even more than patients. The majority of care partners were family members, whose feedback is important for improving portal design that effectively engages these care team members. PRACTICAL VALUE: Patient care in the time of COVID-19 increasingly requires social distancing which may place additional burden on care partners supporting vulnerable patients. Access to patient notes may promote quality of care by keeping care partners informed, and care partner's input should be used to optimize portal design and electronic access to patient information.

Patients Contributing to Visit Notes: Mixed Methods Evaluation of OurNotes.

BACKGROUND: Secure patient portals are widely available, and patients use them to view their electronic health records, including their clinical notes. We conducted experiments asking them to cogenerate notes with their clinicians, an intervention called OurNotes. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess patient and provider experiences and attitudes after 12 months of a pilot intervention. METHODS: Before scheduled primary care visits, patients were asked to submit a word-constrained, unstructured interval history and an agenda for what they would like to discuss at the visit. Using site-specific methods, their providers were invited to incorporate the submissions into notes documenting the visits. Sites served urban, suburban, and rural patients in primary care practices in 4 academic health centers in Boston (Massachusetts), Lebanon (New Hampshire), Denver (Colorado), and Seattle (Washington). Each practice offered electronic access to visit notes (open notes) to its patients for several years. A mixed methods evaluation used tracking data and electronic survey responses from patients and clinicians. Participants were 174 providers and 1962 patients who submitted at least 1 previsit form. We asked providers about the usefulness of the submissions, effects on workflow, and ideas for the future. We asked patients about difficulties and benefits of providing the requested information and ideas for future improvements. RESULTS: Forms were submitted before 9.15% (5365/58,652) eligible visits, and 43.7% (76/174) providers and 26.76% (525/1962) patients responded to the postintervention evaluation surveys; 74 providers and 321 patients remembered receiving and completing the forms and answered the survey questions. Most clinicians thought interim patient histories (69/74, 93%) and patient agendas (72/74, 97%) as good ideas, 70% (52/74) usually or always incorporated them into visit notes, 54% (40/74) reported no change in visit length, and 35% (26/74) thought they saved time. Their most common suggestions related to improving notifications when patient forms were received, making it easier to find the form and insert it into the note, and educating patients about how best to prepare their submissions. Patient respondents were generally well educated, most found the history (259/321, 80.7%) and agenda (286/321, 89.1%) questions not difficult to answer; more than 92.2% (296/321) thought sending answers before the visit a good idea; 68.8% (221/321) thought the questions helped them prepare for the visit. Common suggestions by patients included learning to write better answers and wanting to know that their submissions were read by their clinicians. At the end of the pilot, all participating providers chose to continue the OurNotes previsit form, and sites considered expanding the intervention to more clinicians and adapting it for telemedicine visits. CONCLUSIONS: OurNotes interests patients, and providers experience it as a positive intervention. Participation by patients, care partners, clinicians, and electronic health record experts will facilitate further development.

Hepatitis C treatment outcomes among patients treated in co-located primary care and addiction treatment settings.

BACKGROUND: Persons with substance use disorders face major barriers to hepatitis C virus (HCV) treatment. Co-location of addiction and HCV treatment is appealing, yet there are limited data on outcomes using this model. This study evaluated HCV outcomes of patients treated with direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) by primary care providers in two sites of co-located addiction/HCV care. METHODS: The study conducted a retrospective chart review for all patients receiving DAA treatment from 2016 to 2018 at 1) a hospital-based primary care clinic with an office-based buprenorphine program, and 2) a primary care clinic within an opioid treatment program (i.e. methadone clinic). The study classified patients into 3 groups according to treatment status: buprenorphine maintenance, methadone maintenance, or neither. Descriptive analyses compared patient demographics, clinical characteristics, adherence to monitoring and treatment, and the primary outcome of sustained virologic response at 12 weeks (SVR12), defined as an undetectable HCV viral load at least 12 weeks after completing treatment. RESULTS: This study included 50 patients who initiated DAA treatment. The majority of patients were unemployed (74.0%), did not smoke tobacco (54.0%), and had psychiatric comorbidities (80.0%). Many also experienced homelessness during treatment (22.0%) and experienced previous incarceration (36.0%). Only a few had recently injected drugs (4.0%). Seven of 7 (100%) patients were treated with buprenorphine, 21 of 24 (87.5%) patients were treated with methadone, and 17 of 19 (89.5%) patients receiving no opioid addiction treatment fully completed HCV DAA treatment. When including patients with missing SVR12 data with the cohort that did not achieve cure, we observe that 44 of 50 patients (88.0%) achieved SVR12. Excluding patients missing SVR12 data, we observed that 44 of 46 patients (95.7%) achieved SVR12. CONCLUSION: Persons with substance use disorders treated with DAAs in co-located primary care and addiction treatment settings can achieve high rates of cure despite significant comorbidities and barriers. DAA treatment should be expanded to co-located HCV and addiction settings.

