Improving asthma care through recertification: a cluster randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: As part of recertification, the American Board of Internal Medicine requires its diplomats to complete at least 1 practice improvement module (PIM). We assessed whether completing an asthma-specific PIM resulted in improved patient outcomes. METHODS: Practices were the unit of randomization in this cluster randomized trial. Physicians in the intervention group were asked to complete the PIM through its planning phase. The primary outcome was the dispensing of an inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) after a postintervention visit for asthma. Secondary outcomes included patient reported processes of care, asthma-related heath care use, and asthma severity. Analyses were adjusted for baseline rates at the cluster-level as well as for individual sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: Eight practices (19 internists) were randomized to the intervention group and 8 practices (21 internists) to the control group. For the primary outcome, ICS fill rates, patients seen by intervention group physicians were not more likely to fill an ICS prescription in the postintervention period than patients seen by control group physicians (adjusted odd ratio [AOR], 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-1.56). Patients seen for asthma by intervention group physicians were less likely to receive a written action plan than patients seen by control group physicians (AOR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.48-0.93); however, they were more likely to discuss potential asthma triggers (AOR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.08-2.42) and had lower self-reported asthma severity measures (unadjusted P = .03). Per-protocol analysis supported the latter 2 associations. CONCLUSION: A PIM designed to improve asthma care did not improve filling of ICS prescriptions but may have lessened asthma severity through an increased discussion of asthma triggers.

Academic detailing to improve laboratory testing among outpatient medication users.

PURPOSE: To determine whether group academic detailing with performance feedback increases recommended laboratory monitoring among outpatients dispensed medications. METHODS: Thirty-eight primary care practices in 3 states were randomized to group academic detailing with physician-level performance feedback (intervention) or a control group. Adjusted differences in creatinine and potassium testing between intervention and control group patients with a new or continuing dispensing for angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), diuretics, or digoxin were evaluated using generalized estimating equation approaches. RESULTS: Monitoring among patients with an initial ACE/ARB and diuretic dispensing significantly improved with the intervention [odds ratio (OR) = 1.22, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.08-1.38; and OR = 1.25, 95% CI: 1.08-1.44, respectively). The intervention also significantly improved monitoring among patients with a continuing dispensing for an ACE/ARB (OR = 1.39, 95% CI: 1.11-1.74) or a diuretic (OR = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.02-1.60). Adjusted differences in testing rates between study arms were modest (ranging from 2.5% to 4.9%). No significant differences in monitoring by study arm were detected among patients dispensed digoxin. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of a group academic detailing program with feedback on recommended laboratory monitoring among medication users was modest. Yet, given the numbers of outpatients dispensed medications for which laboratory monitoring is recommended, group academic detailing may offer 1 method by which outpatient medication safety can be significantly improved.

Potential drug-drug interactions in the outpatient setting.

BACKGROUND: Although medication safety research has tended to focus on inpatients, the safety of drug use among outpatients is also a concern. OBJECTIVE: We estimate the frequency of potentially interacting concomitant medication dispensing among outpatients. RESEARCH DESIGN: We report the number and percent of patients annually dispensed an object drug of interest (ie, warfarin, digoxin, cyclosporine, or lovastatin/simvastatin) with a potentially interacting drug among a random sample of insured adults receiving care from 10 integrated delivery systems. We use 2 definitions of concomitant dispensing: medications dispensed: 1) during the time period for which the patient had the other medication available ('days supply') and 2) on the same day. We also estimate the number of insured U.S. population codispensed these medication pairs. RESULTS: Among patients dispensed a drug of interest, between 17.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]=17.1-18.6%) and 28.0% (95% CI=24.0-32.1%) were concomitantly dispensed a potentially interacting drug using the "days supply" definition, and between 7.1% (95% CI=6.6-7.7%) and 17.7% (95% CI=14.4-21.1%) using the "same day" definition. Extrapolating to the insured U.S. population, between 1.29 (95% CI=1.25-1.33; same day) and 2.67 (95% CI=2.62-2.72; days supply) million insured adults are dispensed 1 of these 4 potentially interacting pairs. CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence of potentially interacting concomitant medication dispensing among outpatients. An opportunity exists to better understand how such dispensing translates into adverse events and ultimately to improved medication safety.

Use of guideline recommended follow-up care in cancer survivors: routine or diagnostic indications?

BACKGROUND: After potentially curative cancer treatment, patients may receive procedures for routine monitoring for recurrence or for evaluation of symptoms or signs. OBJECTIVE: We sought to characterize surveillance care guideline-recommended and other procedures performed in cancer survivors according to routine versus diagnostic indications. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of paper and electronic medical records between 1990 and 2000 from a large midwestern U.S. integrated health care delivery system of 500 patients who received curative treatment of breast, colorectal, endometrial, lung, or prostate cancer. Our measures were the indications for potential surveillance procedures as recommended by clinical practice guidelines or otherwise. RESULTS: Among 14,670 procedures of interest received, 82.0% were performed for routine surveillance, whereas 10.6% were performed for diagnostic indications and 7.3% had indeterminate indications. Office visits most were often delivered for routine indications (91.6%), followed by guideline recommended tests for local recurrence (range 74.1-98.4%, depending on the specific test and cancer). In general, tests that were not recommended in established guidelines were for the purposes of detection of metastatic recurrence and were less often delivered for routine indications (overall frequency 59.2%, P<0.0001 compared with recommended testing). CONCLUSION: Office visits and testing for local recurrence of cancer generally are performed for routine surveillance, regardless of recommendation by practice guidelines. Because procedures not recommended by practice guidelines were more often for diagnostic purposes, classification of patients as undergoing intensive surveillance may be misleading and may require record review to confirm.

Routine surveillance care after cancer treatment with curative intent.

BACKGROUND: Many consensus guidelines recommend routine surveillance to detect recurrent disease among cancer survivors. We compare surveillance care receipt to guideline recommendations. METHODS: Cohorts of patients aged 30 years or older diagnosed with breast, colorectal, endometrial, lung, or prostate cancer between 1990 and 1995 and treated with curative intent were identified (n = 100 per site). Receipt and indications for examinations and procedures were abstracted from medical records for as long as 5 years after treatment. Kaplan-Meier product estimates were used to estimate time to initial and subsequent service receipt. RESULTS: Most cancer patients received the recommended minimum number of physical examinations after treatment. In fact, a sizable number of cancer survivors received physical examinations at a frequency in excess of what is currently recommended. Similarly, most of these cancer survivors received recommended testing for local recurrence. Yet, less than two thirds of colorectal cancer patients received recommended colon examinations in the initial year after treatment. Among colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer patients who received recommended initial local recurrence testing, repeat testing tended to occur more frequently than what is currently recommended. The use of testing for metastatic disease that is not recommended in guidelines is also commonplace among these cancer survivors. CONCLUSIONS: Among cohorts of cancer patients, we found wide variation in the use of surveillance care, including patterns of care receipt reflective of both underuse and overuse relative to guideline recommendations. Clinical reasons for these variations and the cost and health implications deserve further study.