Mental healthcare access among US adults with vision impairment and depression and/or anxiety symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Although individuals with vision impairment are at greater risk for depression and anxiety, there has been limited study of mental healthcare utilization among this population. OBJECTIVES: To address this gap, this pooled cross-sectional study estimates the prevalence of mental healthcare utilization among individuals with vision impairment during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We calculated adjusted relative risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals of depression and/or anxiety symptoms and mental healthcare utilization using multinomial logistic regression, accounting for demographics, social determinants of health, and survey week. The population-based, U.S. Census Bureau Household Pulse Survey was administered April 2021-March 2022. Participants included 800,935 US adults (weighted population: 174,598,530) RESULTS: Adjusting for other factors, adults with vision impairment were more likely to report depression symptoms (RRR: 2.33; 95% CI: 2.03-2.68), anxiety symptoms (RRR: 2.12; 95% CI: 1.94-2.33, and comorbid depression and anxiety symptoms (RRR: 3.77; 95% CI: 3.51-4.04) compared with individuals with no vision impairment. Among individuals reporting anxiety or depression symptoms, individuals with vision impairment (RRR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.35-1.59) were more likely to lack of mental healthcare utilization compared with individuals with no vision impairment. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that individuals with vision impairment are at increased risk for depression and/or anxiety symptoms and report reduced mental healthcare utilization compared with individuals without vision impairment. Additional programs and policies are needed to improve mental healthcare utilization among individuals with vision impairment and depression and/or anxiety symptoms, such as increased telehealth accessibility and coordination of behavioral health and ophthalmology services.

Adoption of emergency department crowding interventions among US hospitals between 2007 and 2020.

BACKGROUND: To deal with emergency department (ED) crowding, the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) established a task force to develop a list of low-cost, high-impact solutions. In this study, we report on the trend in the adoption rate of ACEP-recommended ED crowding interventions by US hospitals. METHODS: We analyzed the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey data from 2007 to 2020 (N = 3874 hospitals). The primary outcome was whether a hospital adopted each of the ACEP-recommended interventions, which were grouped into three overlapping categories: technology-based, flow modifications, and physical-based (e.g., changing ED layout). RESULTS: On average, the most frequently adopted intervention was bedside registration (85.1%) and the least frequently adopted intervention was kiosk check-in (8.3%). The adoption of ED crowding interventions increased significantly between 2007 and 2020, except for expanding ED treatment space which declined by 45.0% from 30.3% in 2007 to 15.7% in 2020. The largest adoption rate increase occurred in having a separate operating room for ED cases with a 188.5% increase in adoption rate followed by radio-frequency identification (RFID) tracking (151.2%), and kiosk check-in (144.2%). CONCLUSIONS: The adoption rate of ED crowding interventions by hospitals has risen, however most effective ED crowding interventions are still underutilized. The trends for each intervention did not always increase linearly, with certain periods showing greater fluctuations in adoption rate. Hospitals tend to implement technology-based interventions, compared to physical-based interventions and flow modification interventions.

Telemedicine Adoption in an NCI-Designated Cancer Center During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Report on Patient Experience of Care.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer require timely access to care so that healthcare providers can prepare an optimal treatment plan with significant implications for quality of life and mortality. The COVID-19 pandemic spurred rapid adoption of telemedicine in oncology, but study of patient experience of care with telemedicine in this population has been limited. We assessed overall patient experience of care with telemedicine at an NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center during the COVID-19 pandemic and examined changes in patient experience over time. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective study of outpatient oncology patients who received treatment at Moffitt Cancer Center. Press Ganey surveys were used to assess patient experience. Data from patients with appointments between April 1, 2020, and June 30, 2021, were analyzed. Patient experience was compared between telemedicine and in-person visits, and patient experience with telemedicine over time was described. RESULTS: A total of 33,318 patients reported Press Ganey data for in-person visits, and 5,950 reported Press Ganey data for telemedicine visits. Relative to patients with in-person visits, more patients with telemedicine visits gave higher satisfaction ratings for access (62.5% vs 75.8%, respectively) and care provider concern (84.2% vs 90.7%, respectively) (P<.001). When adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, sex, insurance, and clinic type, telemedicine visits consistently outperformed in-person visits over time regarding access and care provider concern (P<.001). There were no significant changes over time in satisfaction with telemedicine visits regarding access, care provider concern, telemedicine technology, or overall assessment (P>.05). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, a large oncology dataset showed that telemedicine resulted in better patient experience of care in terms of access and care provider concern compared with in-person visits. Patient experience of care with telemedicine visits did not change over time, suggesting that implementing telemedicine was effective.

