An electronic trigger to detect telemedicine-related diagnostic errors.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic advanced the use of telehealth-facilitated care. However, little is known about how to measure safety of clinical diagnosis made through telehealth-facilitated primary care. METHODS: We used the seven-step Safer Dx Trigger Tool framework to develop an electronic trigger (e-trigger) tool to identify potential missed opportunities for more timely diagnosis during primary care telehealth visits at a large Department of Veterans Affairs facility. We then applied the e-trigger algorithm to electronic health record data related to primary care visits during a 1-year period (1 April 2020-31 March 2021). The algorithm identified patients with unexpected visits within 10 days of an index telemedicine visit and classified such records as e-trigger positive. We then validated the e-trigger's ability to detect missed opportunities in diagnosis using chart reviews based on a structured data collection instrument (the Revised Safer Dx instrument). RESULTS: We identified 128,761 telehealth visits (32,459 unique patients), of which 434 visits led to subsequent unplanned emergency department (ED), hospital, or primary care visits within 10 days of the index visit. Of these, 116 were excluded for clinical reasons (trauma, injury, or childbirth), leaving 318 visits (240 unique patients) needing further evaluation. From these, 100 records were randomly selected for review, of which four were falsely flagged due to invalid data (visits by non-providers or those incorrectly flagged as completed telehealth visits). Eleven patients had a missed opportunity in diagnosis, yielding a positive predictive value of 11%. DISCUSSION: Electronic triggers that identify missed opportunities for additional evaluation could help advance the understanding of safety of clinical diagnosis made in telehealth-enabled care. Better measurement can help determine which patients can safely be cared for via telemedicine versus traditional in-person visits.

Veterans' ambulatory care experience during COVID-19: veterans' access to and satisfaction with primary care early in the pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic caused widespread changes to healthcare, but few studies focus on ambulatory care during the early phase of the pandemic. We characterize veterans' ambulatory care experience, specifically access and satisfaction, early in the pandemic. METHODS: We employed a semi-structured telephone interview to capture quantitative and qualitative data from patients scheduled with a primary care provider between March 1 - June 30, 2020. Forty veterans were randomly identified at a single large urban Veterans Health Administration (VHA) medical center. The interview guide utilized 56 closed and open-ended questions to characterize veterans' perceptions of access to and satisfaction with their primary care experience at VHA and non-VHA primary care sources. We also explored the context of veterans' daily lives during the pandemic. We analyzed quantitative data using descriptive statistics and verbatim quotes using a matrix analysis. RESULTS: Veterans reported completing more appointments (mean 2.6 (SD 2.2)) than scheduled (mean 2.3 (SD 2.2)) mostly due to same-day or urgent visits, with a shift to telephone (mean 2.1 (SD 2.2)) and video (mean 1.5 (SD 0.6)). Among those who reported decreased access to care early in the pandemic (n = 27 (67%)), 15 (56%) cited administrative barriers ("The phone would hang up on me") and 9 (33%) reported a lack of provider availability ("They are not reaching out like they used to"). While most veterans (n = 31 (78%)) were highly satisfied with their VHA care (mean score 8.6 (SD 2.0 on a 0-10 scale), 9 (23%) reported a decrease in satisfaction since the pandemic. The six (15%) veterans who utilized non-VHA providers during the period of interest reported, on average, higher satisfaction ratings (mean 9.5 (SD 1.2)). Many veterans reported psychosocial effects such as the worsening of mental health (n = 6 (15%)), anxiety concerning the virus (n = 12 (30%)), and social isolation (n = 8 (20%), "I stay inside and away from people"). CONCLUSIONS: While the number of encounters reported suggest adequate access and satisfaction, the comments regarding barriers to care suggest that enhanced approaches may be warranted to improve and sustain veteran perceptions of adequate access to and satisfaction with primary care during times of crisis.

The Relationship between Adult Height and Blood Pressure.