Patients Evaluate Visit Notes Written by Their Clinicians: a Mixed Methods Investigation.

BACKGROUND: Patients actively involved in their care demonstrate better health outcomes. Using secure internet portals, clinicians are increasingly offering patients access to their narrative visit notes (open notes), but we know little about their understanding of notes written by clinicians. OBJECTIVE: We examined patients' views on the clarity, accuracy, and thoroughness of notes, their suggestions for improvement, and associations between their perceptions and willingness to recommend clinicians to others. DESIGN: We conducted an online survey of patients in 3 large health systems, June-October 2017. We performed a mixed methods analysis of survey responses regarding a self-selected note. PARTICIPANTS: Respondents were 21,664 patients aged 18 years or older who had read at least 1 open note in the previous 12 months. MAIN MEASURES: We asked to what degree the patient recalled understanding the note, whether it described the visit accurately, whether anything important was missing, for suggestions to improve the note, and whether they would recommend the authoring clinician to others. KEY RESULTS: Nearly all patients (96%) reported they understood all or nearly all of the self-selected note, with few differences by clinician type or specialty. Overall, 93% agreed or somewhat agreed the note accurately described the visit, and 6% reported something important missing from the note. The most common suggestions for improvement related to structure and content, jargon, and accuracy. Patients who reported understanding only some or very little of the note, or found inaccuracies or omissions, were much less likely to recommend the clinician to family and friends. CONCLUSIONS: Patients overwhelmingly report understanding their visit notes and usually find them accurate, with few disparities according to sociodemographic or health characteristics. They have many suggestions for improving their quality, and if they understand a note poorly or find inaccuracies, they often have less confidence in their clinicians.

Effect of lowering initiation thresholds in a primary care-based buprenorphine treatment program.

BACKGROUND: Office-based buprenorphine treatment is effective for opioid use disorder. Scant research has examined programmatic factors impacting successful initiation of treatment. To increase initiation of eligible patients, our buprenorphine program implemented changes to lower treatment thresholds. Most notable among these was elimination of a requirement that patients demonstrate abstinence from stimulants prior to initiating buprenorphine. METHODS: This observational, retrospective study included patients screened for primary care-based buprenorphine treatment under high- and low-threshold conditions from 2015 to 2017. Background characteristics and treatment data were extracted from the electronic medical record and clinical registry. Chi-squared tests were used to compare proportions of patients initiated within 90 days of screening and retained to 60 days after initiation, under both conditions. Multivariate logistic regression was employed to compare relative odds of buprenorphine initiation after adjustment for several covariates. All analyses were stratified by recent stimulant use. RESULTS: The sample of 168 patients included 96 in the high-threshold group and 72 in the low-threshold group. Among patients with recent stimulant use, low-threshold conditions were associated with a higher proportion of patients initiated (69% versus 35%, p = 0.002) and higher relative odds of initiation (aOR = 7.01, 95% CI = 2.26-21.80) but also with a lower proportion of patients retained (63% versus 100%, p = 0.004). Among patients without recent stimulant use, low-threshold conditions did not change these measures by a statistically significant margin. CONCLUSIONS: Lower-threshold policies may increase buprenorphine treatment initiation for patients with co-occurring stimulant use. However, patients using stimulants may require additional supports to remain engaged.

Communicating with Vulnerable Patient Populations: A Randomized Intervention to Teach Inpatients to Use the Electronic Patient Portal.

BACKGROUND: Patient portals are expanding as a means to engage patients and have evidence for benefit in the outpatient setting. However, few studies have evaluated their use in the inpatient setting, or with vulnerable patient populations. OBJECTIVE: This article assesses an intervention to teach hospitalized vulnerable patients to access their discharge summaries using electronic patient portals. METHODS: Patients at a safety net hospital were randomly assigned to portal use education or usual care. Surveys assessed perceptions of discharge paperwork and the electronic portal. RESULTS: Of the 202 prescreened eligible patients (e.g., deemed mentally competent, spoke English, and had a telephone), only 43% had working emails. Forty-four percent of participants did not remember receiving or reading discharge paperwork. Patients trained in portal use (n = 47) or receiving usual care (n = 23) preferred hospitals with online record access (85 and 83%, respectively), and felt that online access would increase their trust in doctors (85 and 87%) and satisfaction with care (91% each). Those who received training in portal use were more likely to register for the portal (48% vs. 11%; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Patients had positive perceptions of portals, and education increased portal use. Lack of email access is a notable barrier to electronic communication with vulnerable patients.

