Search

Inadequate bowel preparation undermines the quality of colonoscopy, but patients likely to be affected are difficult to identify beforehand. This study aimed to develop, validate, and compare prediction models for bowel preparation inadequacy using conventional logistic regression (LR) and random forest machine learning (RFML). We created a retrospective cohort of patients who underwent outpatient colonoscopy at a single VA medical center between January 2012 and October 2015. Candidate predictor variables were chosen after a literature review. We extracted all available predictor variables from the electronic medical record, and bowel preparation from the endoscopy database. The data were split into 70% training and 30% validation sets. Multivariable LR and RFML were used to predict preparation inadequacy as a dichotomous outcome. The cohort included 6,885 Veterans, of whom 964 (14%) had inadequate preparation. Using LR, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the validation cohort was 0.66 (95% CI 0.62, 0.69) and the Brier score, in which a lower score indicates better performance, was 0.11. Using RFML, the AUC for the validation cohort was 0.61 (95% CI 0.58, 0.65) and the Brier score was 0.12. LR and RFML had similar performance in predicting bowel preparation, which was modest and likely insufficient for use in practice. Future research is needed to identify additional predictor variables and to test other machine learning algorithms. At present, endoscopy units should focus on universal strategies to enhance preparation adequacy.

OBJECTIVE To provide contemporary estimates of internists' perceptions of adverse effects associated with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and self-reported clinical use. METHODS We invited 799 internists, including specialists and postgraduate trainees, to complete an online survey. Topics included perceptions of PPI adverse effects (AEs) and effectiveness for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB) prevention, changes in prescribing, and management recommendations for patients using PPIs for gastroesophageal reflux disease or UGIB prevention. We used logistic regression to identify factors associated with appropriate PPI continuation in the scenario of a patient at high risk for UGIB. RESULTS Among 437 respondents (55% response rate), 10% were trainees and 72% specialized in general medicine, 70% were somewhat/very concerned about PPI AEs, and 76% had somewhat/very much changed their prescribing. A majority believed PPIs increase the risk for 6 of 12 AEs queried. Fifty-two percent perceived PPIs to be somewhat/very effective for UGIB prevention. In a gastroesophageal reflux disease scenario in which PPI can be safely discontinued, 86% appropriately recommended PPI discontinuation. However, in a high-risk UGIB prevention scenario in which long-term PPI use is recommended, 79% inappropriately recommended discontinuation. In this latter scenario, perceived effectiveness for bleeding prevention was strongly associated with continuing PPI (odds ratio 7.68, P < 0.001 for moderately; odds ratio 17.3, P < 0.001 for very effective). Other covariates, including concern about PPI AEs, had no significant association. DISCUSSION Most internists believe PPIs cause multiple AEs and recommend discontinuation even in patients at high risk for UGIB. Future interventions should focus on ensuring that PPIs are prescribed appropriately according to individual risks and benefits.

Background The adoption and sustainment of evidence-based practices (EBPs) is a challenge within many healthcare systems, especially in settings that have already strived but failed to achieve longer-term goals. The Veterans Affairs (VA) Maintaining Implementation through Dynamic Adaptations (MIDAS) Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) program was funded as a series of trials to test multi-component implementation strategies to sustain optimal use of three EBPs: 1) a deprescribing approach intended to reduce inappropriate polypharmacy; 2) appropriate dosing and drug selection of direct-acting anticoagulant medications (DOACs); and 3) use of cognitive behavioral therapy as first-line treatment for insomnia before pharmacologic treatment. We describe the design and methods for a harmonized series of cluster-randomized control trials comparing two implementation strategies. Methods For each trial, we will recruit 8–12 clinics (24–36 total). All will have access to a clinical dashboard that flags patients who may benefit from the target EBP at that clinic and provider. For each trial, clinics will be randomized to one of two implementation strategies to improve use of the EBPs: 1) individual-level academic detailing (AD); or 2) AD plus the team-based Learn. Engage. Act. Process. (LEAP) quality improvement (QI) learning program. The primary outcomes will be operationalized across the three trials as a patient-level dichotomous response (yes/no) indicating patients with potentially inappropriate care among those who may benefit from the EBP. This outcome will be computed using month-by-month administrative data. The dependent variable will be a unified variable representing clinic-level percent of potentially inappropriate care using generalized estimating equations (GEE) at months 13–36 post-baseline. Discussion MIDAS QUERI trials will focus on fostering sustained use of EBPs that previously had targeted but incomplete implementation. Our implementation approaches are designed to engage frontline clinicians in a dynamic optimization process that integrates use of actionable clinical dashboard data and making incremental changes, designed to be feasible within busy clinical settings. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05065502. Registered October 4, 2021 – Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05065502

