Intensity, Characteristics, and Factors Associated With Receipt of Care Coordination Among High-Risk Veterans in the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has initiatives underway to enhance the provision of care coordination (CC), particularly among high-risk Veterans. Yet, evidence detailing the characteristics of and who receives VHA CC is limited. OBJECTIVES: We examined intensity, timing, setting, and factors associated with VHA CC among high-risk Veterans. RESEARCH DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective observational cohort study, following Veterans for 1 year after being identified as high-risk for hospitalization or mortality, to characterize their CC. Demographic and clinical factors predictive of CC were identified via multivariate logistic regression. SUBJECTS: A total of 1,843,272 VHA-enrolled high-risk Veterans in fiscal years 2019-2021. MEASURES: We measured 5 CC variables during the year after Veterans were identified as high risk: (1) receipt of any service, (2) number of services received, (3) number of days to first service, (4) number of days between services, and (5) type of visit during which services were received. RESULTS: Overall, 31% of high-risk Veterans in the sample received CC during one-year follow-up. Among Veterans who received ≥1 service, a median of 2 [IQR (1, 6)] services were received. Among Veterans who received ≥2 services, there was a median of 26 [IQR (10, 57)] days between services. Most services were received during outpatient psychiatry (46%) or medicine (16%) visits. Veterans' sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were associated with receipt of CC. CONCLUSIONS: A minority of Veterans received CC in the year after being identified as high-risk, and there was variation in intensity, timing, and setting of CC. Research is needed to examine the fit between Veterans' CC needs and preferences and VHA CC delivery.

Typology of solutions addressing diagnostic disparities: gaps and opportunities.

OBJECTIVES: Diagnostic disparities are preventable differences in diagnostic errors or opportunities to achieve diagnostic excellence. There is a need to summarize solutions with explicit considerations for addressing diagnostic disparities. We aimed to describe potential solutions to diagnostic disparities, organize them into an action-oriented typology with illustrative examples, and characterize these solutions to identify gaps for their further development. METHODS: During four human-centered design workshops composed of diverse expertise, participants ideated and clarified potential solutions to diagnostic disparities and were supported by environmental literature scan inputs. Nineteen individual semi-structured interviews with workshop participants validated identified solution examples and solution type characterizations, refining the typology. RESULTS: Our typology organizes 21 various types of potential diagnostic disparities solutions into four primary expertise categories needed for implementation: healthcare systems' internal expertise, educator-, multidisciplinary patient safety researcher-, and health IT-expertise. We provide descriptions of potential solution types ideated as focused on disparities and compare those to existing examples. Six types were characterized as having diagnostic-disparity-focused examples, five as having diagnostic-focused examples, and 10 as only having general healthcare examples. Only three solution types had widespread implementation. Twelve had implementation on limited scope, and six were mostly hypothetical. We describe gaps that inform the progress needed for each of the suggested solution types to specifically address diagnostic disparities and be suitable for the implementation in routine practice. CONCLUSIONS: Numerous opportunities exist to tailor existing solutions and promote their implementation. Likely enablers include new perspectives, more evidence, multidisciplinary collaborations, system redesign, meaningful patient engagement, and action-oriented coalitions.

Patient-reported outcome and experience domains for diagnostic excellence: a scoping review to inform future measure development.

