Time from insertion to expulsion of cervical ripening balloon in preterm versus term inductions of labor.

OBJECTIVE: Preterm induction of labor can be necessary for maternal and fetal wellbeing. Duration of cervical ripening balloon (CRB) use has been studied in only term inductions. Our study investigated duration of time in hours for CRB expulsion and vaginal delivery in preterm inductions of labor. METHODS: This was a single-institution retrospective cohort study of preterm (< 37 weeks) and term (≥ 37 weeks) inductions with CRB between 2010 and 2021. Cesarean deliveries were excluded. Primary outcome was insertion to expulsion time of CRB. Secondary outcomes included induction to delivery time, cervical dilation after expulsion, misoprostol, and Pitocin use. Institutional review board (IRB) approval was obtained prior to the study. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients with vaginal delivery after preterm CRB use were identified and matched 1:1 on baseline characteristics (p > 0.05) to term patients with vaginal delivery after CRB use. Mean insertion to expulsion time was significantly shorter for term than preterm inductions (mean 7.2 ± 3.09 h versus 8.5 ± 3.38 h; p < 0.01). Mean induction to delivery time was significantly shorter for term than preterm inductions (18.4 ± 7.6 h versus 22.5 ± 9.01 h; p < 0.01). Increased use of misoprostol, Pitocin, and second CRB were noted among the preterm cohort. Among term patients, more CRB placement at start of induction and greater cervical dilation post-balloon were found in comparison to preterm patients. CONCLUSION: Among patients undergoing preterm induction, longer insertion to expulsion time of CRB, longer induction to delivery time, and increased interventions should be expected. Different standards for labor management should be considered for achieving vaginal delivery in preterm inductions.

Health Plans Struggle to Report on Depression Quality Measures That Require Clinical Data.

OBJECTIVE: Depression quality measures aligned with evidence-based practices require that health care organizations use standardized tools for tracking and monitoring patient-reported symptoms and functioning over time. This study describes challenges and opportunities for reporting 5 HEDIS measures which use electronic clinical data to assess adolescent and perinatal depression care quality. METHODS: Two learning collaboratives were convened with 10 health plans from 5 states to support reporting of the depression measures. We conducted content analysis of notes from collaborative meetings and individual calls with health plans to identify key challenges and strategies for reporting. RESULTS: Health plans used various strategies to collect the clinical data needed to report the measures, including setting up direct data exchange with providers and data aggregators and leveraging data captured in health information exchanges and case management records. Health plans noted several challenges to reporting and performance improvement: 1) lack of access to clinical data sources where the results of patient-reported tools were documented; 2) unavailability of the results of patient-reported tools in usable data fields; 3) lack of routine depression screening and ongoing assessment occurring in provider practices. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate ongoing challenges in collecting and using patient-reported clinical data for health plan quality measurement. Systems to track and improve outcomes for individuals with depression will require significant investments and policy support at the point of care and across the healthcare system.

Harnessing electronic clinical data to report adult and prenatal immunization quality measures.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the use of health plan quality measures specified for electronic clinical data to monitor immunizations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed 2018 data submitted by health plans reporting 2 new Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set measures assessing receipt of clinically recommended vaccines among pregnant women and adults. We analyzed the number of plans reporting a valid performance rate and electronic data source used. We consulted expert panels and reviewed coverage rates from other sources to understand the results. RESULTS: We received 136 data submissions across commercial, Medicaid and Medicare plans and 87 submissions across commercial and Medicaid plans for the adult and prenatal immunization measures, respectively. These submissions represent approximately 15% of possible submissions. Plans used claims, registries and electronic health records. Mean performance rates for adult immunizations were 21.2 (commercial), 14.0 (Medicaid) and 19.5% (Medicare). Mean rates for prenatal immunizations were 33.1 (commercial) and 16.7% (Medicaid). DISCUSSION: Results from the first year of reporting 2 electronic clinical data measures suggest health plans can feasibly report these measures and are seeking electronic data to supplement claims. Comparison of rates to other national results showed lower than expected rates for the adult immunization measure. However, prenatal immunization rates were on par with those from a national survey, suggesting this measure is closer to use for quality improvement. CONCLUSION: Quality measure reporting that encourages connection to electronic data sources is a step forward in performance monitoring and improvement. The use of electronic sources may advance health information exchange for patient care.

Facilitators and Barriers to Implementing a Patient-Centered Oncology Care Model.