Background The concomitant use of anticoagulant and antiplatelet medications increases the risk of upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Two underused evidence-based practices (EBPs) can reduce the risk: de-prescribe unnecessary antiplatelet therapy or initiate a proton pump inhibitor. We describe the development of a multicomponent intervention to increase use of these EBPs in patients treated with warfarin and followed by an anticoagulation monitoring service (AMS), and the design of a pilot pragmatic implementation trial. Methods A participatory planning group iteratively used Implementation Mapping and the Multiphase Optimization Strategy to develop implementation strategies and plan the trial. Informed by qualitative interviews with patients and clinicians, we drew on several implementation science theories, as well as self-determination theory, to design interventions. For patients, we developed an activation guide to help patients discuss the EBPs with their clinicians. For clinicians, we developed two electronic health record (EHR)-based interventions: (1) clinician notification (CN) consists of a templated message that identifies a patient as high risk, summarizes the EBPs, and links to a guidance statement on appropriate use of antiplatelet therapy. (2) Clinician notification with nurse facilitation (CN+NF) consists of a similar notification message but includes additional measures by nursing staff to support appropriate and timely decision-making: the nurse performs a chart review to identify any history of vascular disease, embeds indication-specific guidance on antiplatelet therapy in the message, and offers to assist with medication order entry and patient education. We will conduct a pilot factorial cluster- and individual-level randomized controlled trial with a primary objective of evaluating feasibility. Twelve clinicians will be randomized to receive either CN or CN+NF for all their patients managed by the AMS while 50 patients will be individually randomized to receive either the activation guide or usual care. We will explore implementation outcomes using patient and clinician interviews along with EHR review. Discussion This pilot study will prepare us to conduct a larger optimization study to identify the most potent and resource conscious multicomponent implementation strategy to help AMSs increase the use of best practices for upper GI bleeding risk reduction. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05085405. Registered on October 19, 2021—retrospectively registered.

BACKGROUND Health care organizations increasingly depend on business intelligence tools, including “dashboards,” to capture, analyze, and present data on performance metrics. Ideally, dashboards allow users to quickly visualize actionable data to inform and optimize clinical and organizational performance. In reality, dashboards are typically embedded in complex health care organizations with massive data streams and end users with distinct needs. Thus, designing effective dashboards is a challenging task and theoretical underpinnings of health care dashboards are poorly characterized; even the concept of the dashboard remains ill-defined. Researchers, informaticists, clinical managers, and health care administrators will benefit from a clearer understanding of how dashboards have been developed, implemented, and evaluated, and how the design, end user, and context influence their uptake and effectiveness. OBJECTIVE This scoping review first aims to survey the vast published literature of “dashboards” to describe where, why, and for whom they are used in health care settings, as well as how they are developed, implemented, and evaluated. Further, we will examine how dashboard design and content is informed by intended purpose and end users. METHODS In July 2020, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for peer-reviewed literature using a targeted strategy developed with a research librarian and retrieved 5188 results. Following deduplication, 3306 studies were screened in duplicate for title and abstract. Any abstracts mentioning a health care dashboard were retrieved in full text and are undergoing duplicate review for eligibility. Articles will be included for data extraction and analysis if they describe the development, implementation, or evaluation of a dashboard that was successfully used in routine workflow. Articles will be excluded if they were published before 2015, the full text is unavailable, they are in a non-English language, or they describe dashboards used for public health tracking, in settings where direct patient care is not provided, or in undergraduate medical education. Any discrepancies in eligibility determination will be adjudicated by a third reviewer. We chose to focus on articles published after 2015 and those that describe dashboards that were successfully used in routine practice to identify the most recent and relevant literature to support future dashboard development in the rapidly evolving field of health care informatics. RESULTS All articles have undergone dual review for title and abstract, with a total of 2019 articles mentioning use of a health care dashboard retrieved in full text for further review. We are currently reviewing all full-text articles in duplicate. We aim to publish findings by mid-2022. Findings will be reported following guidance from the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist. CONCLUSIONS This scoping review will provide stakeholders with an overview of existing dashboard tools, highlighting the ways in which dashboards have been developed, implemented, and evaluated in different settings and for different end user groups, and identify potential research gaps. Findings will guide efforts to design and use dashboards in the health care sector more effectively. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT DERR1-10.2196/34894

