Search

Purpose: To estimate the positive predictive value (PPV) of International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD‐10‐CM) diagnosis codes for identifying HF subtypes. Methods: We validated ICD‐10‐CM HF diagnosis codes among Kaiser Permanente Washington enrollees who were ≥18 years of age and had an ICD‐10‐CM HF diagnosis code during 2017–2018 and a procedure code for an echocardiogram in the 12 months before through 6 months after the HF code. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ascertained from medical chart review was used as the gold standard for classifying patients as having reduced ejection fraction (rEF), mid‐range ejection fraction (mEF), or preserved ejection fraction (pEF). Results: Among 6194 eligible patients, we randomly sampled 1000 for medical chart review. A total of 974 patients had LVEF information in their chart. The ICD‐10‐CM HF code group with the highest PPV for rEF was I50.20‐I50.23, "Systolic (congestive) heart failure," PPV = 41.4% (95% CI, 34.5–48.7%); and the highest PPV for mEF or rEF was also I50.20‐I50.23, PPV = 70.2% (95% CI, 63.1–76.4%). The highest PPV for pEF was the I50.30‐I50.33 group, "Diastolic (congestive) heart failure," PPV = 92.0% (95% CI, 88.1–94.7%); and the highest PPV for mEF or pEF was also I50.30‐I50.33, PPV = 97.7% (95% CI, 95.1–99.0%). Conclusions: If the accuracy measure of greatest interest is PPV, our results suggest that ICD‐10‐CM HF codes alone may not be adequate for identifying patients with rEF but may be adequate for identifying patients with pEF. HF coding practices may vary across settings, which may impact generalizability of our findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health insurance plans are increasingly offering mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) programs for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but few studies have compared the outcomes of different program models (eg, invitation strategies). Methods: This study compares the outcomes of 2 health plan–based mailed FIT program models. In the first program (2016), FIT kits were mailed to all eligible enrollees; in the second program (2018), FIT kits were mailed only to enrollees who opted in after an outreach phone call. Participants in this observational study included dual‐eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees who were aged 50 to 75 years and were due for CRC screening (1799 in 2016 and 1906 in 2018). Six‐month FIT completion rates, implementation outcomes (eg, mailed FITs sent and reminders attempted), and program‐related health plan costs for each program are described. Results: All 1799 individuals in 2016 were sent an introductory letter and a FIT kit. In 2018, all 1906 were sent an introductory letter, and 1905 received at least 1 opt‐in call attempt, with 410 (21.5%) sent a FIT. The FIT completion rate was 16.2% (292 of 1799 [95% CI, 14.5%‐17.9%]) in 2016 and 14.6% (278 of 1906 [95% CI, 13.0%‐16.2%]) in 2018 (P =.36). The overall implementation costs were higher in 2016 ($40,156) than 2018 ($34,899), with the cost per completed FIT slightly higher in 2016 ($138) than 2018 ($126). Conclusions: An opt‐in mailed FIT program achieved FIT completion rates similar to those of a program mailing to all dual‐eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees. Lay Summary: Health insurance plans can use different program models to successfully mail fecal test kits for colorectal cancer screening to dual‐eligible Medicaid/Medicare enrollees, with nearly 1 in 6 enrollees completing fecal testing. In this study, a health insurance plan demonstrates its ability to deliver 2 different mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) program models, with vendors used to manage some program elements. These mailed FIT programs began to close gaps in colorectal cancer screening rates in the health plan's dual‐eligible Medicaid/Medicare population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mailed fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) kits for colorectal cancer screening at home can contribute to reaching national goals of 80% colorectal cancer screening in communities. Policies that support cost‐effective colorectal cancer screening programs would decrease colorectal cancer disparities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Colorectal cancer screening uptake is low, particularly among individuals enrolled in Medicaid. To the authors' knowledge, little is known regarding the effectiveness of direct-to-member outreach by Medicaid health insurance plans to raise colorectal cancer screening use, nor how best to deliver such outreach.Methods: BeneFIT is a hybrid implementation-effectiveness study of 2 program models that health plans developed for a mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) intervention. The programs differed with regard to whether they used a centralized approach (Health