Financial toxicity among head and neck cancer patients and their caregivers: A cross-sectional pilot study.

Objectives: Head and neck cancer (HNC) patients experience greater financial toxicity than other cancer patients. Research on financial toxicity has concentrated on patients despite many informal caregivers sharing finances and reducing work hours to provide patient care. Thus, our pilot study: (1) assessed the feasibility of financial toxicity screening of HNC patients and their caregivers, and (2) described financial toxicity levels of HNC patients and their caregivers. Methods: We surveyed English-speaking adult HNC patients initiating treatment at a National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center and their informal caregivers. This survey assessed demographics and financial toxicity through the Comprehensive Score for Financial Toxicity (COST) measure (0-44 range; lower score indicates higher financial toxicity). Screening feasibility was defined as ≥50% consent rate and ≥60% data completion rate. Results: Our sample included 27 HNC patients and 9 caregivers. They both had slightly lower consent and completion rates than our goals. Patients reported a median COST score of 27 while caregivers reported a median COST score of 16. Approximately 25.9% of patients and 44.4% of caregivers reported high financial toxicity (COST < 17.5). Caregivers reported high concerns about their future financial health and their ability to control the amount of their financial contributions to the patient's care. Conclusions: Patients and caregivers may require additional outreach approaches beyond emailed questionnaires to screen for their financial toxicity systematically. Future research is needed to replicate our results to determine whether differences in financial toxicity occur between patients and caregivers and identify areas of focus for interventions. Level of evidence: IV.

Patient and caregiver experience with telehealth for surgical cancer care: A qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic led to telemedicine adoption for many medical specialties, including surgical cancer care. To date, the evidence for patient experience of telemedicine among patients with cancer undergoing surgery is limited to quantitative surveys. Thus, this study qualitatively assessed the patient and caregiver experience of telehealth visits for surgical cancer care. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with 25 patients with cancer and three caregivers who had completed a telehealth visit for preanesthesia or postoperative visits. Interviews covered visit descriptions, overall satisfaction, system experience, visit quality, what roles caregivers had, and thoughts on what types of surgery-related visits would be appropriate through telehealth versus in-person. RESULTS: Telehealth delivery for surgical cancer care was generally viewed positively. Multiple factors influenced the patient experience, including prior experience with telemedicine, ease of scheduling visits, smooth connection experiences, having access to technical support, high communication quality, and visit thoroughness. Participants identified use cases on telehealth for surgical cancer care, including postoperative visits for uncomplicated surgical procedures and educational visits. CONCLUSIONS: Patient experiences with telehealth for surgical care are influenced by smooth system experiences, high-quality patient-clinician communications, and a patient-centered focus. Interventions are needed to optimize telehealth delivery (e.g., improve telemedicine platform usability).

Implementing Digital Scribes to Reduce Electronic Health Record Documentation Burden Among Cancer Care Clinicians: A Mixed-Methods Pilot Study.