PURPOSE: "Diagnostic excellence," as a relatively new construct centered on the diagnostic process and its health-related outcomes, can be refined by patient reporting and its measurement. We aimed to explore the scope of patient-reported outcome (PRO) and patient-reported experience (PRE) domains that are diagnostically relevant, regardless of the future diagnosed condition, and to review the state of measurement of these patient-reported domains. METHODS: We conducted an exploratory analysis to identify these domains by employing a scoping review supplemented with internal expert consultations, 24-member international expert convening, additional environmental scans, and the validation of the domains' diagnostic relevance via mapping these onto patient diagnostic journeys. We created a narrative bibliography of the domains illustrating them with existing measurement examples. RESULTS: We identified 41 diagnostically relevant PRO and PRE domains. We classified 10 domains as PRO, 28 as PRE, and three as mixed PRO/PRE. Among these domains, 19 were captured in existing instruments, and 20 were captured only in qualitative studies. Two domains were conceptualized during this exploratory analysis with no examples identified of capturing these domains. For 27 domains, patients and care partners report on a specific encounter; for 14 domains, reporting relates to an entire diagnostic journey over time, which presents particular measurement opportunities and challenges. CONCLUSION: The multitude of PRO and PRE domains, if measured rigorously, would allow the diagnostic excellence construct to evolve further and in a manner that is patient-centered, prospectively focused, and concentrates on effectiveness and efficiency of diagnostic care on patients' well-being.

Betrayal-Based Moral Injury and Mental Health Problems Among Healthcare and Hospital Workers Serving COVID-19 Patients.

One factor potentially driving healthcare and hospital worker (HHW)'s declining mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic is feeling betrayed by institutional leaders, coworkers, and/or others' pandemic-related responses and behaviors. We investigated whether HHWs' betrayal-based moral injury was associated with greater mental distress and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms related to COVID-19. We also examined if these associations varied between clinical and non-clinical staff. From July 2020 to January 2021, cross-sectional online survey data were collected from 1,066 HHWs serving COVID-19 patients in a large urban US healthcare system. We measured betrayal-based moral injury in three groups: institutional leaders, coworkers/colleagues, and people outside of healthcare. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to investigate whether betrayal-based moral injury was associated with mental distress and PTSD symptoms. Approximately one-third of HHWs reported feeling betrayed by institutional leaders, and/or people outside healthcare. Clinical staff were more likely to report feelings of betrayal than non-clinical staff. For all respondents, 49.5% reported mental distress and 38.2% reported PTSD symptoms. Having any feelings of betrayal increased the odds of mental distress and PTSD symptoms by 2.9 and 3.3 times, respectively. These associations were not significantly different between clinical and non-clinical staff. As health systems seek to enhance support of HHWs, they need to carefully examine institutional structures, accountability, communication, and decision-making patterns that can result in staff feelings of betrayal. Building trust and repairing ruptures with HHWs could prevent potential mental health problems, increase retention, and reduce burnout, while likely improving patient care.

Patient Reasoning: Patients' and Care Partners' Perceptions of Diagnostic Accuracy in Emergency Care.

OBJECTIVES: In the context of validating a measure of patient report specific to diagnostic accuracy in emergency department or urgent care, this study investigates patients' and care partners' perceptions of diagnoses as accurate and explores variations in how they reason while they assess accuracy. METHODS: In February 2022, we surveyed a national panel of adults who had an emergency department or urgent care visit in the past month to test a patient-reported measure. As part of the survey validation, we asked for free-text responses about why the respondents indicated their (dis)agreement with 2 statements comprising patient-reported diagnostic accuracy: 1) the explanation they received of the health problem was true and 2) the explanation described what to expect of the health problem. Those paired free-text responses were qualitatively analyzed according to themes created inductively. RESULTS: A total of 1,116 patients and care partners provided 982 responses coded into 10 themes, which were further grouped into 3 reasoning types. Almost one-third (32%) of respondents used only corroborative reasoning in assessing the accuracy of the health problem explanation (alignment of the explanation with either test results, patients' subsequent health trajectory, their medical knowledge, symptoms, or another doctor's opinion), 26% used only perception-based reasoning (perceptions of diagnostic process, uncertainty around the explanation received, or clinical team's attitudes), and 27% used both types of reasoning. The remaining 15% used general beliefs or nonexplicated logic (used only about accurate diagnoses) and combinations of general reasoning with perception-based and corroborative. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and care partners used multifaceted reasoning in their assessment of diagnostic accuracy. IMPLICATIONS: As health care shifts toward meaningful diagnostic co-production and shared decision making, in-depth understanding of variations in patient reasoning and mental models informs use in clinical practice. HIGHLIGHTS: An analysis of 982 responses examined how patients and care partners reason about the accuracy of diagnoses they received in emergency or urgent care.In reasoning, people used their perception of the process and whether the diagnosis matched other factual information they have.We introduce "patient reasoning" in the diagnostic measurement context as an area of further research to inform diagnostic shared decision making and co-production of health.

