Impact of COVID-19 on Primary Care Quality Measures in an Academic Integrated Health System.

BACKGROUND: Access to primary care was hindered by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate changes in health screening rates before and during the pandemic. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of health maintenance and disease management screening rates among primary care patients before and during the pandemic. PARTICIPANTS: Over 150,000 patients of a large, academic health system. MAIN MEASURES: Six quality measures were analyzed: colon cancer, breast cancer, cervical cancer, diabetes Hgb A1C, diabetes eye, and diabetes nephropathy monitoring. Based on US Preventative Services Task Force screening guidelines, we determined which patients were due for at least one of the quality measures. We tracked completion rates during three time periods: pre-pandemic (January 1-March 3, 2020), stay-at-home (March 4-May 8, 2020), and phased reopening (May 9-July 8, 2020). Differences in quality measure completion rates were evaluated using mixed-effects logistic regression models. KEY RESULTS: Compared to pre-pandemic rates, completion of all health screenings declined during the stay-at-home period: mammograms (OR: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.31-0.37), cervical cancer (OR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.76-0.91), colorectal cancer (OR: 0.25; 95% CI: 0.23-0.28), diabetes eye (OR: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.29-0.41), diabetes Hgb A1c (OR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.37-0.46), and diabetes nephropathy (OR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.41-0.53). During phased reopening, completion of all quality measures increased compared to the stay-at-home period, except for cervical cancer screening (OR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.76-0.92). There was a persistent reduction in completion of all quality measures, except for diabetic nephropathy monitoring (OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.89-1.09), during phased reopening compared to pre-pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare screening rates were reduced during the early part of the COVID-19 pandemic and did not fully recover to pre-pandemic rates by July 2020. Future research should aim to clarify the long-term impacts of delayed health screenings. New interventions should be considered for expanding remote preventative health services.

Utilizing point-of-care A1c to impact outcomes - can we make it happen in primary care?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Hemoglobin A1c testing provides a marker of glycemic control and is the standard for diabetes risk assessment. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), only 67.3-71.4% of diabetic patients between 2011 and 2016 had at least two A1c levels tested per year. Moreover, 27.8% had uncontrolled diabetes with an A1c of ≥8.0%, increasing the risk of microvascular complications. Lack of monitoring presents a significant barrier, and improving ease of testing could improve glycemic control. RECENT FINDINGS: Point-of-care (POC) A1c testing, obtained via capillary blood with results provided in 5-6 min, is available and used frequently in endocrine clinics. However, POC A1c testing is not standard in primary care, where 90% of type 2 diabetes patients are treated. Barriers include access and costs of POC A1c machines and standardization of testing in the primary care setting. Review of literature, however, suggests that POC A1c testing in primary care may lead to A1c reduction whereas being potentially cost-effective and strengths the patient-physician relationship. SUMMARY: POC A1c testing in primary care, if widely available and integrated into workflow, has the potential to positively impact diabetes care. Real-time feedback may change patient and physician behaviors, allowing earlier therapeutic intensification.

Management Patterns for Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia: Impact of a Patient Decision Aid.

INTRODUCTION: Decision aids aimed at men with benign prostatic hyperplasia used in clinical trials have decreased the use of procedures and affected elements of decisional quality. We employed an online, interactive decision aid for men with benign prostatic hyperplasia as a routine part of care with a urologist and tracked subsequent treatment choice. We further evaluated the role of patient preferences on treatment selection. METHODS: Men scheduled for a new patient visit with a urologist for benign prostatic hyperplasia at a single tertiary care center were invited to use a decision aid prior to their visit. We compared treatment patterns in men who used the decision aid to a usual care group identified prior to the decision aid's introduction. Latent class analysis identified clusters of patients by their treatment preferences, which were then compared to their treatment choice. RESULTS: The rate of procedures in the decision aid group was significantly lower than in the usual care group (6% vs 15%; p=0.0250), matching the rates reporting a procedure as their preferred treatment choice in the post-consult questionnaire (5% vs 15%; p=0.0082). Of the patients in our project 36% had never tried an alpha blocker prior to their urology consult. Latent class analysis found 2 clusters of patient preferences but without a significant association with final treatment selection. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a decision aid was associated with a significant decrease in procedural management of benign prostatic hyperplasia. A high proportion of patients were evaluated by urologists without exhausting primary care management options.

Decisional Quality Among Patients Making Treatment Decisions for Urolithiasis.