PURPOSE: To address shortcomings of human scribes (eg, turnover), clinicians are considering digital scribes (DSs). To our knowledge, to date, no study has assessed DS implementation or clinician user experience in cancer centers. We assessed the DS's feasibility, acceptability, appropriateness, usability and its preliminary association on clinician well-being in a cancer center. We also identified implementation facilitators and barriers to DS use. METHODS: Using a mixed-methods longitudinal pilot study design, we implemented a DS at a cancer center. Data collection included surveys at baseline and 1 month after DS use and a semistructured interview with clinicians. The survey assessed demographics, Mini Z (workplace stress and burnout), sleep quality, and implementation outcomes (feasibility, acceptability, appropriateness, and usability). The interview assessed how the DS was used and its impacts on workflows and recommendations for future implementations of the DS. We used paired t tests to assess differences in Mini Z and sleep quality measures over time. RESULTS: Across nine survey responses and eight interviews, we found that although feasibility scores were slightly lower than our cutoff point (15.2 v 16.0), clinicians rated the DS as marginally acceptable (16.0) and appropriate (16.3). Usability was considered marginally usable (68.6 v 68.0). Although the DS did not significantly improve burnout (3.6 v 3.9, P = .081), it improved perceptions of having sufficient documentation time (2.1 v 3.6, P = .005). Clinicians identified suggestions for future implementations, including training needs and usability improvements. CONCLUSION: Our preliminary findings suggest that DS implementation is marginally acceptable, appropriate, and usable among cancer care clinicians. Individualized training and on-site support may improve implementation.

Estimated Indirect Cost Savings of Using Telehealth Among Nonelderly Patients With Cancer.

Importance: Patients with cancer typically have greater financial hardships and time costs than individuals without cancer. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated this, while posing substantial challenges to delivering cancer care and resulting in important changes in care-delivery models, including the rapid adoption of telehealth. Objective: To estimate patient travel, time, and cost savings associated with telehealth for cancer care delivery. Design, Setting, and Participants: An economic evaluation of cost savings from completed telehealth visits from April 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021, in a single-institution National Cancer Institute-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. All patients aged 18 to 65 years who completed telehealth visits within the designated time frame and had a Florida mailing address documented in their electronic medical record were included in the study cohort. Data were analyzed from April 2020 to June 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was estimated patient cost savings from telehealth, which included 2 components: costs of travel (defined as roundtrip distance saved from car travel) and potential loss of productivity due to the medical visit (defined as loss of income from roundtrip travel plus loss of income from in-person clinic visits). Two different models with a combination of 2 different mileage rates ($0.56 and $0.82 per mile) and census tract-level median hourly wages were used. Results: The study included 25 496 telehealth visits with 11 688 patients. There were 4525 (3795 patients) new or established visits and 20 971 (10 049 patients) follow-up visits. Median (IQR) age was 55.0 (46.0-61.0) years among the telehealth visits, with 15 663 visits (61.4%) by women and 18 360 visits (72.0%) by Hispanic non-White patients. According to cost models, the estimated mean (SD) total cost savings ranged from $147.4 ($120.1) at $0.56/mile to $186.1 ($156.9) at $0.82/mile. For new or established visits, the mean (SD) total cost savings per visit ranged from $176.6 ($136.3) at $0.56/mile to $222.8 ($177.4) at $0.82/mile, and for follow-up visits, the mean (SD) total cost savings per visit was $141.1 ($115.3) at $0.56/mile to $178.1 ($150.9) at $0.82/mile. Conclusions and Relevance: In this economic evaluation, telehealth was associated with savings in patients time and travel costs, which may reduce the financial toxicity of cancer care. Expansion of telehealth oncology services may be an effective strategy to reduce the financial burden among patients with cancer.

Estimated Carbon Emissions Savings With Shifts From In-Person Visits to Telemedicine for Patients With Cancer.