Understanding care coordination for Veterans with complex care needs: protocol of a multiple-methods study to build evidence for an effectiveness and implementation study.

Background: For patients with complex health and social needs, care coordination is crucial for improving their access to care, clinical outcomes, care experiences, and controlling their healthcare costs. However, evidence is inconsistent regarding the core elements of care coordination interventions, and lack of standardized processes for assessing patients' needs has made it challenging for providers to optimize care coordination based on patient needs and preferences. Further, ensuring providers have reliable and timely means of communicating about care plans, patients' full spectrum of needs, and transitions in care is important for overcoming potential care fragmentation. In the Veterans Health Administration (VA), several initiatives are underway to implement care coordination processes and services. In this paper, we describe our study underway in the VA aimed at building evidence for designing and implementing care coordination practices that enhance care integration and improve health and care outcomes for Veterans with complex care needs. Methods: In a prospective observational multiple methods study, for Aim 1 we will use existing data to identify Veterans with complex care needs who have and have not received care coordination services. We will examine the relationship between receipt of care coordination services and their health outcomes. In Aim 2, we will adapt the Patient Perceptions of Integrated Veteran Care questionnaire to survey a sample of Veterans about their experiences regarding coordination, integration, and the extent to which their care needs are being met. For Aim 3, we will interview providers and care teams about their perceptions of the innovation attributes of current care coordination needs assessment tools and processes, including their improvement over other approaches (relative advantage), fit with current practices (compatibility and innovation fit), complexity, and ability to visualize how the steps proceed to impact the right care at the right time (observability). The provider interviews will inform design and deployment of a widescale provider survey. Discussion: Taken together, our study will inform development of an enhanced care coordination intervention that seeks to improve care and outcomes for Veterans with complex care needs.

"A slap in the face": Institutional betrayal, burnout, and career choice regret among frontline health care workers serving COVID-19 patients.

The COVID-19 pandemic has exacted a physical and mental health toll on health care and hospital workers (HHWs). To provide COVID-19 care, HHWs expected health care institutions to support equipment and resources, ensure safety for patients and providers, and advocate for employees' needs. Failure to do these acts has been defined as institutional betrayal. Using a mixed-methods approach, this study aimed to explore the experience of institutional betrayal in HHWs serving COVID-19 patients and the associations between self-reported institutional betrayal and both burnout and career choice regret. Between July 2020 and January 2021, HHWs working in an urban U.S. health care system participated in an online survey (n = 1,189) and semistructured interview (n = 67). Among 1,075 quantitative participants, 57.8% endorsed institutional betrayal. Qualitative participants described frustration when the institution did not prioritize their safety while reporting they perceived receiving inadequate compensation from the system and felt that leadership did not sufficiently respond to their needs. Participants who endorsed prolonged breaches of trust reported more burnout and stronger intent to quit their job. Quantitatively, institutional betrayal endorsement was associated with 3-fold higher odds of burnout, aOR = 2.94, 95% CI [2.22, 3.89], and 4-fold higher odds of career choice regret, aOR = 4.31, 95% CI [3.15, 5.89], compared to no endorsement. Developing strategies to prevent, address, and repair institutional betrayal in HHWs may be critical to prevent and reduce burnout and increase motivation to work during and after public health emergencies.

"It's probably an STI because you're gay": a qualitative study of diagnostic error experiences in sexual and gender minority individuals.