OBJECTIVE: To measure decisional quality, physician loyalty, and treatment preference in patients diagnosed with urolithiasis, a "preference-sensitive" condition, to identify areas of improvement to be addressed by a targeted shared decision-making intervention. METHODS: We identified patients who presented for an initial consultation for urolithiasis from March 2016 to May 2017. Patients completed a 24-item patient experience questionnaire after the consultation which assessed decisional quality domains, physician loyalty, and treatment preference. We summarized treatment preferences before and after the consultation and described the changes. RESULTS: Among the total of 113 patients who met inclusion criteria, 78 (69%) patients chose to participate. Thirty-six (46%) of those patients had evidence of decisional conflict and 42 (54%) did not. Only 1 in 5 patients experiencing decisional conflict reported knowing the benefits and risks of each treatment option. Patients with decisional conflict reported lower perceived shared decision-making, treatment satisfaction, and urolithiasis knowledge. Physician loyalty was lower among patients with decisional conflict as well. Thirty-nine percent of them were 'Promoters' of their urologist, compared to 71% of patients without decisional conflict. Sixty-four percent of patients without decisional conflict identified a treatment preference before consultation, while only 17% of patients who experienced decisional conflict were able to do so. CONCLUSION: Many patients with urolithiasis experience decisional conflict and are unsure of their preferences when making a treatment choice. Uncertainty can correlate with low physician loyalty after consultation. This population may benefit from a shared decision-making intervention that improves decisional quality while incorporating patient-specific preferences.

Evaluation of Implementation Outcomes After Initiation of a Shared Decision-making Program for Men With Prostate Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate barriers to implementation of patient decision aids (PDAs) issued in an electronic medical record (EMR). We undertook an implementation outcomes analysis focused on what proportion of men eligible for the PDA received it (penetration), and of the men who received it, how many used it as intended (fidelity). We also evaluated various patient-centered outcomes related to decision-making. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men with incident localized prostate cancer were recruited from at UCLA from 2013 to 2017. PDA eligibility was determined via weekly EMR review. We also performed a retrospective chart review of all patients seen in clinic for one sample week to identify patients that were missed by the initial eligibility algorithm, and investigated the cause for miscategorization. We analyzed differences in patient-centered outcomes between those who did and did not receive the PDA. RESULTS: About 314/374 men with incident prostate cancer completed the PDA conferring 84% fidelity. PDA penetration under initial identification prospective algorithm was assessed at 100% (n = 2/n = 2). However, penetration assessed by manual retrospective chart review was 20% (n = 2/n = 10). Improvements to the identification algorithm, including new EMR visit types, were identified. PDA completion was associated with less decisional conflict and higher perceived Shared decision-making (all P<.03). CONCLUSION: No previous studies have investigated the challenges of implementing a PDA facilitated by the EMR. We identified modifiable system and EMR-related factors that limited program penetration. Our PDA showed decisional quality benefits.

Decisional Conflict Among Patients Considering Treatment Options for Lumbar Herniated Disc.

BACKGROUND: Lumbar herniated disc is a "preference-sensitive" condition, in which the optimal treatment choice is crucially dependent on an informed patient's goals and values. Little is known about decisional conflict, defined as an individual's level of uncertainty regarding a decision, in patients considering treatment for lumbar herniated discs. Our work aims to identify factors associated with decisional conflict and areas for improved shared decision making. METHODS: We prospectively surveyed patients seeking treatment for a lumbar herniated disc at L4-L5 and/or L5-S1 with a physician at the UCLA Spine Center. Decisional conflict was measured using the validated SURE questionnaire. We performed univariate and multivariate logistic analysis to identify predictors of decisional conflict. RESULTS: Among the 174 participants surveyed, 47% reported experiencing decisional conflict and 44% changed their treatment preference after the visit, with 61% of these opting for more invasive treatment. Participants with decisional conflict were less satisfied with their treatment decision (P < 0.001) and less willing to recommend their physician (P = 0.003) and physician's medical group to others (P = 0.003). Multivariate analysis revealed that participants were more likely to experience decisional conflict if they consulted with a physiatrist compared with a surgeon (odds ratio [OR], 2.6; P = 0.019) and if they did not feel able to discuss the various treatment options with the doctor during the visit (OR, 8.5; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Many patients with a lumbar herniated disc experience decisional conflict when choosing a treatment option. Our results highlight the need to implement tools and strategies to improve decisional quality, such as decision aids before consultation.

Decisional Quality in Patients With Small Renal Masses.

OBJECTIVE: To measure decisional quality in patients being counseled on treatment for small renal masses and identify potential areas of improvement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 73 patients diagnosed with small renal masses at the University of California, Los Angeles Health completed an instrument measuring decisional conflict, patient satisfaction with care, disease-specific knowledge, and patient impression that shared decision-making occurred in the visit after counseling by a specialist. Participant characteristics were compared between those with high and low decisional conflict using chi-square or Student t test (or Wilcoxon rank-sum test). RESULTS: Participants were mostly older (mean age 63.5), white (84%), in a relationship (61%), and unemployed or retired (63%). Mean knowledge score was 59% correct. The mean (standard deviation) decisional conflict score was 16.4 (18.4) indicating low levels of decisional conflict but with a wide range of scores. Comparing participants with high decisional conflict with those with low decisional conflict, there were significant differences in knowledge scores (Wilcoxon P = .0069), patient satisfaction with care (P = .0011), and perceived shared decision-making (P <.0001). CONCLUSION: Patients with small renal masses generally have low levels of decisional conflict and can identify a preferred treatment after a physician visit. However, both groups lack overall knowledge about their disease even after counseling, and thus may be heavily influenced by paternalistic care. Those patients with decisional conflicts are less likely to perceive their care as satisfactory and are less likely to be involved in decision-making.