Plan Washington) or collaborated with health centers (Health Plan Oregon). The primary implementation outcome of the current study was the percentage of eligible enrollees to whom the plans delivered each intervention component. The primary effectiveness outcome was the rate of FIT completion within 6 months of mailing of the introductory letter.Results: The health plans identified 12,000 eligible enrollees (8551 in Health Plan Washington and 3449 in Health Plan Oregon). Health Plan Washington mailed an introductory letter and FIT kit to 8551 enrollees (100%) and delivered a reminder call to 839 (10.3% of the 8132 attempted). Health Plan Oregon mailed an introductory letter, and a letter and FIT kit plus a reminder postcard to 2812 enrollees (81.5%) and 2650 enrollees (76.8%), respectively. FIT completion rates were 18.2% (1557 of 8551 enrollees) in Health Plan Washington. In Health Plan Oregon, completion rates were 17.4% (488 of 2812 enrollees) among enrollees who were mailed an introductory letter and 18.3% (484 of 2650 enrollees) among enrollees who also were mailed a FIT kit plus reminder postcard.Conclusions: The implementation of mailed FIT outreach by health plans may be effective and could reach many individuals at risk of developing colorectal cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Annual fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is cost‐effective for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. However, FIT positivity rates and positive predictive value (PPV) can vary substantially, with false‐positive (FP) results adding to colonoscopy burden without improving cancer detection. Our objective was to describe FIT PPV and the factors associated with FP results among patients undergoing CRC screening. In an ongoing pragmatic clinical trial of mailed‐FIT outreach, clinics delivered one of three FIT brands (InSure, OC‐Micro, and Hemosure). Patients who had a positive FIT result and a follow‐up colonoscopy were included in this analysis (N = 1130). Patients’ demographic and medical histories were abstracted from electronic health records (EHR). Associations with a FP result (ie, a positive FIT result with no evidence of advanced neoplasia during follow‐up colonoscopy) were evaluated for FIT brand and patient factors using mixed‐effects multivariable logistic regression. The mean proportion of FIT‐positive results ranged from 8% in centers using the OC‐Micro test to 21% for Hemosure. PPVs for advanced neoplasia were 0.30 to 0.17, respectively (P for χ2 = 0.08). In multivariable‐adjusted models, use of Hemosure was associated with greater odds of a FP result than OC‐Micro (OR = 2.00, 95% CI: 0.47‐8.56) or InSure (OR = 1.72, 95% CI: 0.44‐6.68). However, only female sex (OR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.19‐2.10) and history of a colorectal condition (OR = 2.17, 95% CI: 1.13‐4.15) were significantly associated with FP. In conclusion, FIT positivity varied by brand, and FP results differed by patient factors available through the EHR. These results can be used to minimize the frequency of FP results, reducing patient distress and colonoscopy burden. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Screening over many years is required to optimize reductions in colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality. However, no prior trials have compared strategies for obtaining long-term adherence.Methods: Systems of Support to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening and Follow-Up was implemented in an integrated health care organization in Washington State. Between 2008 and 2009, 4675 individuals aged 50 to 74 years were randomized to receive the usual care (UC), which included clinic-based strategies to increase CRC screening (arm 1), or, in years 1 and 2, mailings with a call-in number for colonoscopy and mailed fecal tests (arm 2), mailings plus brief telephone assistance (arm 3), or mailings and assistance plus nurse navigation (arm 4). Active-intervention subjects (those in arms 2, 3, and 4 combined) who were still eligible for CRC screening were randomized to mailings being stopped or continued in years 3 and 5. The time in compliance with CRC screening over 5 years was compared for persons assigned to any intervention and persons assigned to UC. Screening tests contributed time on the basis of national guidelines for screening intervals (fecal tests annually, sigmoidoscopy every 5 years, and colonoscopy every 10 years).Results: All participants contributed data, but they were censored at disenrollment, death, the age of 76 years, or a diagnosis of CRC. Compared with UC participants, intervention participants had 31% more adjusted covered time over 5 years (incidence rate ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-1.37; covered time, 47.5% vs 62.1%). Fecal testing accounted for almost all additional covered time.Conclusions: In a health care organization with