Patients' perceptions of their doctors' notes and after-visit summaries: A mixed methods study of patients at safety-net clinics.

BACKGROUND: Patients are increasingly offered electronic access to their doctors' notes, and many consistently receive paper After-Visit Summaries. Specific feedback from patients about notes and summaries are lacking, particularly within safety-net settings. DESIGN: A mixed methods study SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with poorly controlled diabetes attending two urban safety-net primary care clinics in Washington State. METHODS: Patients read their own most recent clinic note and After-Visit Summary, then completed a brief survey followed by a focus group discussion (3 groups in a large general medicine teaching clinic and 1 in an HIV/AIDS clinic) about their perceptions of the clinic note and After-Visit Summary. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients participated; 70% were male, 41% were Black, 48% were unemployed or disabled, 56% reported fair/poor health, and 37% had accessed the electronic patient portal. A majority of patients felt their note content was useful (89%); a minority reported that their notes were not accurate (19%), had too much medical jargon (29%), or were too long (26%). Themes identified from the discussions included reliance on the provider to explain confusing content; a desire for more rather than less detail; and perceived inaccuracies, particularly in heavily templated notes. In each focus group, one or more portal users were enthusiastically willing to teach other patients. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of focus group participants at this safety-net site had not accessed the electronic patient portal, but those who had were willing to promote the portal benefits and assist others. Patients identified specific opportunities to improve clinic notes and After-Visit Summaries.

Will use of patient portals help to educate and communicate with patients with diabetes?

OBJECTIVE: Chronic disease management can require daily attention, and increased levels of patient activation and engagement. We examined whether patients with diabetes perceive a greater benefit to having electronic access to their doctors' clinic notes compared to patients without diabetes. We hypothesized that easy electronic access to these notes may help patients with self-care by improving education and communication. METHODS: Survey of patients with and without diabetes in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania about perceptions of potential benefits and risks of reading their visit notes via an electronic patient information portal. Administrative data were used to identify patients with diabetes; we compared their perceptions to those of patients without diabetes. RESULTS: The majority of patients (both with and without diabetes) perceived a positive impact of using the portal. Patients with diabetes were significantly more likely to believe that having access to and reading their notes would help them take their medication better and take better care of themselves. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with chronic diseases such as diabetes might receive an even greater benefit from access to their doctors' notes than the general patient population. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Doctors should encourage their patients with diabetes (or other chronic diseases) to use patient portals.

Barriers to Engagement in Collaborative Care Treatment of Uncontrolled Diabetes in a Safety-Net Clinic.

Purpose The purpose of the study was to evaluate patient factors associated with nonengagement in a Diabetes Collaborative Care Team (DCCT) program in a safety-net clinic. Methods The first 18 months of a multidisciplinary care, team-based diabetes care management program in a safety-net primary care clinic were studied. Nonengagement was defined as fewer than 2 visits with a team member during the 18 months of the program. Patients who did not engage in the program were compared with those who did engage on demographics, comorbid medical and psychiatric diagnoses, and cardiovascular risk factors, using univariate and multivariable analyses. Results Of the 151 patients referred to the DCCT, 68 (45%) were nonengaged. In unadjusted analyses, patients who did not engage were more likely to be female and have higher baseline A1C values; they were less likely to have major depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, any depression diagnosis, and hyperlipidemia. Female gender and chronic pain were independently associated with nonengagement after multivariable adjustment. Conclusions The findings suggest that among patients with uncontrolled diabetes in an urban safety-net primary care clinic, there is a need to address barriers to engagement for female patients and to integrate chronic pain management strategies within multicondition collaborative care models.

Patients Typing Their Own Visit Agendas Into an Electronic Medical Record: Pilot in a Safety-Net Clinic.

Collaborative visit agenda setting between patient and doctor is recommended. We assessed the feasibility, acceptability, and utility of patients attending a large primary care safety-net clinic typing their agendas into the electronic visit note before seeing their clinicians. One hundred and one patients and their 28 clinicians completed post-visit surveys. Patients and clinicians agreed that the agendas improved patient-clinician communication (patients 79%, clinician 74%), and wanted to continue having patients type agendas in the future (73%, 82%). Enabling patients to type visit agendas may enhance care by engaging patients and giving clinicians an efficient way to prioritize patients' concerns.

