An approach to improve the care of mid-life women through the implementation of a Women's Health Assessment Tool/Clinical Decision Support toolkit.

The objectives of this study are to describe the implementation process of the Women's Health Assessment Tool/Clinical Decision Support toolkit and summarize patients' and clinicians' perceptions of the toolkit. The Women's Health Assessment Tool/Clinical Decision Support toolkit was piloted at three clinical sites over a 4-month period in Washington State to evaluate health outcomes among mid-life women. The implementation involved a multistep process and engagement of multiple stakeholders over 18 months. Two-thirds of patients (n = 76/110) and clinicians (n = 8/12) participating in pilot completed feedback surveys; five clinicians participated in qualitative interviews. Most patients felt more prepared for their annual visit (69.7%) and that quality of care improved (68.4%) while clinicians reported streamlined patient visits and improved communication with patients. The Women's Health Assessment Tool/Clinical Decision Support toolkit offers a unique approach to introduce and address some of the key health issues that affect mid-life women.

Insight into Best Variables for COPD Case Identification: A Random Forests Analysis.

RATIONALE: This study is part of a larger, multi-method project to develop a questionnaire for identifying undiagnosed cases of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in primary care settings, with specific interest in the detection of patients with moderate to severe airway obstruction or risk of exacerbation. OBJECTIVES: To examine 3 existing datasets for insight into key features of COPD that could be useful in the identification of undiagnosed COPD. METHODS: Random forests analyses were applied to the following databases: COPD Foundation Peak Flow Study Cohort (N=5761), Burden of Obstructive Lung Disease (BOLD) Kentucky site (N=508), and COPDGene® (N=10,214). Four scenarios were examined to find the best, smallest sets of variables that distinguished cases and controls:(1) moderate to severe COPD (forced expiratory volume in 1 second [FEV1] <50% predicted) versus no COPD; (2) undiagnosed versus diagnosed COPD; (3) COPD with and without exacerbation history; and (4) clinically significant COPD (FEV1<60% predicted or history of acute exacerbation) versus all others. RESULTS: From 4 to 8 variables were able to differentiate cases from controls, with sensitivity ≥73 (range: 73-90) and specificity >68 (range: 68-93). Across scenarios, the best models included age, smoking status or history, symptoms (cough, wheeze, phlegm), general or breathing-related activity limitation, episodes of acute bronchitis, and/or missed work days and non-work activities due to breathing or health. CONCLUSIONS: Results provide insight into variables that should be considered during the development of candidate items for a new questionnaire to identify undiagnosed cases of clinically significant COPD.

A Qualitative Comparison of Symptoms and Impact of Varying Stages of Basal Cell Carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Basal cell carcinoma (BCC) is the most common form of skin cancer; however, few data are available relating to patients' perspectives and experiences of this disease. This study explored the spectrum of BCC symptoms and their impact by disease stage to determine how BCC affects the overall health-related quality of life (HRQL) of patients. METHODS: This study comprised a cross-sectional, qualitative approach involving telephone interviews with patients with BCC who had been divided into two groups: group 1 (G1), patients with stage 1, non-advanced BCC (and of superficial or nodular histology); and group 2 (G2), patients with locally advanced or metastatic BCC. Patients were recruited from three clinical sites in the USA based on a separate qualitative interview study (I4J-MC-HHBB [1.3]) over a 10-month period. Techniques in qualitative methodology were used by applying 'open-ended' questions and probing techniques intended to elicit patients' own description of their experiences with BCC. Telephone interviews lasted between 60 and 90 mins. RESULTS: Thirty-four interviews were conducted (G1: N = 13; G2: N = 21). The majority of patients were aged either 55-64 years (32%, N = 11) or 76+ years (32%, N = 11) and were primarily male (82%, N = 28); most (75%, N = 24) patients were actively receiving BCC treatment. Both groups reported similar symptoms, with the most common being red lesions or open sores that failed to heal (41%, N = 14) and cancer-related stress (41%, N = 14). G2 reported more frequent and severe HRQL impact as a result of their cancer condition because most were affected in their daily activities (76%, N = 16) or emotional well-being (71%, N = 15). Cosmetic and functional impacts were relevant and important aspects of HRQL for both patient groups (G1: 31%, N = 4; G2: 48%, N = 10). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with non-advanced or locally advanced and metastatic BCC experience disease-related symptoms that affect their HRQL, activities of daily living, emotional well-being, and social and/or leisure activities. Qualitative descriptions of patient experiences can help healthcare providers and caregivers better understand the impact of BCC from the patient perspective. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Identifying Patients with Undiagnosed COPD in Primary Care Settings: Insight from Screening Tools and Epidemiologic Studies.

OBJECTIVE: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality, yet research suggests this disease is greatly underdiagnosed. This literature review sought to summarize the most common and significant variables associated with case-finding or missed cases of COPD to inform more effective and efficient detection of high-risk COPD patients in primary care. METHODS: PubMed and EMBASE were searched for articles describing case-finding and epidemiologic research to detect or characterize new cases of COPD. International studies in primary and non-primary care settings, published in English from 2002-2014, were eligible for inclusion. Studies related to risk factors for development of COPD were excluded. RESULTS: Of the 33 studies identified and reviewed, 21 were case-finding or screening and 12 were epidemiological, including cross-sectional, longitudinal, and retrospective designs. A range of variables were identified within and across studies. Variables common to both screening and epidemiological studies included age, smoking status, and respiratory symptoms. Seven significant predictors from epidemiologic studies did not appear in screening tools. No studies targeted discovery of higher risk patients such as those with reduced lung function or risks for exacerbations. CONCLUSION: Variables used to identify new cases of COPD or differentiate COPD cases and non-cases are wide- ranging, (from sociodemographic to self-reported health or health history variables), providing insight into important factors for case identification. Further research is underway to develop and test the best, smallest variable set that can be used as a screening tool to identify people with undiagnosed, high-risk COPD in primary care.

Identifying cases of undiagnosed, clinically significant COPD in primary care: qualitative insight from patients in the target population.

BACKGROUND: Many cases of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are diagnosed only after significant loss of lung function or during exacerbations. AIMS: This study is part of a multi-method approach to develop a new screening instrument for identifying undiagnosed, clinically significant COPD in primary care. METHODS: Subjects with varied histories of COPD diagnosis, risk factors and history of exacerbations were recruited through five US clinics (four pulmonary, one primary care). Phase I: Eight focus groups and six telephone interviews were conducted to elicit descriptions of risk factors for COPD, recent or historical acute respiratory events, and symptoms to inform the development of candidate items for the new questionnaire. Phase II: A new cohort of subjects participated in cognitive interviews to assess and modify candidate items. Two peak expiratory flow (PEF) devices (electronic, manual) were assessed for use in screening. RESULTS: Of 77 subjects, 50 participated in Phase I and 27 in Phase II. Six themes informed item development: exposure (smoking, second-hand smoke); health history (family history of lung problems, recurrent chest infections); recent history of respiratory events (clinic visits, hospitalisations); symptoms (respiratory, non-respiratory); impact (activity limitations); and attribution (age, obesity). PEF devices were rated easy to use; electronic values were significantly higher than manual (P<0.0001). Revisions were made to the draft items on the basis of cognitive interviews. CONCLUSIONS: Forty-eight candidate items are ready for quantitative testing to select the best, smallest set of questions that, together with PEF, can efficiently identify patients in need of diagnostic evaluation for clinically significant COPD.