Importance: While the health care community advocates broadly for climate change policy, medical professionals can look within care practices to assess their contribution to carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, and provide solutions wherever possible. Telemedicine can help in mitigating climate change by providing care from a distance. Objective: To assess the carbon savings achieved from telemedicine visits. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study of telemedicine visits was conducted at a single-institution National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated comprehensive cancer center. Eligible patients were aged 18 years and above, completed telemedicine visits from April 1, 2020, to June 20, 2021, and had a Florida mailing address documented in their electronic medical record. Groups were divided between those within driving time of 60 minutes (1-way) to the cancer center vs those living beyond 60 minutes of drive time. Data were analyzed between April 2020 and June 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Carbon emission savings from telemedicine, measured in total and average per-visit savings. Results: A total 49 329 telemedicine visits with 23 228 patients were conducted from April 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021. A total 21 489 visits were for patients with driving time of 60 minutes or less (median [IQR] age, 62.0 [52.0-71.0] years; 12 334 [57.4%] female; 1685 [7.8%] Black, 1500 [7.0%] Hispanic, 16 010 [74.5%] non-Hispanic White), while 27 840 visits were for patients with driving time greater than 60 minutes (median [IQR] age, 67.0 [57.0-74.0] years; 14 372 [51.6%] female; 1056 [3.8%] Black, 1364 [5.0%] Hispanic, 22 457 [80.7%] non-Hispanic White). For patients living within a driving time of 60 minutes from the cancer center, 424 471 kg CO2 emissions were saved (mean [SD] emissions savings, 19.8 [9.4] kg CO2 per visit) due to telemedicine-equivalent to 91.5 passenger vehicles driven for 1 year. For patients whose driving distance was greater than 60 minutes, 2 744 248 kg CO2 emissions were saved (mean emissions savings, 98.6 [54.8] kg CO2 per visit)-equivalent to 591 passenger vehicles driven for 1 year. Conclusions and Relevance: Using a large data set, this cross-sectional analysis highlighted the carbon emissions savings due to telemedicine in oncology. This has important implications in reducing health care-related carbon footprint.

Clinical trial knowledge among U.S. adults aged 65 years and up: Findings from a 2020 national survey.

BACKGROUND: Older adults are underrepresented in most clinical trials. As the United States observes growth in the number of older adults over time, it will be critical to include them in clinical trials to improve the generalizability of results across age groups. Although clinical trial participation requires clinical trial knowledge, no study has assessed clinical trial knowledge among older adults. Using a national survey, this study aims to identify the prevalence and determinants of clinical trial knowledge among older adults. METHODS: We used the 2020 Health Information National Trends Survey for secondary data analysis. We restricted the sample to older adults (aged 65 years and up). Our outcome variable was whether respondents reported having any clinical trial knowledge. We controlled for demographics, social determinants of health, healthcare utilization, and comorbidities through multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: Using a weighted sample of 27,574,958 adults, we estimated that 61.1% of older adults reported having at least some knowledge of clinical trials. After controlling for other factors, those with one to two (OR = 1.80, 95% CI:1.14-2.84) or three to five (OR = 2.93, 95% CI:1.74-4.95) portal visits compared with no portal visits, those with cancer (OR = 1.92, 95% CI:1.22-3.02), and those with depression (OR = 2.27, 95% CI:1.23-4.20) had greater odds of having clinical trial knowledge. Inversely, those with hypertension (OR = 0.62, 95% CI:0.42-0.92) had lower odds of clinical trial knowledge. CONCLUSIONS: Patient portal recruitment may be a supplemental intervention to improve clinical trial knowledge among older adults. Further research on additional interventions for identifying eligible participants is needed to minimize the burden among clinicians amidst other competing demands during clinic visits.

Trends and Characteristics of Potentially Preventable Emergency Department Visits Among Patients With Cancer in the US.