A collaborative care team to integrate behavioral health care and treatment of poorly-controlled type 2 diabetes in an urban safety net primary care clinic.

OBJECTIVE: Demonstrate the feasibility of implementing a collaborative care program for poorly-controlled type 2 diabetes and complex behavioral health disorders in an urban academically-affiliated safety net primary care clinic. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study evaluates multidisciplinary team care approach to diabetes in a safety net clinic, and included 634 primary care clinic patients with hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c)>9%. HbA1c, blood pressure, and depression severity were assessed at the initial visit and at the end of treatment, and compared to those of patients who were not referred to the team. RESULTS: The 151 patients referred to the program between March 2013 and November 2014 had a higher initial mean HbA1c: 10.6% vs. 9.4%, and were more likely to have depression (p=0.006), anxiety (p=0.04), and bipolar disorder (p=0.03), compared to the 483 patients who were not referred. During the 18-month study period, there was a mean decrease in HbA1c of 0.9 (10.6 to 9.4) among those referred to the team, compared to a mean decrease of 0.2 (9.4 to 9.2) among those not referred. This was a significantly greater percent change in HbA1c (p=0.008). CONCLUSION: The integration of behavioral healthcare into chronic care management of patients with diabetes is a promising strategy to improve outcomes among the high risk population in safety net settings.

Diagnostic Reproducibility: What Happens When the Same Pathologist Interprets the Same Breast Biopsy Specimen at Two Points in Time?

BACKGROUND: Surgeons may receive a different diagnosis when a breast biopsy is interpreted by a second pathologist. The extent to which diagnostic agreement by the same pathologist varies at two time points is unknown. METHODS: Pathologists from eight U.S. states independently interpreted 60 breast specimens, one glass slide per case, on two occasions separated by ≥9 months. Reproducibility was assessed by comparing interpretations between the two time points; associations between reproducibility (intraobserver agreement rates); and characteristics of pathologists and cases were determined and also compared with interobserver agreement of baseline interpretations. RESULTS: Sixty-five percent of invited, responding pathologists were eligible and consented; 49 interpreted glass slides in both study phases, resulting in 2940 interpretations. Intraobserver agreement rates between the two phases were 92% [95% confidence interval (CI) 88-95] for invasive breast cancer, 84% (95% CI 81-87) for ductal carcinoma-in-situ, 53% (95% CI 47-59) for atypia, and 84% (95% CI 81-86) for benign without atypia. When comparing all study participants' case interpretations at baseline, interobserver agreement rates were 89% (95% CI 84-92) for invasive cancer, 79% (95% CI 76-81) for ductal carcinoma-in-situ, 43% (95% CI 41-45) for atypia, and 77% (95% CI 74-79) for benign without atypia. CONCLUSIONS: Interpretive agreement between two time points by the same individual pathologist was low for atypia and was similar to observed rates of agreement for atypia between different pathologists. Physicians and patients should be aware of the diagnostic challenges associated with a breast biopsy diagnosis of atypia when considering treatment and surveillance decisions.

Evaluation of 12 strategies for obtaining second opinions to improve interpretation of breast histopathology: simulation study.

OBJECTIVE:  To evaluate the potential effect of second opinions on improving the accuracy of diagnostic interpretation of breast histopathology. DESIGN:  Simulation study. SETTING:  12 different strategies for acquiring independent second opinions. PARTICIPANTS:  Interpretations of 240 breast biopsy specimens by 115 pathologists, one slide for each case, compared with reference diagnoses derived by expert consensus. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:  Misclassification rates for individual pathologists and for 12 simulated strategies for second opinions. Simulations compared accuracy of diagnoses from single pathologists with that of diagnoses based on pairing interpretations from first and second independent pathologists, where resolution of disagreements was by an independent third pathologist. 12 strategies were evaluated in which acquisition of second opinions depended on initial diagnoses, assessment of case difficulty or borderline characteristics, pathologists' clinical volumes, or whether a second opinion was required by policy or desired by the pathologists. The 240 cases included benign without atypia (10% non-proliferative, 20% proliferative without atypia), atypia (30%), ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS, 30%), and invasive cancer (10%). Overall misclassification rates and agreement statistics depended on the composition of the test set, which included a higher prevalence of difficult cases than in typical practice. RESULTS:  Misclassification rates significantly decreased (P<0.001) with all second opinion strategies except for the strategy limiting second opinions only to cases of invasive cancer. The overall misclassification rate decreased from 24.7% to 18.1% when all cases received second opinions (P<0.001). Obtaining both first and second opinions from pathologists with a high volume (≥10 breast biopsy specimens weekly) resulted in the lowest misclassification rate in this test set (14.3%, 95% confidence interval 10.9% to 18.0%). Obtaining second opinions only for cases with initial interpretations of atypia, DCIS, or invasive cancer decreased the over-interpretation of benign cases without atypia from 12.9% to 6.0%. Atypia cases had the highest misclassification rate after single interpretation (52.2%), remaining at more than 34% in all second opinion scenarios. CONCLUSION:  Second opinions can statistically significantly improve diagnostic agreement for pathologists' interpretations of breast biopsy specimens; however, variability in diagnosis will not be completely eliminated, especially for breast specimens with atypia.