Background Health care organizations increasingly depend on business intelligence tools, including “dashboards,” to capture, analyze, and present data on performance metrics. Ideally, dashboards allow users to quickly visualize actionable data to inform and optimize clinical and organizational performance. In reality, dashboards are typically embedded in complex health care organizations with massive data streams and end users with distinct needs. Thus, designing effective dashboards is a challenging task and theoretical underpinnings of health care dashboards are poorly characterized; even the concept of the dashboard remains ill-defined. Researchers, informaticists, clinical managers, and health care administrators will benefit from a clearer understanding of how dashboards have been developed, implemented, and evaluated, and how the design, end user, and context influence their uptake and effectiveness. Objective This scoping review first aims to survey the vast published literature of “dashboards” to describe where, why, and for whom they are used in health care settings, as well as how they are developed, implemented, and evaluated. Further, we will examine how dashboard design and content is informed by intended purpose and end users. Methods In July 2020, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for peer-reviewed literature using a targeted strategy developed with a research librarian and retrieved 5188 results. Following deduplication, 3306 studies were screened in duplicate for title and abstract. Any abstracts mentioning a health care dashboard were retrieved in full text and are undergoing duplicate review for eligibility. Articles will be included for data extraction and analysis if they describe the development, implementation, or evaluation of a dashboard that was successfully used in routine workflow. Articles will be excluded if they were published before 2015, the full text is unavailable, they are in a non-English language, or they describe dashboards used for public health tracking, in settings where direct patient care is not provided, or in undergraduate medical education. Any discrepancies in eligibility determination will be adjudicated by a third reviewer. We chose to focus on articles published after 2015 and those that describe dashboards that were successfully used in routine practice to identify the most recent and relevant literature to support future dashboard development in the rapidly evolving field of health care informatics. Results All articles have undergone dual review for title and abstract, with a total of 2019 articles mentioning use of a health care dashboard retrieved in full text for further review. We are currently reviewing all full-text articles in duplicate. We aim to publish findings by mid-2022. Findings will be reported following guidance from the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist. Conclusions This scoping review will provide stakeholders with an overview of existing dashboard tools, highlighting the ways in which dashboards have been developed, implemented, and evaluated in different settings and for different end user groups, and identify potential research gaps. Findings will guide efforts to design and use dashboards in the health care sector more effectively. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/34894

To describe associations between patient factors and interest in and concerns about telehealth video visits among adults in midlife and older.A cross-sectional, nationally representative panel survey of US adults aged 50 to 80 years (N = 2256) in May 2019.Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the adjusted prevalence of interest in different types of video telehealth visits and concerns about telehealth for individuals with different characteristics.Individuals aged 65 to 80 (vs 50-64) years were more likely to be interested in a first-time telehealth visit (37.3% vs 31.5%; P .05) and to be concerned about not feeling personally connected to their provider (52.8% vs 46.5%; P .05). Women (vs men) were less likely to be interested in a first-time visit (29.3% vs 38.2%; P .001) and more likely to be concerned about technical difficulties (52.3% vs 42.1%; P .001). Black, non-Hispanic individuals (vs White, non-Hispanic individuals) were more likely to be interested in first-time (45.2% vs 29.8%; P .001) and return (67.7% vs 56.2%; P .01) visits. Individuals comfortable using video chat (vs never users) were more likely to be interested in a telehealth visit for any reason (all P .001) and less likely to have concerns about privacy, difficulty seeing/hearing, technical difficulties, not feeling personally connected, and lower quality of care (all P .01).Interest in and concerns about telehealth vary along the lines of sociodemographic factors and experience using the internet for video communication. These findings have implications for the design of interventions and policies to promote equitable access to health care as it increasingly moves online.