Importance: An initial step to reducing emergency department (ED) visits among patients with cancer is to identify the characteristics of patients visiting the ED and examine which of those visits could be prevented. Objective: To explore nationwide trends and characteristics of ED visits and examine factors associated with potentially preventable ED visits and unplanned hospitalizations among patients with cancer in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data on ED visits from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2019; US Cancer Statistics reports were used to estimate new cancer cases each year. Frequencies and trends among 35 510 014 ED visits by adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with cancer were calculated. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was potentially preventable ED visits, and secondary outcomes were unplanned hospitalizations and the immediacy of the ED visits. Potentially preventable ED visits were identified using the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services definition. The Emergency Severity Index, a triage algorithm that ranks patients based on the urgency of their health care condition, was used to measure the immediacy of ED visits (immediate [most urgent], emergent, urgent, less urgent, and nonurgent), with the categories of immediate and emergent classified as high acuity. The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to calculate trends in ED visits among patients with cancer over time. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to examine the associations of patient, hospital, and temporal factors with potentially preventable ED use and ED use resulting in hospitalization. Results: Among 854 911 106 ED visits, 35 510 014 (4.2%) were made by patients with cancer (mean [SD] age, 66.2 [16.2] years); of those, 55.2% of visits were among women, 73.2% were among non-Hispanic White individuals, 89.8% were among patients living in a private residence, and 54.3% were among Medicare enrollees. A total of 18 316 373 ED visits (51.6%) were identified as potentially preventable, and 5 770 571 visits (21.3%) were classified as high acuity. From 2012 to 2019, potentially preventable ED visits increased from 1 851 692 to 3 214 276. Pain (36.9%) was the most common reason for potentially preventable ED visits. The number of patients who visited an ED because of pain increased from 1 192 197 in 2012 to 2 405 849 in 2019 (a 101.8% increase). Overall, 28.9% of ED visits resulted in unplanned hospitalizations, which did not change significantly over time (from 32.2% in 2012 to 26.6% in 2019; P = .78 for trend). Factors such as residence in a nursing home (odds ratio, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.25-2.41) were positively associated with having a potentially preventable ED visit, and factors such as the presence of more than 1 comorbidity (odds ratio, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.43-2.32) were positively associated with having an unplanned hospitalization. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, 51.6% of ED visits among patients with cancer were identified as potentially preventable, and the absolute number of potentially preventable ED visits increased substantially between 2012 and 2019. These findings highlight the need for cancer care programs to implement evidence-based interventions to better manage cancer treatment complications, such as uncontrolled pain, in outpatient and ambulatory settings.

Merit-based incentive payment system participation and after-hours documentation among US office-based physicians: Findings from the 2021 National Electronic Health Records Survey.

BACKGROUND: After-hours documentation burden among US clinicians is often uncompensated work and has been associated with burnout, leading health systems to identify root causes and seek interventions to reduce this. A few studies have suggested quality programme participation (e.g., Merit-Based Incentive Payment System [MIPS]) was associated with a higher administrative burden. However, the association between MIPS participation and after-hours documentation has not been fully explored. Thus, this study aims to assess whether participation in the MIPS programme was independently associated with after-hours documentation burden. METHODS: We used 2021 data from the National Electronic Health Records Survey. We used a multivariable ordinal logistic regression model to assess whether MIPS participation was associated with the amount of after-hours documentation burden when controlling for other factors. We controlled for physician age, specialty, sex, number of practice locations, number of physicians, practice ownership, whether team support (e.g., scribes) is used for documentation tasks, and whether the practice accepts Medicaid patients. RESULTS: We included 1801 office-based US physician respondents with complete data for variables of interest. After controlling for other factors, MIPS participation was associated with greater odds of spending a greater number of hours on after-hours documentation (odds ratio = 1.44, 95% confidence interval 1.06-1.95). CONCLUSIONS: MIPS participation may increase after-hours documentation burden among US office-based physicians, suggesting that physicians may require additional resources to more efficiently report data.

Health insurance literacy among head and neck cancer patients and their caregivers: A cross-sectional pilot study.