Variability in Pathologists' Interpretations of Individual Breast Biopsy Slides: A Population Perspective.

BACKGROUND: The effect of physician diagnostic variability on accuracy at a population level depends on the prevalence of diagnoses. OBJECTIVE: To estimate how diagnostic variability affects accuracy from the perspective of a U.S. woman aged 50 to 59 years having a breast biopsy. DESIGN: Applied probability using Bayes' theorem. SETTING: B-Path (Breast Pathology) Study comparing pathologists' interpretations of a single biopsy slide versus a reference consensus interpretation from 3 experts. PARTICIPANTS: 115 practicing pathologists (6900 total interpretations from 240 distinct cases). MEASUREMENTS: A single representative slide from each of the 240 cases was used to estimate the proportion of biopsies with a diagnosis that would be verified if the same slide were interpreted by a reference group of 3 expert pathologists. Probabilities of confirmation (predictive values) were estimated using B-Path Study results and prevalence of biopsy diagnoses for women aged 50 to 59 years in the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. RESULTS: Overall, if 1 representative slide were used per case, 92.3% (95% CI, 91.4% to 93.1%) of breast biopsy diagnoses would be verified by reference consensus diagnoses, with 4.6% (CI, 3.9% to 5.3%) overinterpreted and 3.2% (CI, 2.7% to 3.6%) underinterpreted. Verification of invasive breast cancer and benign without atypia diagnoses is highly probable; estimated predictive values were 97.7% (CI, 96.5% to 98.7%) and 97.1% (CI, 96.7% to 97.4%), respectively. Verification is less probable for atypia (53.6% overinterpreted and 8.6% underinterpreted) and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) (18.5% overinterpreted and 11.8% underinterpreted). LIMITATIONS: Estimates are based on a testing situation with 1 slide used per case and without access to second opinions. Population-adjusted estimates may differ for women from other age groups, unscreened women, or women in different practice settings. CONCLUSION: This analysis, based on interpretation of a single breast biopsy slide per case, predicts a low likelihood that a diagnosis of atypia or DCIS would be verified by a reference consensus diagnosis. This diagnostic grey zone should be considered in clinical management decisions in patients with these diagnoses. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.

Characteristics of Patients Who Report Confusion After Reading Their Primary Care Clinic Notes Online.

Patient access to online electronic medical records (EMRs) is increasing and may offer benefits to patients. However, the inherent complexity of medicine may cause confusion. We elucidate characteristics and health behaviors of patients who report confusion after reading their doctors' notes online. We analyzed data from 4,528 patients in Boston, MA, central Pennsylvania, and Seattle, WA, who were granted online access to their primary care doctors' clinic notes and who viewed at least one note during the 1-year intervention. Three percent of patients reported confusion after reading their visit notes. These patients were more likely to be at least 70 years of age (p < .0001), have fewer years of education (p < .0017), be unemployed (p < .0001), have lower levels of self-reported health (p < .0043), and worry more after reading visit notes (relative risk [RR] 4.83; confidence interval [CI] 3.17, 7.36) compared to patients who were not confused. In adjusted analyses, they were less likely to report feeling more in control of their health (RR 0.42; CI 0.25, 0.71), remembering their care plan (RR 0.26; CI 0.17, 0.42), and understanding their medical conditions (RR 0.32; CI 0.19, 0.54) as a result of reading their doctors' notes compared to patients who were not confused. Patients who were confused by reading their doctors' notes were less likely to report benefits in health behaviors. Understanding this small subset of patients is a critical step in reducing gaps in provider-patient communication and in efforts to tailor educational approaches for patients.