Background. In some health care systems, patients face long wait times for screening colonoscopy. We sought to assess whether patients at low risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) would be willing to delay their own colonoscopy so higher-risk peers could undergo colonoscopy sooner. Methods. We surveyed 1054 Veterans regarding their attitudes toward repeat colonoscopy and risk-based prioritization. We used multivariable regression to identify patient factors associated with willingness to delay screening for a higher-risk peer. Results. Despite a physician recommendation to stop screening, 29% of respondents reported being “not at all likely” to stop. However, 94% reported that they would be willing to delay their own colonoscopy for a higher-risk peer. Greater trust in physician and greater health literacy were positively associated with willingness to wait, while greater perceived threat of CRC and Black or Latino race/ethnicity were negatively associated with willingness to wait. Conclusion. Despite high enthusiasm for repeat screening, patients were willing to delay their own colonoscopy for higher-risk peers. Appealing to altruism could be effective when utilizing scarce resources.

Background Electronic medical record–based interventions such as best practice alerts, or reminders, have been proposed to improve evidence‐based medication prescribing. Formal implementation evaluation including long‐term sustainment are not commonly reported. Preprocedural medication management is often a complex issue for patients taking antithrombotic medications. Methods We implemented a best practice alert (BPA) that recommended referral to an anticoagulation clinic before outpatient elective gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopies. Eligible patients were taking an oral anticoagulant (warfarin or direct oral anticoagulant [DOAC]) and/or antiplatelet medications. Patients referred to the anticoagulation clinic were compared to those managed by the ordering provider. Outcomes assessed included guideline‐adherent drug management before endoscopy, documentation of a medication management plan, guideline‐adherent rates of bridging for high‐risk patients taking warfarin, and evaluation for sustained use of BPA. Results Eighty percent of patients (553/691) were referred to the anticoagulation clinic during the initial 13‐month study period. Most referrals came from gastroenterologists (397/553; 71.8%) followed by primary care providers (127/554; 22.9%). Patients referred had improved rates of guideline‐adherent medication management compared to those who were not referred (97.4% vs 91.0%; P = .001). Documentation of medication plan was significantly higher in the referred group (99.1% vs 59.4%; P ≤ .001). There were no differences in rates of appropriate bridging for patients taking warfarin. Implementation of the BPA also resulted in sustained, consistent use over an additional 18 months following the initial study period. Conclusion Implementation of a BPA before elective outpatient GI endoscopies was associated with improved rates of guideline‐adherent medication management and documented management plan, while streamlining preprocedural medication management.

Introduction Gastrointestinal bleeding is a morbid complication of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). We evaluated the extent to which contemporary trials of DAPT included steps to ensure appropriate use of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) gastroprotection and reported rates of PPI use. Methods A methodological review of randomized trials comparing varying durations of DAPT after percutaneous coronary intervention. Results Among 21 trials, none incorporated protocol procedures or guidance for prescribing PPIs. Five reported rates of PPI use (range 25.6-69.1%). Discussion PPI gastroprotection is overlooked in major trials of DAPT. Appropriate use of PPI gastroprotection represents an important opportunity to improve patient safety.