BACKGROUND: There is a critical need to identify specific causes of and tailored solutions to diagnostic error in sexual and gender minority (SGM) populations. PURPOSE: To identify challenges to diagnosis in SGM adults, understand the impacts of patient-reported diagnostic errors on patients' lives and elicit solutions. METHODS: Qualitative study using in-depth semistructured interviews. Participants were recruited using convenience and snowball sampling. Recruitment efforts targeted 22 SGM-focused organisations, academic centres and clinics across the USA. Participants were encouraged to share study details with personal contacts. Interviews were analysed using codebook thematic analysis. RESULTS: Interviewees (n=20) ranged from 20 to 60 years of age with diverse mental and physical health symptoms. All participants identified as sexual minorities, gender minorities or both. Thematic analysis revealed challenges to diagnosis. Provider-level challenges included pathologisation of SGM identity; dismissal of symptoms due to anti-SGM bias; communication failures due to providers being distracted by SGM identity and enforcement of cis-heteronormative assumptions. Patient-level challenges included internalised shame and stigma. Intersectional challenges included biases around factors like race and age. Patient-reported diagnostic error led to worsening relationships with providers, worsened mental and physical health and increased self-advocacy and community-activism. Solutions to reduce diagnostic disparities included SGM-specific medical education and provider training, using inclusive language, asking questions, avoiding assumptions, encouraging diagnostic coproduction, upholding high care standards and ethics, involving SGM individuals in healthcare improvement and increasing research on SGM health. CONCLUSIONS: Anti-SGM bias, queerphobia, lack of provider training and heteronormative attitudes hinder diagnostic decision-making and communication. As a result, SGM patients report significant harms. Solutions to mitigate diagnostic disparities require an intersectional approach that considers patients' gender identity, sexual orientation, race, age, economic status and system-level changes.

Patient and care partner assessments of diagnostic excellence in the emergency department: A cognitive interview study.

Background: Diagnostic excellence encompasses both receiving an accurate and timely explanation of a health problem that was communicated well, and the process it took to get to the correct diagnosis. Directly eliciting patients' perceptions of their diagnostic experience and outcomes after emergency visits is a promising method of assessing diagnostic excellence. However, little is known about how patients interpret and respond to questions about their diagnostic experiences and outcomes. Objective: To analyze patient and care partners' interpretation of questions capturing patient-reported diagnostic excellence in emergency settings. Design: Cognitive interviews using think-aloud and probing methods. Settings: Interviews were conducted virtually and via phone calls. Participants were patients or care partners of patients recently discharged from three emergency departments within a single academic health system in the Mid-Atlantic region of the US. Participants: 15 patients and care partners, 18 years or older, with recent emergency department experiences. Methods: Qualitative analysis using a deductive approach was used to code transcripts and analyze participant responses to Patient-Report to Improve Diagnostic Excellence in Emergency Department (PRIME-ED) questionnaire items. Themes of patient and care partners' questionnaire interpretations are presented descriptively. Results: 80% of participants were female, 47% were between the ages of 18-24 years, 47% of participants were White, and 7% were Hispanic/Latino. Participants shared their interpretations of diagnostic excellence following PRIME-ED domains: diagnostic accuracy and care team skills, their comprehension of the diagnosis, provider communication of uncertainty, and quality of diagnostic communication, including whether they felt the care team communicated well, adapted communication to their needs, listened and took concerns seriously, treated them as an equal, and provided clear, sufficient, and functional communication about follow-up steps. Responses indicated that patients and care partners can identify diagnostic errors, rationalize why their diagnosis was inaccurate, and assess whether diagnostic excellence was achieved. Respondents identified factors that contributed to their assessments of diagnostic accuracy and the quality of diagnostic communication. The quality of diagnostic communication contributed to patient perception of diagnostic accuracy and understanding of the diagnosis. Conclusions: Patient report is a useful tool for assessing diagnostic excellence in emergency settings. Our patient and care partners describe how they assess diagnostic excellence in the emergency department.Registration: N/A.Tweetable abstract: Patients and care partners provide accessible and useful information to assess diagnostic practices and diagnostic excellence in emergency departments.