Objective: Health insurance literacy interventions may reduce financial burden and its effects on cancer patients and their caregivers. However, little is known about the health insurance literacy levels of head and neck cancer (HNC) patients and their caregivers. We assessed the feasibility of screening for health insurance literacy in a pilot study and described the health insurance literacy levels of HNC patients and their caregivers. Methods: We administered a survey that assessed demographics and subjective and objective health insurance literacy to HNC patients and their caregivers. Subjective health insurance literacy was measured through the Health Insurance Literacy Measure (score range: 0-84). Objective health insurance literacy was measured through correct answers to a previously developed 10-question knowledge test. Due to a small sample size, inferential statistics were not used; we instead descriptively reported findings. Results: The pilot included 48 HNC patients and 13 caregivers. About 44.4% of patients and 30.8% of caregivers demonstrated low health insurance literacy (HILM ≤60). On the 10-item knowledge test, patients had an average of 6.8 (SD: 2.3) correct responses and caregivers had 7.8 (SD: 1.1) correct responses. Calculating out-of-pocket costs for out-of-network services was challenging; only 9.5% of patients and 0% of caregivers answered correctly. Conclusion: Additional outreach strategies may be needed to supplement screening for health insurance literacy. Areas of focus for interventions include improving understanding of how to calculate financial responsibility for health care services and filing an appeal for health insurance claim denial. Level of Evidence: IV.

Patients' use of smartphone apps for health record access in 2019: A cross-sectional study.

INTRODUCTION: The 21st Century Cures Act has expanded patients' access to portals through smartphone applications (apps). To date, the prevalence of patient portal smartphone apps use is unclear, especially on a national scale. METHODS: Using the 2019 Health Information National Trends Survey, we assessed factors associated with patient portal adopters accessing their records through a smartphone app. Multivariable logistic regression models were conducted and we reported results using predicted probability. RESULTS: Across a weighted sample of 75,324,288 respondents, 39 % reported using a smartphone app to access their health records. Adults with smartphone-only internet (40.0 %; 95 % CI: 35.4-33.3) were more likely to use a smartphone app compared to adults with home internet access (30.6 %; 95 % CI: 27.9-44.7). CONCLUSIONS: Optimizing the implementation and delivery of patient portal content via smartphone apps may improve their reach to patients.

COVID-19 Vaccination Rates Among US Adults With Vision or Hearing Disabilities.

Importance: Despite persistent care delivery inequities, limited studies have assessed COVID-19 vaccination rates among adults with vision or hearing disabilities. Objective: To estimate the prevalence of and factors in COVID-19 vaccination among US adults with vision or hearing disabilities. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study assessed data from adults who participated in the US Census Bureau Household Pulse Survey from April 2021 through March 2022. The survey assessed COVID-19 vaccine initiation, vaccine series completion, and determinants of health care access, including demographic characteristics, clinical characteristics, and social determinants of health. Exposures: Vision disability (serious difficulty seeing even with eyeglasses or blindness) and hearing disability (serious difficulty hearing even with a hearing aid or deafness). Main Outcomes and Measures: First dose of COVID-19 vaccine. Adjusted estimated probabilities and 95% CIs of COVID-19 vaccine initiation were calculated using multivariable logistic regression adjusted for survey week, demographic characteristics, clinical characteristics, and social determinants of health. Results: In this study of 916 085 US adults (weighted population, 192 719 992; mean [SD] age, 54.0 [15.9] years; 52.0% women), most participants had initiated the COVID-19 vaccine series (82.7%). Adults with serious difficulty seeing (mean difference, -6.3%; 95% CI, -7.5% to -5.1%; P < .001) and blindness (mean difference, -20.1%; 95% CI, -25.1% to -15.0%; P < .001) had lower vaccination rates compared with adults with little to no vision impairment. Adults with serious difficulty hearing (mean difference, -2.1%; 95% CI, -3.5% to -0.7%; P = .003) and deafness (mean difference, -17.7%; 95% CI, -21.8% to -13.6%; P < .001) were less likely to initiate the COVID-19 vaccine compared with adults with little to no hearing impairment. Controlling for other factors, adults with blindness (mean difference, -6.3%; 95% CI, -11.1% to -1.5%; P = .009) were less likely to initiate the COVID-19 vaccine compared with adults with little to no vision impairment. Controlling for other factors, adults with deafness (mean difference, -5.5%; 95% CI, -9.2% to -1.9%; P = .003) were less likely to initiate the COVID-19 vaccine compared with adults with little to no hearing impairment. Conclusion and Relevance: The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that COVID-19 vaccine initiation is lower among adults with vision or hearing disabilities compared with adults without disabilities; this information may inform initiatives to promote equitable and accessible vaccination. Additional research may be needed to monitor COVID-19 vaccination disparities among adults with vision or hearing disabilities and to address disparities.