BACKGROUND: Identification and modification of cardiovascular risk factors is paramount to reducing cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality. Hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease, but its association with height remains largely underrecognized. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this manuscript is to review the evidence examining the association between blood pressure and human stature and to summarize the plausible pathophysiological mechanisms behind such an association. METHODS: A systematic review of adult human height and its association with hypertension and coronary artery disease was undertaken. The literature evidence is summarized and tabulated, and an overview of the pathophysiological basis for this association is presented. RESULTS: Shorter arterial lengths found in shorter individuals may predispose to hypertension in a complex hemodynamic interplay, which is explained predominantly by summated arterial wave reflections and an elevated augmentation index. Our systemic review suggests that an inverse relationship between adult height and blood pressure exists. However, differences in the studied populations and heterogeneity in the methods applied across the various studies limit the generalizability of these findings and their clinical application. CONCLUSION: Physiological studies and epidemiological data suggest a potential inverse association between adult height and blood pressure. Further research is required to define the relationship more clearly between adult height and blood pressure and to assess whether antihypertensive therapeutic approaches and goals should be modified according to patients' heights.

Reflections of the Angiotensin Receptor Blocker Recall by the FDA and Repercussions on Healthcare.

PURPOSE: Beginning in July of 2018, the FDA issued a voluntary recall regarding the presence of a contaminant found in the manufacturing of valsartan. What would ensue has become a largely unprecedented sequence of alarming events since the FDA began reporting public recalls, withdrawals and safety alerts on their website in 2016. Since then, the United States has been significantly impacted by drug recalls affecting angiotensin receptor blockers. This report arms clinicians with additional guidance and provides a framework for responding appropriately to future similar incidents and includes an overview of the angiotensin receptor blockers, and their effects and safety profiles. METHODS: This report includes a review of data from all pertinent clinical and scientific sources including information from the FDA's inspection documents and recall website. Additional information is provided on the specific bottles including all lot numbers, expiration dates, etc. RESULTS: The recalls/withdrawals are attributable to the presence of cancer-causing contaminants identified during the manufacturing process from drug manufacturers abroad. The root causes behind the recalls and subsequent shortage appear multifactorial, and stem to a certain extent from the outsourcing of medication manufacturing overseas and lack of quality checks and appropriate oversight. CONCLUSIONS: This inherent issue is not likely to resolve soon and has eroded the public trust of/in the healthcare system and the pharmaceutical industry. Patients and healthcare providers are significantly affected and should have a full understanding of the matter in order to guide appropriate response and actions.

Follow-up actions on electronic referral communication in a multispecialty outpatient setting.

OBJECTIVES: Electronic health records (EHR) enable transmission and tracking of referrals between primary-care practitioners (PCPs) and subspecialists. We used an EHR to examine follow-up actions on electronic referral communication in a large multispecialty VA facility. METHODS: We retrieved outpatient referrals to five subspecialties between October 2006 and December 2007, and queried the EHR to determine their status: completed, discontinued (returned to PCP), or unresolved (no action taken by subspecialist). All unresolved referrals, and random samples of discontinued and completed referrals were reviewed to determine whether subspecialists took follow-up actions (i.e., schedule appointments anytime in the future) within 30 days of referral-receipt. For referrals without timely follow-up, we determined whether inaction was supported by any predetermined justifiable reasons or associated with certain referral characteristics. We also reviewed if PCPs took the required action on returned information. RESULTS: Of 61,931 referrals, 22,535 were discontinued (36.4%), and 474 were unresolved (0.8%). We selected 412 discontinued referrals randomly for review. Of these, 52% lacked follow-up actions within 30 days. Appropriate justifications for inaction were documented in 69.8% (150/215) of those without action and included lack of prerequisite testing by the PCP and subspecialist opinion that no intervention was required despite referral. We estimated that at 30 days, 6.3% of all referrals were associated with an unexplained lack of follow-up actions by subspecialists. Conversely, 7.4% of discontinued referrals returned to PCPs were associated with an unexplained lack of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Although the EHR facilitates transmission of valuable information at the PCP-subspecialist interface, unexplained communication breakdowns in the referral process persist in a subset of cases.