Potent antithrombotic agents are routinely prescribed after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to reduce ischemic complications. However, in patients who are at an increased bleeding risk, this may pose significant risks. We sought to evaluate the association between a history of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) and outcomes after PCI. We linked clinical registry data from PCIs performed at 48 Michigan hospitals between 1/2013 and 3/2018 to Medicare claims. We used 1:5 propensity score matching to adjust for patient characteristics. In-hospital outcomes included bleeding, transfusion, stroke or death. Post-discharge outcomes included 90-day all-cause readmission and long-term mortality. Of 30,206 patients, 1.1% had a history of GIB. Patients with a history of GIB were more likely to be older, female, and have more cardiovascular comorbidities. After matching, those with a history of GIB (n = 312) had increased post-procedural transfusions (15.7% vs 8.4%; p0.001), bleeding (11.9% vs 5.2%; p0.001), and major bleeding (2.8% vs 0.6%; p = 0.004). Ninety-day readmission rates were similar among those with and without a history of GIB (34.3% vs 31.3%; p = 0.318). There was no significant difference in post-discharge survival (1 year: 78% vs 80%; p = 0.217; 5 years: 54% vs 51%; p = 0.189). In conclusion, after adjusting for baseline characteristics, patients with a history of GIB had increased risk of post-PCI in-hospital bleeding complications. However, a history of GIB was not significantly associated with 90-day readmission or long-term survival.

Inadequate bowel preparation undermines the quality of colonoscopy, but patients likely to be affected are difficult to identify beforehand.This study aimed to develop, validate, and compare prediction models for bowel preparation inadequacy using conventional logistic regression (LR) and random forest machine learning (RFML).We created a retrospective cohort of patients who underwent outpatient colonoscopy at a single VA medical center between January 2012 and October 2015. Candidate predictor variables were chosen after a literature review. We extracted all available predictor variables from the electronic medical record, and bowel preparation from the endoscopy database. The data were split into 70% training and 30% validation sets. Multivariable LR and RFML were used to predict preparation inadequacy as a dichotomous outcome.The cohort included 6,885 Veterans, of whom 964 (14%) had inadequate preparation. Using LR, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for the validation cohort was 0.66 (95% CI 0.62, 0.69) and the Brier score, in which a lower score indicates better performance, was 0.11. Using RFML, the AUC for the validation cohort was 0.61 (95% CI 0.58, 0.65) and the Brier score was 0.12.LR and RFML had similar performance in predicting bowel preparation, which was modest and likely insufficient for use in practice. Future research is needed to identify additional predictor variables and to test other machine learning algorithms. At present, endoscopy units should focus on universal strategies to enhance preparation adequacy.

Colonoscopy procedures are key to reducing colorectal cancer incidence and improving outcomes. For this reason, it is important that clinics be designed to maximize access to care and to use clinic time effectively. This paper presents a simulation tool that analyzes different scheduling policies to see how they impact overall clinic operations. By simultaneously simulating both scheduling and operations, the tool can account for more variability and better predict actual outcomes. This tool can be used to inform clinics on what scheduling policies work best for their clinic and help analyze what the trade-offs will be between different policies.

Healthcare providers have begun providing care to patients via remote appointments using web-based, synchronous video visits. As this appointment modality becomes increasingly prevalent, decision-makers must consider how to incorporate patient preference for an in-person versus virtual care modality when scheduling future visits. We present a discrete-event simulation that models several potential policies that these decision-makers could use to schedule patients, and demonstrate this simulation in the clinical context of patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease. This simulation provides key metrics for decision-makers, including provider utilization, patient lead time, and proportion of appointments that satisfy patients’ preferences for appointment modality.