Cancer Screening Among Rural and Urban Clinics During COVID-19: A Multistate Qualitative Study.

PURPOSE: The effects of COVID-19 have been understudied in rural areas. This study sought to (1) identify cancer screening barriers and facilitators during the pandemic in rural and urban primary care practices, (2) describe implementation strategies to support cancer screening, and (3) provide recommendations. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted (N = 42) with primary care staff across 20 sites. Individual interviews were conducted through videoconference from August 2020 to April 2021 and recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using deductive and inductive coding (hybrid approach) in NVivo 12 Plus. Practices included federally qualified health centers, tribal health centers, rural health clinics, hospital/health system-owned clinics, and academic medical centers across 10 states including urban (55%) and rural (45%) sites. Staff included individuals serving in the dual role of health care provider and administrator (21.4%), health care administrator (23.8%), physician (19.0%), advanced practice provider (11.9%), or resident (23.8%). The interviews assessed perceptions about cancer screening barriers and facilitators, implementation strategies, and future recommendations. RESULTS: Participants reported multilevel barriers to cancer screening including policy-level (eg, elective procedure delays), organizational (eg, backlogs), and individual (eg, patient cancellation). Several facilitators to screening were noted, such as home-based testing, using telehealth, and strong partnerships with referral sites. Practices used strategies to encourage screening, such as incentivizing patients and providers and expanding outreach. Rural clinics reported challenges with backlogs, staffing, telehealth implementation, and patient outreach. CONCLUSION: Primary care staff used innovative strategies during the pandemic to promote cancer screening. Unresolved challenges (eg, backlogs and inability to implement telehealth) disproportionately affected rural clinics.

De-implementing low-value care in cancer care delivery: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Accumulating evidence suggests that interventions to de-implement low-value services are urgently needed. While medical societies and educational campaigns such as Choosing Wisely have developed several guidelines and recommendations pertaining to low-value care, little is known about interventions that exist to de-implement low-value care in oncology settings. We conducted this review to summarize the literature on interventions to de-implement low-value care in oncology settings. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the published literature in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL Plus, and Scopus from 1 January 1990 to 4 March 2021. We screened the retrieved abstracts for eligibility against inclusion criteria and conducted a full-text review of all eligible studies on de-implementation interventions in cancer care delivery. We used the framework analysis approach to summarize included studies' key characteristics including design, type of cancer, outcome(s), objective(s), de-implementation interventions description, and determinants of the de-implementation interventions. To extract the data, pairs of authors placed text from included articles into the appropriate cells within our framework. We analyzed extracted data from each cell to describe the studies and findings of de-implementation interventions aiming to reduce low-value cancer care. RESULTS: Out of 2794 studies, 12 met our inclusion criteria. The studies covered several cancer types, including prostate cancer (n = 5), gastrointestinal cancer (n = 3), lung cancer (n = 2), breast cancer (n = 2), and hematologic cancers (n = 1). Most of the interventions (n = 10) were multifaceted. Auditing and providing feedback, having a clinical champion, educating clinicians through developing and disseminating new guidelines, and developing a decision support tool are the common components of the de-implementation interventions. Six of the de-implementation interventions were effective in reducing low-value care, five studies reported mixed results, and one study showed no difference across intervention arms. Eleven studies aimed to de-implement low-value care by changing providers' behavior, and 1 de-implementation intervention focused on changing the patients' behavior. Three studies had little risk of bias, five had moderate, and four had a high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: This review demonstrated a paucity of evidence in many areas of the de-implementation of low-value care including lack of studies in active de-implementation (i.e., healthcare organizations initiating de-implementation interventions purposefully aimed at reducing low-value care).