Human centered design workshops as a meta-solution to diagnostic disparities.

OBJECTIVES: Diagnostic errors - inaccurate or untimely diagnoses or failures to communicate diagnoses - are harmful and costly for patients and health systems. Diagnostic disparities occur when diagnostic errors are experienced at disproportionate rates by certain patient subgroups based, for example, on patients' age, sex/gender, or race/ethnicity. We aimed to develop and test the feasibility of a human centered design workshop series that engages diverse stakeholders to develop solutions for mitigating diagnostic disparities. METHODS: We employed a series of human centered design workshops supplemented by semi-structured interviews and literature evidence scans. Co-creation sessions and rapid prototyping by patient, clinician, and researcher stakeholders were used to generate design challenges, solution concepts, and prototypes. RESULTS: A series of four workshops attended by 25 unique participants was convened in 2019-2021. Workshops generated eight design challenges, envisioned 29 solutions, and formulated principles for developing solutions in an equitable, patient-centered manner. Workshops further resulted in the conceptualization of 37 solutions for addressing diagnostic disparities and prototypes for two of the solutions. Participants agreed that the workshop processes were replicable and could be implemented in other settings to allow stakeholders to generate context-specific solutions. CONCLUSIONS: The incorporation of human centered design through a series of workshops promises to be a productive way of engaging patient-researcher stakeholders to mitigate and prevent further exacerbation of diagnostic disparities. Healthcare stakeholders can apply human centered design principles to guide thinking about improving diagnostic performance and to center diverse patients' needs and experiences when implementing quality and safety improvements.

The Reliability of Graduate Medical Education Quality of Care Clinical Performance Measures.

Background: Graduate medical education (GME) program leaders struggle to incorporate quality measures in the ambulatory care setting, leading to knowledge gaps on how to provide feedback to residents and programs. While nationally collected quality of care data are available, their reliability for individual resident learning and for GME program improvement is understudied. Objective: To examine the reliability of the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) clinical performance measures in family medicine and internal medicine GME programs and to determine whether HEDIS measures can inform residents and their programs with their quality of care. Methods: From 2014 to 2017, we collected HEDIS measures from 566 residents in 8 family medicine and internal medicine programs under one sponsoring institution. Intraclass correlation was performed to establish patient sample sizes required for 0.70 and 0.80 reliability levels at the resident and program levels. Differences between the patient sample sizes required for reliable measurement and the actual patients cared for by residents were calculated. Results: The highest reliability levels for residents (0.88) and programs (0.98) were found for the most frequently available HEDIS measure, colorectal cancer screening. At the GME program level, 87.5% of HEDIS measures had sufficient sample sizes for reliable measurement at alpha 0.7 and 75.0% at alpha 0.8. Most resident level measurements were found to be less reliable. Conclusions: GME programs may reliably evaluate HEDIS performance pooled at the program level, but less so at the resident level due to patient volume.

Incorporating harms into the weighting of the revised Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Patient Safety for Selected Indicators Composite (Patient Safety Indicator 90).