PURPOSE: Oncology practices often serve as the "medical home" for patients but may not have systems to support all aspects of patient-centered care. We piloted a new set of oncology medical home standards that call for accessible, continuous, coordinated, and team-based care. We examined how adoption of the standards varies across a variety of practices and compared practice self-report with external evaluation of implementation. METHODS: Five medical oncology practices in southeastern Pennsylvania implemented the standards from 2014 into 2016. Implementation support included training webinars and technical assistance. External reviewers evaluated practices' implementation of the standards. We conducted site visits to interview providers and patients. RESULTS: Between baseline and follow-up, practice self-assessments and independent audits showed practices increased implementation of the patient-centered oncology standards. The largest improvement was seen in continuous quality improvement (QI). Practices were less successful in implementing care coordination: achievement on two standards (access and evidence-based decision support) declined from baseline to follow-up. Qualitative analyses revealed that practices focused QI in five areas: goals of care, engaging patients in QI, financial counseling, symptom management, and care coordination. Interviewees talked about facilitators, such as leadership support and physician buy-in, and barriers to transformation, including inadequate resources and staffing. Health information technology both supported and limited implementation. CONCLUSION: Oncology practices showed some progress in their implementation of patient-centered care processes over the course of the pilot program. Systems for tracking and documenting improvement, training for staff and clinicians, leadership support, and alignment of financial incentives are critical to transformation.

Patient-centered oncology care: impact on utilization, patient experiences, and quality.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether implementation of patient-centered oncology standards in 5 medical oncology practices improved patient experiences and quality and reduced emergency department (ED) and hospital use. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective, pre-post study design with a concurrent nonrandomized control group. METHODS: We used insurance claims to calculate all-cause hospitalizations and ED visits and primary care and specialist office visits (n = 28,826 eligible patients during baseline and 30,843 during follow-up) and identify patients for a care experiences survey (n = 715 preintervention and 437 postintervention respondents). For utilization and patient experience outcomes, we compared pilot practices' performance with 18 comparison practices using difference-in-differences (DID) regression models accounting for practice-level clustering. We assessed pilot practice performance on 31 quality measures from the American Society of Clinical Oncology Quality Oncology Practice Initiative program. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in hospital, ED, or primary care visits between the pilot and comparison groups over time, but there was a significant increase in specialty visits for the pilot group (adjusted DID of 0.07; 95% CI, 0.01-0.13; P = .03). For care experiences, pilot practices improved more on shared decision-making (4.03 DID composite score; P = .013), whereas the comparison group improved more on access (-6.36 DID composite score; P < .001) and exchanging information (-4.25 DID composite score; P = .013). On average, pilot practices improved performance on 65% of core quality measures from baseline to follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot of patient-centered oncology care showed improved quality but no impact on hospitalizations/ED use and mixed results for patient experiences. Findings are consistent with early evaluations of primary care patient-centered medical homes.

Assessing Cancer Patient Experience of Care in Outpatient Oncology Practices in the United States.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer patients' experience of care is an important component of quality that has not previously been used for comparing performance. We administered a new patient experience survey to cancer patients receiving outpatient chemotherapy treatment. We examined its measures for sensitivity to adjustment for case-mix and response tendency (level of general optimism/pessimism) and reliability for making performance comparisons between practices. METHODS: We surveyed 2304 cancer patients who received chemotherapy at 23 medical oncology practices in Southeastern Pennsylvania, receiving 715 responses (response rate 31%; 14 practices had 10 or more responses). We aggregated patient responses to calculate practice-level scores on 5 predefined composites: Affective Communication, Shared Decision-Making, Patient Self-Management, Exchanging Information, and Access. We then ranked the practices on each composite before and after adjustment for standard case-mix variables and supplemental adjustment for response tendency (measured via the Life Orientation Test-Revised). We calculated the reliability of practice scores on each composite using hierarchical linear models and calculated minimum sample sizes necessary to achieve reliabilities exceeding 0.7. RESULTS: After adjusting responses for case-mix and converting to a 0-100 scale, composite scores ranged from 77 for the Patient Self-Management composite to 92 for the Access composite. Adjustment for response tendency had an impact on practice rankings only for the Shared Decision-Making composite. The number of responses necessary to create reliable practice-level measurements ranged from 17 (Access composite) to 96 (Affective Communication composite). CONCLUSIONS: Patient experiences at oncology practices can be measured reliably using reasonable sample sizes. Standard case-mix adjustment is adequate for making comparisons on most composites.