clinic-based activities to increase CRC screening, a centralized program led to increased CRC screening adherence over 5 years. Longer term data on screening adherence and its impact on CRC outcomes are needed. Cancer 2017;123:4472-80. © 2017 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The current study was conducted to determine the effect of continuing a centralized fecal occult blood test (FOBT) mailed program on screening adherence.Methods: A patient-level randomized controlled trial was conducted in 21 patient-centered medical home primary care clinics between January 2010 and November 2012. A total of 2208 patients ranging in age from 52 to 75 years in a substudy of the Systems of Support to Increase Colon Cancer Screening and Follow-Up (SOS) trial were randomized at year 3 to continued automated interventions (Continued group), which included mailed information regarding colorectal cancer (CRC) screening choices, and were mailed stool kit tests or to a group in which interventions were stopped (Stopped group). The main outcomes and measures were the completion of CRC screening in year 3 and by subgroup characteristics, respectively.Results: Adherence to CRC screening in year 3 was found to be significantly higher in patients in the Continued group compared with those in the Stopped group (53.3% vs 37.3%; adjusted net difference, 15.6% [P<.001]). This difference was entirely due to greater completion of FOBT (adjusted net difference, 18.0% [P<.001]). Year 3 CRC screening rates were highest in patients in the Continued group completing FOBT in both years 1 and 2 (77.2%), followed by patients completing only 1 FOBT in 1 of the 2 years (44.6%), with low rates of CRC testing reported among patients not completing any FOBT within the first 2 years (18.1%).Conclusions: A centralized mailed FOBT CRC screening program continued to be more effective than patient-centered medical home usual-care interventions, but only for those patients who had previously completed FOBT testing. Research is needed regarding how to engage patients not completing CRC testing after being mailed at least 2 rounds of FOBT tests. Cancer 2016;122:312-321. © 2015 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). Team-based care is one of the key components of the patient-centered medical home. Studies have consistently demonstrated that teams involving pharmacists or nurses in patient management can significantly improve blood pressure control. These findings have been demonstrated in several meta-analyses and systematic reviews. These reviews have generally found that team-based care can reduce systolic blood pressure by 4-10 mm Hg over usual care. However, these reviews have also concluded that many of the studies had various limitations and that additional research should be conducted. The present state of the art review paper will highlight newer studies, many of which were funded by the National Institutes of Health. Newer strategies involve telephone and/or web-based management which is an evolving area to improve blood pressure control in large populations. Social media and other technology is currently being investigated to assist pharmacists or nurses in communicating with patients to improve hypertension management. Few cost-effectiveness analyses have been performed but generally have found favorable costs for team-based care when considering the potential to reduce morbidity and mortality. The authors will suggest additional research that needs to be conducted to help evaluate strategies to best implement team-based care to improve blood pressure management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2011;13:821-828. ©2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Electronic medical records (EMRs) allow for real-time access to blood pressure (BP) information on a population basis and improve identification and treatment of individuals with hypertension. Despite the potential uses of the data available from EMRs, relatively little research has examined the reliability of this data. To address this gap, the authors examined the reliability of BP taken at primary care visits and recorded in an EMR with those taken at a research study visit at which standard protocols were used to measure BP among all adults as well as by sex and age. Systolic BP (SBP) averaged 3.7 (17.3) points and diastolic BP (DBP) was 2.8 (10.6) points lower in the EMR than in the study visit across age and sex groups, with all differences statistically significant. For this cohort of patients with a diagnosis of hypertension, there was moderate correlation between BP measurements taken in clinic and at research. However, BP control for individuals, as defined by an SBP <140 mm Hg and DBP 90 mm Hg, differed by almost 25%. Known variability of BP and clinic procedures for measuring and recording BP may account for these differences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]