Search

BackgroundFifty percent of people living with dementia are undiagnosed. The electronic health record (EHR) Risk of Alzheimer's and Dementia Assessment Rule (eRADAR) was developed to identify older adults at risk of having undiagnosed dementia using routinely collected clinical data.ObjectiveTo externally validate eRADAR in two real-world healthcare systems, including examining performance over time and by race/ethnicity.DesignRetrospective cohort study PARTICIPANTS: 129,315 members of Kaiser Permanente Washington (KPWA), an integrated health system providing insurance coverage and medical care, and 13,444 primary care patients at University of California San Francisco Health (UCSF), an academic medical system, aged 65 years or older without prior EHR documentation of dementia diagnosis or medication.Main measuresPerformance of eRADAR scores, calculated annually from EHR data (including vital signs, diagnoses, medications, and utilization in the prior 2 years), for predicting EHR documentation of incident dementia diagnosis within 12 months.Key resultsA total of 7631 dementia diagnoses were observed at KPWA (11.1 per 1000 person-years) and 216 at UCSF (4.6 per 1000 person-years). The area under the curve was 0.84 (95% confidence interval: 0.84-0.85) at KPWA and 0.79 (0.76-0.82) at UCSF. Using the 90th percentile as the cut point for identifying high-risk patients, sensitivity was 54% (53-56%) at KPWA and 44% (38-51%) at UCSF. Performance was similar over time, including across the transition from International Classification of Diseases, version 9 (ICD-9) to ICD-10 codes, and across racial/ethnic groups (though small samples limited precision in some groups).ConclusionseRADAR showed strong external validity for detecting undiagnosed dementia in two health systems with different patient populations and differential availability of external healthcare data for risk calculations. In this study, eRADAR demonstrated generalizability from a research sample to real-world clinical populations, transportability across health systems, robustness to temporal changes in healthcare, and similar performance across larger racial/ethnic groups.

Background Methods Results Conclusions Antipsychotic medications (AP) are inappropriately prescribed to young people. The goal of this pragmatic trial was to test a four‐component approach to improved targeting of antipsychotic prescribing to people aged ≥3 and <18 years.Clinicians in four health systems were cluster randomized by the number of previous AP orders and service line – specialty mental health and all others. Intervention arm clinicians received a best practice alert and child psychiatrist consultation and feedback. Families received system navigation and expedited access to psychotherapy. Primary outcomes were total days' supply of AP medication and proportion of youth with any AP supply at 6 months. We estimated the log‐odds of AP use at 6 months and the relative rate of AP over 6 months. The Safer and Targeted Use of Antipsychotics in Youth (SUAY) trial took place between 3/2018 and 12/2020.The trial enrolled 733 patients. The odds ratio (OR) comparing use at 6 months was 0.75 (95% CI: 0.52, 1.09). The mean number of days using AP was 118.5 for intervention patients and 128.2 for control patients (relative risk [RR] = 0.92; 95% CI: 0.81–1.04). Exploratory heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) was not detected in groups defined by age, gender, provider specialty, and insurance type. HTE by race/ethnicity was present: among youth of color, mean days' supply was 103.2 for intervention arm and 131.2 for the control arm (RR 0.79, 95% CI: 0.67–0.93). Among secondary outcomes, only new psychotherapy referrals differed with 44.3% (n = 154) of intervention participants having a new order for psychotherapy compared to 33.5% (n = 129) in the control arm (OR 1.47: 95% CI: 1.01–2.14).This intervention did not result in less AP use at 6 months or a reduction in the days' supply of AP medication, although psychotherapy orders increased. The intervention may be effective for some subgroups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Fifty percent of people living with dementia are undiagnosed. The electronic health record (EHR) Risk of Alzheimer's and Dementia Assessment Rule (eRADAR) was developed to identify older adults at risk of having undiagnosed dementia using routinely collected clinical data. Objective: To externally validate eRADAR in two real-world healthcare systems, including examining performance over time and by race/ethnicity. Design: Retrospective cohort study Participants: 129,315 members of Kaiser Permanente Washington (KPWA), an integrated health system providing insurance coverage and medical care, and 13,444 primary care patients at University of California San Francisco Health (UCSF), an