An admixture mapping meta-analysis implicates genetic variation at 18q21 with asthma susceptibility in Latinos.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a common but complex disease with racial/ethnic differences in prevalence, morbidity, and response to therapies. OBJECTIVE: We sought to perform an analysis of genetic ancestry to identify new loci that contribute to asthma susceptibility. METHODS: We leveraged the mixed ancestry of 3902 Latinos and performed an admixture mapping meta-analysis for asthma susceptibility. We replicated associations in an independent study of 3774 Latinos, performed targeted sequencing for fine mapping, and tested for disease correlations with gene expression in the whole blood of more than 500 subjects from 3 racial/ethnic groups. RESULTS: We identified a genome-wide significant admixture mapping peak at 18q21 in Latinos (P = 6.8 × 10-6), where Native American ancestry was associated with increased risk of asthma (odds ratio [OR], 1.20; 95% CI, 1.07-1.34; P = .002) and European ancestry was associated with protection (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77-0.96; P = .008). Our findings were replicated in an independent childhood asthma study in Latinos (P = 5.3 × 10-3, combined P = 2.6 × 10-7). Fine mapping of 18q21 in 1978 Latinos identified a significant association with multiple variants 5' of SMAD family member 2 (SMAD2) in Mexicans, whereas a single rare variant in the same window was the top association in Puerto Ricans. Low versus high SMAD2 blood expression was correlated with case status (13.4% lower expression; OR, 3.93; 95% CI, 2.12-7.28; P < .001). In addition, lower expression of SMAD2 was associated with more frequent exacerbations among Puerto Ricans with asthma. CONCLUSION: Ancestry at 18q21 was significantly associated with asthma in Latinos and implicated multiple ancestry-informative noncoding variants upstream of SMAD2 with asthma susceptibility. Furthermore, decreased SMAD2 expression in blood was strongly associated with increased asthma risk and increased exacerbations.

Supporting Human Papillomavirus Vaccination in Adolescents: Perspectives From Commercial and Medicaid Health Plans.

CONTEXT: An estimated 79 million Americans are infected with human papillomavirus (HPV). Vaccination can reduce the burden of infection and HPV-associated cancers; yet, vaccination rates remain low. Little is known about why some health plans achieve higher vaccination rates. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to identify strategies used by higher-performing health plans to support HPV vaccination. DESIGN: We used 2013 data from the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) Human Papillomavirus Vaccine for Female Adolescents measure to identify high-performing plans. The measure examines the percentage of female adolescent plan members who received 3 doses of HPV vaccine by their 13th birthday. High performers were defined as the subset of commercial plans with the top 10 rates and the subset of Medicaid plans with the top 10 rates. An interview guide was developed to assess activities related to providing HPV vaccination. Interviews were conducted with selected plans and audio-recorded. Transcripts were reviewed independently by 2 interviewers and analyzed by hand to identify key themes. PARTICIPANTS: Staff members representing 10 plans agreed to be interviewed, representing a diversity of plan size (range, 5500 to >2.7 million members); plan type (about half were commercial, half were Medicaid plans); patient population, from predominantly white to predominantly nonwhite; and geographic region. RESULTS: Plans Participants highlighted multiple strategies that support HPV vaccination, particularly the "normalizing" of the vaccine. Plans' efforts highlighted patient and provider education, reminders, feedback loops, community collaborations, immunization registries, and use of medical home concepts-including team-driven efforts and coordination. IMPLICATIONS: There is an important need to improve the uptake of HPV vaccination. As health coverage expands to more organizations and individuals, it will be critical for health plans to consider the strategies implemented by higher-performing organizations. CONCLUSION: Although HPV immunization rates are low nationally, health plans can employ multiple efforts to encourage vaccination by implementing activities that involve the patient, the provider, and the community.

Human Papillomavirus Vaccination Coverage Among Female Adolescents in Managed Care Plans - United States, 2013.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is the most common sexually transmitted infection, with a reported 79 million persons aged 15­59 years in the United States currently infected with HPV, and approximately 14 million new cases diagnosed each year. Although most HPV infections are asymptomatic, transient, and do not cause disease, persistent HPV infection can lead to cervical, vulvar, vaginal, anal, penile, and oropharyngeal cancer. In the United States, approximately 27,000 HPV-attributable cancers occur each year. HPV vaccination is an effective primary prevention strategy that can reduce many of the HPV infections that lead to cancer, and is routinely recommended for adolescents aged 11­12 years. To determine whether the recommended HPV vaccination series is currently being administered to adolescents with health insurance, CDC and the National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) assessed 2013 data from the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS). The HEDIS HPV Vaccine for Female Adolescents performance measure evaluates the proportion of female adolescent members in commercial and Medicaid health plans who receive the recommended 3-dose HPV vaccination series by age 13 years. In 2013, in the United States, the median HPV vaccination coverage levels for female adolescents among commercial and Medicaid plans were 12% and 19%, respectively (ranges = 0%­34% for commercial plans; 5%­52% for Medicaid plans). Improving HPV vaccination coverage and understanding of what health plans might do to support HPV vaccination are needed, including understanding the barriers to, and facilitators for, vaccination coverage.