Does Patient Preference Measurement in Decision Aids Improve Decisional Conflict? A Randomized Trial in Men with Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated as an approach to medical decision making that can improve decisional quality. Decision aids are tools that facilitate SDM in the context of limited physician time; however, many decision aids do not incorporate preference measurement. OBJECTIVES: We aim to understand whether adding preference measurement to a standard patient educational intervention improves decisional quality and is feasible in a busy clinical setting. METHODS: Men with incident localized prostate cancer (n = 122) were recruited from the Greater Los Angeles Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center urology clinic, Olive View UCLA Medical Center, and Harbor UCLA Medical Center from January 2011 to May 2015 and randomized to education with a brochure about prostate cancer treatment or software-based preference assessment in addition to the brochure. Men undergoing preference assessment received a report detailing the relative strength of their preferences for treatment outcomes used in review with their doctor. Participants completed instruments measuring decisional conflict, knowledge, SDM, and patient satisfaction with care before and/or after their cancer consultation. RESULTS: Baseline knowledge scores were low (mean 62%). The baseline mean total score on the Decisional Conflict Scale was 2.3 (±0.9), signifying moderate decisional conflict. Men undergoing preference assessment had a significantly larger decrease in decisional conflict total score (p = 0.023) and the Perceived Effective Decision Making subscale (p = 0.003) post consult compared with those receiving education only. Improvements in satisfaction with care, SDM, and knowledge were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Individual-level preference assessment is feasible in the clinic setting. Patients with prostate cancer who undergo preference assessment are more certain about their treatment decisions and report decreased levels of decisional conflict when making these decisions.

The Voice of the Patient Methodology: A Novel Mixed-Methods Approach to Identifying Treatment Goals for Men with Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Many guidelines advocate the use of shared decision making for men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer. Decision aids can facilitate the process of shared decision making. Implicit in this approach is the idea that physicians understand which elements of treatment matter to patients. Little formal work exists to guide physicians or developers of decision aids in identifying these attributes. We use a mixed-methods technique adapted from marketing science, the 'Voice of the Patient', to describe and identify treatment elements of value for men with localized prostate cancer. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 30 men treated for prostate cancer in the urology clinic of the West Los Angeles Veteran Affairs Medical Center. We used a qualitative analysis to generate themes in patient narratives, and a quantitative approach, agglomerative hierarchical clustering, to identify attributes of treatment that were most relevant to patients making decisions about prostate cancer. RESULTS: We identified five 'traditional' prostate cancer treatment attributes: sexual dysfunction, bowel problems, urinary problems, lifespan, and others' opinions. We further identified two novel treatment attributes: a treatment's ability to validate a sense of proactivity and the need for an incision (separate from risks of surgery). CONCLUSIONS: Application of a successful marketing technique, the 'Voice of the Customer', in a clinical setting elicits non-obvious attributes that highlight unique patient decision-making concerns. Use of this method in the development of decision aids may result in more effective decision support.

Accuracy of PSA Self-Reports among Low-Income Men with Prostate Cancer after a Public Health Nursing Intervention.

OBJECTIVES: To examine accuracy of patient-reported prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels among indigent, uninsured men in a state-funded prostate cancer treatment program that provides case management, care coordination, and health education. DESIGN AND SAMPLE: Program evaluation. About 114 men with matched self- and lab-reported PSA levels at program enrollment and another time point within 18 months. MEASURES: Abstraction of self- and lab-reported PSA levels to determine self-report as "accurate" or "inaccurate," and evaluate accuracy change over time, before and after nursing interventions. Chi-square tests compared patients with accurate versus inaccurate PSA values. Nonlinear multivariate analyses explored trends in self-reported accuracy over time. INTERVENTION: Program enrollees receive prostate cancer education from a Nurse Case Manager (NCM), including significance of PSA levels. Men self-report PSA results to their NCM following lab draws and appointments. The NCM provides ongoing education about PSA levels. RESULTS: Of the sample, 46% (n = 53) accurately reported PSA levels. Accuracy of PSA self-reports improved with increasing time since program enrollment. Compared with men at public facilities, those treated at private facilities showed increasing accuracy in self-reported PSA (p = .038). CONCLUSION: A targeted nursing intervention may increase specific knowledge of PSA levels. Additionally, the provider/treatment setting significantly impacts a patient's disease education and knowledge.