Characteristics and predictors of missed opportunities in lung cancer diagnosis: an electronic health record-based study.

PURPOSE: Understanding delays in cancer diagnosis requires detailed information about timely recognition and follow-up of signs and symptoms. This information has been difficult to ascertain from paper-based records. We used an integrated electronic health record (EHR) to identify characteristics and predictors of missed opportunities for earlier diagnosis of lung cancer. METHODS: Using a retrospective cohort design, we evaluated 587 patients of primary lung cancer at two tertiary care facilities. Two physicians independently reviewed each case, and disagreements were resolved by consensus. Type I missed opportunities were defined as failure to recognize predefined clinical clues (ie, no documented follow-up) within 7 days. Type II missed opportunities were defined as failure to complete a requested follow-up action within 30 days. RESULTS: Reviewers identified missed opportunities in 222 (37.8%) of 587 patients. Median time to diagnosis in cases with and without missed opportunities was 132 days and 19 days, respectively (P < .001). Abnormal chest x-ray was the clue most frequently associated with type I missed opportunities (62%). Follow-up on abnormal chest x-ray (odds ratio [OR], 2.07; 95% CI, 1.04 to 4.13) and completion of first needle biopsy (OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.76 to 5.18) were associated with type II missed opportunities. Patient adherence contributed to 44% of patients with missed opportunities. CONCLUSION: Preventable delays in lung cancer diagnosis arose mostly from failure to recognize documented abnormal imaging results and failure to complete key diagnostic procedures in a timely manner. Potential solutions include EHR-based strategies to improve recognition of abnormal imaging and track patients with suspected cancers.

Using a multifaceted approach to improve the follow-up of positive fecal occult blood test results.

OBJECTIVES: Inadequate follow-up of abnormal fecal occult blood test (FOBT) results occurs in several types of practice settings. Our institution implemented multifaceted quality improvement (QI) activities in 2004-2005 to improve follow-up of FOBT-positive results. Activities addressed precolonoscopy referral processes and system-level factors such as electronic communication, provider education, and feedback. We evaluated their effects on timeliness and appropriateness of positive-FOBT follow-up and identified factors that affect colonoscopy performance. METHODS: Retrospective electronic medical record review was used to determine outcomes before and after QI activities in a multispecialty ambulatory clinic of a tertiary care Veterans Affairs facility and its affiliated satellite clinics. From 1869 FOBT-positive cases, 800 were randomly selected from time periods before and after QI activities. Two reviewers used a pretested standardized data collection form to determine whether colonoscopy was appropriate or indicated based on predetermined criteria and if so, the timeliness of colonoscopy referral and performance before and after QI activities. RESULTS: In cases where a colonoscopy was indicated, the proportion of patients who received a timely colonoscopy referral and performance were significantly higher post-implementation (60.5% vs. 31.7%, P<0.0001 and 11.4% vs. 3.4%, P=0.0005). A significant decrease also resulted in median times to referral and performance (6 vs. 19 days, P<0.0001 and 96.5 vs. 190 days, P<0.0001) and in the proportion of positive-FOBT test results that had received no follow-up by the time of chart review (24.3% vs. 35.9%, P=0.0045). Significant predictors of absence of the performance of an indicated colonoscopy included performance of a non-colonoscopy procedure such as barium enema or flexible sigmoidoscopy (OR=16.9; 95% CI, 1.9-145.1), patient non-adherence (OR=33.9; 95% CI, 17.3-66.6), not providing an appropriate provisional diagnosis on the consultation (OR=17.9; 95% CI, 11.3-28.1), and gastroenterology service not rescheduling colonoscopies after an initial cancellation (OR=11.0; 95% CI, 5.1-23.7). CONCLUSIONS: Multifaceted QI activities improved rates of timely colonoscopy referral and performance in an electronic medical record system. However, colonoscopy was not indicated in over one third of patients with positive FOBTs, raising concerns about current screening practices and the appropriate denominator used for performance measurement standards related to colon cancer screening.