academic medical system, aged 65 years or older without prior EHR documentation of dementia diagnosis or medication. Main Measures: Performance of eRADAR scores, calculated annually from EHR data (including vital signs, diagnoses, medications, and utilization in the prior 2 years), for predicting EHR documentation of incident dementia diagnosis within 12 months. Key Results: A total of 7631 dementia diagnoses were observed at KPWA (11.1 per 1000 person-years) and 216 at UCSF (4.6 per 1000 person-years). The area under the curve was 0.84 (95% confidence interval: 0.84–0.85) at KPWA and 0.79 (0.76–0.82) at UCSF. Using the 90th percentile as the cut point for identifying high-risk patients, sensitivity was 54% (53–56%) at KPWA and 44% (38–51%) at UCSF. Performance was similar over time, including across the transition from International Classification of Diseases, version 9 (ICD-9) to ICD-10 codes, and across racial/ethnic groups (though small samples limited precision in some groups). Conclusions: eRADAR showed strong external validity for detecting undiagnosed dementia in two health systems with different patient populations and differential availability of external healthcare data for risk calculations. In this study, eRADAR demonstrated generalizability from a research sample to real-world clinical populations, transportability across health systems, robustness to temporal changes in healthcare, and similar performance across larger racial/ethnic groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Delivering prescription digital therapeutics (ie, evidence-based interventions designed to treat, manage, or prevent disorders via websites or smartphone apps) in primary care could increase patient access to substance use disorder (SUD) treatments. However, the optimal approach to implementing prescription digital therapeutics in primary care remains unknown., Objective: This pilot study is a precursor to a larger trial designed to test whether implementation strategies (practice facilitation [PF] and health coaching [HC]) improve the delivery of prescription digital therapeutics for SUDs in primary care. This mixed methods study describes outcomes among patients in the 2 pilot clinics and presents qualitative findings on implementation., Methods: From February 10 to August 6, 2021, a total of 3 mental health specialists embedded in 2 primary care practices of the same integrated health system were tasked with offering app-based prescription digital therapeutics to patients with SUD. In the first half of the pilot, implementation activities included training and supportive tools. PF (at 1 clinic) and HC (at 2 clinics) were added in the second half. All study analyses relied on secondary data, including electronic health records and digital therapeutic vendor data. Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients reached by the prescription digital therapeutics and fidelity related to ideal use. We used qualitative methods to assess the adherence to planned activities and the barriers and facilitators to implementing prescription digital therapeutics., Results: Of all 18 patients prescribed the apps, 10 (56%) downloaded the app and activated their prescription, and 8 (44%) completed at least 1 module of content. Patients who activated the app completed 1 module per week on average. Ideal use (fidelity) was defined as completing 4 modules per week and having a monthly SUD-related visit; 1 (6%) patient met these criteria for 10 weeks (of the 12-week prescription period). A total of 5 (28%) patients had prescriptions while HC was available, 2 (11%) were successfully contacted, and both declined coaching. Clinicians reported competing clinical priorities, technical challenges, and logistically complex workflows in part because the apps required a prescription. Some pilot activities were impacted by staff turnover that coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic. The facilitators to implementation were high engagement and the perception that the apps could meet patient needs., Conclusions: The pilot study encountered the barriers to implementing prescription digital therapeutics in a real-world primary care setting, especially staffing shortages, turnover, and competing priorities for clinic teams. The larger randomized trial will clarify the extent to which PF and HC improve the implementation of digital therapeutics., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04907045; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04907045., (©Jessica Mogk, Abisola E Idu, Jennifer F Bobb, Dustin Key, Edwin S Wong, Lorella Palazzo, Kelsey Stefanik-Guizlo, Deborah King, Tara Beatty, Caitlin N Dorsey, Ryan M Caldeiro, Angela Garza McWethy, Joseph E Glass. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (https://formative.jmir.org), 02.09.2024.)