Clinical care in hepatocellular carcinoma: A mixed methods assessment of experiences and challenges of oncology professionals.

INTRODUCTION: Healthcare providers (HCPs) may face numerous dilemmas in optimally screening, diagnosing, and treating patients with, and/or at risk for, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study aimed to achieve a greater understanding of the challenges in HCC care which in turn could delineate HCP educational opportunities within this oncologic sub-specialty. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was used to identify practice gaps and clinical barriers experienced by US-based medical oncologists, hepatologists, oncology physician assistants, oncology nurse practitioners, and interventional radiologists involved in HCC care. The qualitative (semi-structured interview) and quantitative (survey) data collection approaches were deployed sequentially with findings subsequently triangulated. RESULTS: A total of 214 HCPs participated in this study. Analysis revealed challenges related to screening and diagnosing HCC, specifically in applying appropriate screening guidelines, and the optimal use and decisions related to diagnostic imaging and biopsy. Issues related to treatment selection included the application of existing HCC guidelines in treatment decision-making, weighing risk/benefit ratios of various antineoplastics regimens (i.e., tyrosine kinase inhibitors-TKIs, immunotherapy agents, chemotherapy), sequencing therapies, potential toxicity management, and optimally educating patients about their HCC. CONCLUSION: These findings highlight the educational needs of those involved in HCC care and provide a starting point for clinicians to both reflect on their practice and identify opportunities to enhance communication within the HCC team and between provider and patient. There is an opportunity to optimize continuing professional development interventions that address the identified gaps in clinical practice specifically related to teamwork and interdisciplinary communication.

Comparison of the Effectiveness of Interactive Didactic Lecture Versus Online Simulation-Based CME Programs Directed at Improving the Diagnostic Capabilities of Primary Care Practitioners.

INTRODUCTION: Diagnostic errors in primary care contribute to increased morbidity and mortality, and billions in costs each year. Improvements in the way practicing physicians are taught so as to optimally perform differential diagnosis can increase patient safety and lower the costs of care. This study represents a comparison of the effectiveness of two approaches to CME training directed at improving the primary care practitioner's diagnostic capabilities against seven common and important causes of joint pain. METHODS: Using a convenience sampling methodology, one group of primary care practitioners was trained by a traditional live, expert-led, multimedia-based training activity supplemented with interactive practice opportunities and feedback (control group). The second group was trained online with a multimedia-based training activity supplemented with interactive practice opportunities and feedback delivered by an artificial intelligence-driven simulation/tutor (treatment group). RESULTS: Before their respective instructional intervention, there were no significant differences in the diagnostic performance of the two groups against a battery of case vignettes presenting with joint pain. Using the same battery of case vignettes to assess postintervention diagnostic performance, there was a slight but not statistically significant improvement in the control group's diagnostic accuracy (P = .13). The treatment group, however, demonstrated a significant improvement in accuracy (P < .02; Cohen d, effect size = 0.79). DISCUSSION: These data indicate that within the context of a CME activity, a significant improvement in diagnostic accuracy can be achieved by the use of a web-delivered, multimedia-based instructional activity supplemented by practice opportunities and feedback delivered by an artificial intelligence-driven simulation/tutor.

The patient perspective on overactive bladder: a mixed-methods needs assessment.

BACKGROUND: While overactive bladder is often managed in the primary care setting, a number of barriers including embarrassment, poor communication, and low patient adherence contribute to the under-treatment of patients with burdensome urinary symptoms. In order to address these challenges, it is crucial to have a fundamental understanding of patient perspectives toward OAB and urinary symptoms. To meet this aim, researchers designed and conducted a study to identify patients' knowledge, experiences and attitudes, barriers to treatment adherence, and desires and tendencies regarding patient/clinician communications. METHODS: A mixed-methods qualitative/quantitative needs assessment of patients with overactive bladder and/or urinary symptoms. Researchers conducted in-depth qualitative interviews via telephone with 40 patients. Interview results informed the design and dissemination of a quantitative survey, which was completed by 200 self-selected respondents who had previously identified themselves as having overactive bladder or bladder problems. Statistical and qualitative analysis of results were conducted. RESULTS: Among survey respondents, an average of 3.5 years elapsed between symptom onset and seeking diagnosis by a physician. In the long term most patients do not experience improvement in symptoms. Medication non-adherence is common and is related to therapy effectiveness and adverse effects. Patients clearly indicate that communication and patient/physician relationships are important to them and they would prefer the clinician initiate the conversation on overactive bladder. Patient experiences, perspectives, and attitudes toward their bladder symptoms differ in many ways from clinicians' assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: The significant time gap between symptom onset and diagnosis indicates ongoing need for screening and diagnosis of overactive bladder. Contrary to guideline recommendations, urinalysis and physical examination are not widely used in clinical practice. Many patients experience no improvement in symptoms over time. Patients indicate that clinician/patient relationships and communication regarding their condition are important.

Recruiting Practice-based Research Network (PBRN) physicians to be research participants: lessons learned from the North Texas (NorTex) needs assessment study.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to examine strategies for recruiting physician subjects in a practice-based research network continuing education research study, using different recruitment methods at four systems, or health plan arrangements. METHODS: The North Texas Primary Care Practice-based Research Network Needs Assessment Study consisted of a survey and five self-directed medical record abstractions. Physicians were recruited to be research subjects from four systems, using different recruitment strategies. χ(2) was used to determine differences in physicians consenting and completing the study between systems. Kruskal-Wallis was used to determine differences in time from first contact to consent and number of contacts required before consent between systems. RESULTS: One hundred five of 211 physicians (49.8%) consented to participate, of which 90 (85.7%) completed the survey. There was a significant difference by system in the number of physicians who consented (P = .04) and number of contacts required pre-consent (P < .001) but not in the number of physicians completing the study or time from first contact to consent. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS: Success of recruiting physicians to be research subjects varied between systems using different recruitment methods. Lessons learned include using clinician champions to make initial contact, establishing a relationship with clinic personnel, distinguishing the research team from a pharmaceutical representative, establishing a preferred contact method, and collecting study materials on a set timeline.