Introduction: Mismanagement of antithrombotic medications often leads to cancelled elective procedures. Pharmacist-led anticoagulation management prior to elective procedures is not well studied. Methods: We implemented a best practice advisory (BPA) that offered referral to a pharmacist-led medication management service prior to elective outpatient gastrointestinal endoscopies. Eligible patients were taking warfarin, a direct oral anticoagulant, and/or a P2Y12 inhibitor for management of atrial fibrillation (AF), venous thromboembolism (VTE), coronary artery disease (CAD), peripheral arterial disease (PAD), and/or mechanical heart valve. Patients referred to the antithrombotic service were compared to those managed by the ordering provider. Outcomes assessed included documentation of a medication management plan, guideline-appropriateness of drug cessation prior to endoscopy, and guideline-appropriate rates of enoxaparin bridging for high risk warfarin patients. Results: Seventy-four percent of patients (448/645) were referred to the antithrombotic service. These patients were more likely to have had VTE (33.0% vs. 18.2%), less likely to have CAD (31.9% vs. 40.9%; p=0.009 for indication category), and more likely to be prescribed warfarin (32.8% vs 20.9%, p Conclusion: Pre-procedural antithrombotic medication management by a pharmacist-led team for elective endoscopies was associated with more guideline-adherent management and better documentation of the medication plans.

Introduction: Given the use of potent antithrombotic agents during and after PCI, patients (pts) are at an increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). Hypothesis: We hypothesize that pts with a history of recent GIB have a higher risk of post-discharge readmission and mortality compared with those without a history of GIB. Methods: We linked clinical registry data from PCIs performed between 1/1/2013 and 3/31/2018 at 48 Michigan hospitals to Medicare claims. A recent history of GIB prior to PCI was defined in the clinical PCI registry as any occurrence of melena or hematemesis in the last 30 days or any history of GIB including peptic ulcer disease that may influence clinical management during this hospitalization. Primary outcomes of interest were 90-day readmission after PCI and long-term mortality. We used 1:5 propensity-matching to adjust for differences in characteristics between pts with and without a history of recent GIB. Log-rank testing was used to evaluate survival at 1 and 5 years. Fisher's exact testing was used to compare the rates of 90-day readmission after PCI. Results: Of 30,206 pts, 1.1% had a history of GIB. Pts with a history of GIB were more likely to be older, female, black, and have more cardiovascular comorbidities. After matching 1896 pts, those with a history of GIB (n=316) appeared to have decreased survival early after PCI (Fig); however, the differences in survival were not statistically significant at 1 yr (76.%3 vs. 80.1%; p=0.11) or 5 yrs (52.5% vs. 52.2%; p=0.50) (Fig). There was no significant difference in readmission rates among those with and without a history of GIB (33.5% vs. 30.2%; p=0.26). Conclusions: Pts with and without a history of recent GIB had similar risks of readmission and long-term mortality after PCI. Although a history of GIB has previously been shown to be associated with increased post-PCI bleeding complications, a recent history of GIB was not associated with long-term post-PCI outcomes.

Background: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) substantially reduce the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) and are recommended for high-risk patients by professional cardiology societies but remain underused in clinical practice. By reducing hemorrhagic risk associated with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), PPIs may affect the risk-benefit equation of varying durations of DAPT and should be considered in such clinical trials. We sought to determine the extent to which randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating DAPT after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) provide guidance on the use of PPIs for GIB prevention. Methods: A previously completed systematic review was updated to identify all RCTs comparing varying durations of DAPT between June 1983 and October 2019. Primary publications, online supplements, clinical trial registries and additional publications linked to the trial registration number were reviewed for protocol information. Results: Of 21 included studies (n=58,625; Figure), none of the study protocols provided guidance on the use of PPIs by trial participants. One study stated that the decision to use PPIs was left to the discretion of the treating physician. Two studies specified that treating physicians could prescribe non-mandated medications concordant with standard of care but did not specifically mention PPIs. Only 5 studies reported rates of PPI use, which ranged from 25.6-69.1%. Conclusions: Trials of DAPT regimens did not provide guidance on the use of PPI gastroprotection, a guideline-supported strategy for prevention of bleeding from the GI tract, the most common site of bleeding in patients using DAPT. Guidance on and reporting of PPI use should be mandatory in future antithrombotic trials to enhance their safety and interpretability. Figure 1. PRISMA flow diagram