Modeling COVID-19 Mortality Across 44 Countries: Face Covering May Reduce Deaths.

INTRODUCTION: Despite ongoing efforts to vaccinate communities against COVID-19, the necessity of face mask use in controlling the pandemic remains subject to debate. Several studies have investigated face masks and COVID-19, covering smaller and less diverse populations than this study's sample. This study examines a hypothesized association of face-covering mandates with COVID-19 mortality decline across 44 countries in 2 continents. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study, changes in COVID-19‒related daily mortality rate per million population from February 15 to May 31, 2020 were compared between 27 countries with and 17 countries without face mask mandates in nearly 1 billion (911,446,220 total) people. Longitudinal mixed effect modeling was applied and adjusted for over 10 relevant demographic, social, clinical, and time-dependent confounders. RESULTS: Average COVID-19 mortality per million was 288.54 in countries without face mask policies and 48.40 in countries with face mask policies. In no mask countries, adjusted average daily increase was 0.1553 - 0.0017 X (days since the first case) log deaths per million, compared with 0.0900 - 0.0009 X (days since the first case) log deaths per million in the countries with a mandate. A total of 60 days into the pandemic, countries without face mask mandates had an average daily increase of 0.0533 deaths per million, compared with the average daily increase of 0.0360 deaths per million for countries with face mask mandates. CONCLUSIONS: This study's significant results show that face mask mandates were associated with lower COVID-19 deaths rates than the rates in countries without mandates. These findings support the use of face masks to prevent excess COVID-19 deaths and should be advised during airborne disease epidemics.

Prevalence and Factors Associated with Patient-Requested Corrections to the Medical Record through Use of a Patient Portal: Findings from a National Survey.

BACKGROUND: Providing patients with medical records access is one strategy that health systems can utilize to reduce medical errors. However, how often patients request corrections to their records on a national scale is unknown. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to develop population-level estimates of patients who request corrections to their medical records using national-level data. We also identified patient-level correlates of requesting corrections. METHODS: We used the 2017 and 2019 Health Information National Trends Survey and examined all patient portal adopters. We applied jackknife replicate weights to develop population-representative estimates of the prevalence of requesting medical record corrections. We conducted a multivariable logistic regression analysis to identify correlates of requesting corrections while controlling for demographic factors, health care utilization patterns, health status, technology/internet use patterns, and year. RESULTS: Across 1,657 respondents, 125 (weighted estimate: 6.5%) reported requesting corrections to their medical records. In unadjusted models, greater odds of requesting corrections were observed among patients who reported their race/ethnicity as non-Hispanic black (odds ratio [OR]: 2.20, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.10-4.43), had frequent portal visits (OR: 3.92, 95% CI: 1.51-10.23), and had entered data into the portal (OR: 7.51, 95% CI: 4.08-13.81). In adjusted models, we found greater odds of requesting corrections among those who reported frequent portal visits (OR: 3.39, 95% CI: 1.24-9.33) and those who reported entering data into the portal (OR: 6.43, 95% CI: 3.20-12.94). No other significant differences were observed. CONCLUSION: Prior to the Information Blocking Final Rule in April 2021, approximately 6.5% of patients requested corrections of errors in their medical records at the national level. Those who reported higher engagement with their health, as proxied by portal visit frequency and entering data into the portal, were more likely to request corrections.