OBJECTIVE: To reweight the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Patient Safety for Selected Indicators Composite (Patient Safety Indicator [PSI] 90) from weights based solely on the frequency of component PSIs to those that incorporate excess harm reflecting patients' preferences for outcome-related health states. DATA SOURCES: National administrative and claims data involving hospitalizations in nonfederal, nonrehabilitation, acute care hospitals. STUDY DESIGN: We estimated the average excess aggregate harm associated with the occurrence of each component PSI using a cohort sample for each indicator based on denominator-eligible records. We used propensity scores to account for potential confounding in the risk models for each PSI and weighted observations to estimate the "average treatment effect in the treated" for those with the PSI event. We fit separate regression models for each harm outcome. Final PSI weights reflected both the disutilities and the frequencies of the harms. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We estimated PSI frequencies from the 2012 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Databases with present on admission data and excess harms using 2012-2013 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Medicare Fee-for-Service data. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Including harms in the weighting scheme changed individual component weights from the original frequency-based weighting. In the reweighted composite, PSIs 11 ("Postoperative Respiratory Failure"), 13 ("Postoperative Sepsis"), and 12 ("Perioperative Pulmonary Embolism or Deep Vein Thrombosis") contributed the greatest harm, with weights of 29.7%, 21.1%, and 20.4%, respectively. Regarding reliability, the overall average hospital signal-to-noise ratio for the reweighted PSI 90 was 0.7015. Regarding discrimination, among hospitals with greater than median volume, 34% had significantly better PSI 90 performance, and 41% had significantly worse performance than benchmark rates (based on percentiles). CONCLUSIONS: Reformulation of PSI 90 with harm-based weights is feasible and results in satisfactory reliability and discrimination, with a more clinically meaningful distribution of component weights.

Crossing Academic Boundaries for Diagnostic Safety: 10 Complex Challenges and Potential Solutions From Clinical Perspectives and High-Reliability Organizing Principles.

OBJECTIVE: We apply the high-reliability organization (HRO) paradigm to the diagnostic process, outlining challenges to enacting HRO principles in diagnosis and offering solutions for how diagnostic process stakeholders can overcome these barriers. BACKGROUND: Evidence shows that healthcare is starting to organize for higher reliability by employing various principles and practices of HRO. These hold promise for enhancing safer care, but there has been little consideration of the challenges that clinicians and healthcare systems face while enacting HRO principles in the diagnostic process. To effectively deploy the HRO perspective, these barriers must be seriously considered. METHOD: We review key principles of the HRO paradigm, the diagnostic errors and harms that potentially can be prevented by its enactment, the challenges that clinicians and healthcare systems face in executing various principles and practices, and possible solutions that clinicians and organizational leaders can take to overcome these challenges and barriers. RESULTS: Our analyses reveal multiple challenges including the inherent diagnostic uncertainty; the lack of diagnosis-focused performance feedback; the fact that diagnosis is often a solo, rather than team, activity; the tendency to simplify the diagnostic process; and professional and institutional status hierarchies. But these challenges are not insurmountable-there are strategies and solutions available to overcome them. CONCLUSION: The HRO lens offers some important ideas for how the safety of the diagnostic process can be improved. APPLICATION: The ideas proposed here can be enacted by both individual clinicians and healthcare leaders; both are necessary for making systematic progress in enhancing diagnostic performance.

A Qualitative Analysis of Outpatient Medication Use in Community Settings: Observed Safety Vulnerabilities and Recommendations for Improved Patient Safety.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to analyze diverse patients' experiences throughout the medication use process to inform the development of overarching interventions that support safe medication use in community settings. METHODS: Using a qualitative observational approach, we conducted approximately 18 hours of direct observation of the medication use process across multiple settings for a sample of vulnerable, high-risk patients. Observers recorded detailed field notes during the observations. To enrich the observational findings, we also conducted six semistructured interviews with medication safety experts representing a diversity of perspectives. Barriers and facilitators to safe medication use were identified based on inductive coding of the data. RESULTS: A variety of safety vulnerabilities plague all stages of the medication use process and many of the well-established evidence-based interventions aimed at improving the safety of medication use at key stages of the process have not been widely implemented in community settings observed in this study. Key safety vulnerabilities identified include: limited English proficiency, low health literacy, lack of clinician continuity, incomplete medication reconciliation and counseling, unsafe medication storage and disposal habits, and conflicting healthcare agendas with caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings underscore a need for overarching, comprehensive interventions that span the entire process of medication use, including integrated communication systems between clinicians, pharmacies, and patients, and a "patient navigator" program that assists patients in navigating the entire medication-taking process. Collective ownership of the medication management system and mutual motivation for devising collaborative solutions is needed among key sectors.

Integrating Adjuvant Analgesics into Perioperative Pain Practice: Results from an Academic Medical Center.

BACKGROUND: Opioid-sparing postoperative pain management therapies are important considering the opioid epidemic. Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a common and painful procedure accounting for a large number of opioid prescriptions. Adjuvant analgesics, nonopioid drugs with primary indications other than pain, have shown beneficial pain management and opioid-sparing effects following TKA in clinical trials. We evaluated the adjuvant analgesic gabapentin for its usage patterns and its effects on opioid use, pain, and readmissions. METHODS: This retrospective, observational study included 4,046 patients who received primary TKA between 2009 and 2017 using electronic health records from an academic tertiary care medical institute. Descriptive statistics and multivariate modeling were used to estimate associations between inpatient gabapentin use and adverse pain outcomes as well as inpatient oral morphine equivalents per day (OME). RESULTS: Overall, there was an 8.72% annual increase in gabapentin use (P < 0.001). Modeled estimates suggest that gabapentin is associated with a significant decrease in opioid consumption (estimate = 0.63, 95% confidence interval = 0.49-0.82, P < 0.001) when controlling for patient characteristics. Patients receiving gabapentin had similar discharge pain scores, follow-up pain scores, and 30-day unplanned readmission rates compared with patients receiving no adjuvant analgesics (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: When assessed in a real-world setting over a large cohort of TKA patients, gabapentin is an effective pain management therapy that is associated with reduced opioid consumption-a national priority in this time of opioid crisis-while maintaining the same quality of pain management.

Trajectory analysis for postoperative pain using electronic health records: A nonparametric method with robust linear regression and K-medians cluster analysis.

Postoperative pain scores are widely monitored and collected in the electronic health record, yet current methods fail to fully leverage the data with fast implementation. A robust linear regression was fitted to describe the association between the log-scaled pain score and time from discharge after total knee replacement. The estimated trajectories were used for a subsequent K-medians cluster analysis to categorize the longitudinal pain score patterns into distinct clusters. For each cluster, a mixture regression model estimated the association between pain score and time to discharge adjusting for confounding. The fitted regression model generated the pain trajectory pattern for given cluster. Finally, regression analyses examined the association between pain trajectories and patient outcomes. A total of 3442 surgeries were identified with a median of 22 pain scores at an academic hospital during 2009-2016. Four pain trajectory patterns were identified and one was associated with higher rates of outcomes. In conclusion, we described a novel approach with fast implementation to model patients' pain experience using electronic health records. In the era of big data science, clinical research should be learning from all available data regarding a patient's episode of care instead of focusing on the "average" patient outcomes.

PSA Testing Use and Prostate Cancer Diagnostic Stage After the 2012 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Guideline Changes.

BACKGROUND: Most patients with prostate cancer are diagnosed with low-grade, localized disease and may not require definitive treatment. In 2012, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended against prostate cancer screening to address overdetection and overtreatment. This study sought to determine the effect of guideline changes on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening and initial diagnostic stage for prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A difference-in-differences analysis was conducted to compare changes in PSA screening (exposure) relative to cholesterol testing (control) after the 2012 USPSTF guideline changes, and chi-square test was used to determine whether there was a subsequent decrease in early-stage, low-risk prostate cancer diagnoses. Data were derived from a tertiary academic medical center's electronic health records, a national commercial insurance database (OptumLabs), and the SEER database for men aged ≥35 years before (2008-2011) and after (2013-2016) the guideline changes. RESULTS: In both the academic center and insurance databases, PSA testing significantly decreased for all men compared with the control. The greatest decrease was among men aged 55 to 74 years at the academic center and among those aged ≥75 years in the commercial database. The proportion of early-stage prostate cancer diagnoses (