PURPOSE: Gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding is one of the most common serious adverse drug events. Guidelines recommend proton pump inhibitor (PPI) gastroprotection to prevent upper GI bleeding in high-risk patients, but this practice is underused. METHODS: To explore prescribing practices and barriers to the use of PPI gastroprotection, including dynamics within and across specialties, we conducted semistructured interviews with physicians in 4 specialties at a single institution. We performed thematic analysis of barriers, organized around the theoretical domains framework. RESULTS: The sample included 5 primary care physicians (PCPs), 4 cardiologists, 3 gastroenterologists, and 3 vascular surgeons. Most PCPs, gastroenterologists, and vascular surgeons seldom prescribed PPI gastroprotection. Cardiologists varied most in their use of PPI gastroprotection, with some prescribing it consistently and others never. Major barriers related to the following 3 themes: (1) knowledge, (2) decision processes, and (3) professional role. Knowledge of guidelines was greatest among cardiologists and gastroenterologists and low among PCPs and vascular surgeons, and PCPs tended to focus on adverse effects associated with PPIs, which made them reluctant to prescribe them. For cardiologists, prevention of bleeding was usually a priority, but they sometimes deferred prescribing to others. For the other 3 specialties, PPI gastroprotection was a low priority. There was unclear delineation of responsibility for prescribing gastroprotection between specialties. CONCLUSIONS: Major barriers to PPI gastroprotection relate to knowledge, decision processes, and professional role, which operate differentially across specialties. Multicomponent interventions will likely be necessary to improve guideline-based use of PPIs to prevent upper GI bleeding. VISUAL ABSTRACT

Objectives To explore how accurately over-the-counter (OTC) medications were documented in an academic nephrology clinic and the benefits of using a novel short questionnaire as part of medication reconciliation (MR). Methods We developed a 3-item tailored questionnaire with questions about use of aspirin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), which clinical leadership identified as medications of interest. Over the course of 20 days, medical assistants administered the questionnaire to clinic patients immediately after the standard MR. We summarized the rate of inaccurate medication documentation by individual drug and drug class, comparing the standard MR process with the questionnaire. We also calculated diagnostic performance characteristics of the questionnaire. We evaluated the severity of drug-drug interactions between OTC medications discovered using the OTC medication questionnaire and patients’ other prescription medications. Results Nearly 30% (n = 133 of 450) of the participants had at least 1 inaccurately documented OTC medication after the standard MR. The sensitivity and specificity of the standard MR were 79.2% and 93.5%, respectively, for aspirin; 14.5% and 99.5% for NSAIDs; and 80.4% and 97.3% for PPIs. Medication omissions were resolved in the electronic health record approximately two-thirds of the time using the questionnaire. At least 1 drug-drug interaction (DDI) involving active use of an OTC medication was identified in 9.6% of the patients. Of the DDIs, the most common portended effects were increased nephrotoxicity (52.9%), increased bleeding risk (22.9%), and enhanced antiplatelet activity (7.1%). Conclusion Despite the standard MR process, inaccurate documentation of commonly used OTC medications occurred in nearly one-third of outpatients in a nephrology clinic. A brief OTC medication questionnaire may be a scalable and effective strategy to address this problem.

Importance Management of antithrombotic medications presents a challenge for many clinicians and patients before procedures. Anticoagulation clinic involvement may improve preprocedure coordination, satisfaction on the part of patients and clinicians, last-minute procedure cancellations, and patient safety. Objective To assess the implementation of an electronic medical record (EMR) best practice alert (BPA) and anticoagulation clinic referral process to assist with management of antithrombotic medication before gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. Design, Setting, and Participants This multimodal evaluation of a quality improvement intervention using EMRs and survey data included patients using oral antithrombotic medications who were scheduled for elective gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures at an academic medical center along with the clinicians who ordered these procedures. Data were collected from November 1, 2017, through December 19, 2018. Data were analyzed in September 2019. Exposures Following a multidisciplinary intervention, a BPA and referral process for periprocedural antithrombotic medication management was implemented in November 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures The following implementation outcomes were assessed through EMR review and surveys through December 2018: use of BPAs, patient and clinician satisfaction with preprocedure anticoagulation management, procedure cancelation rates, reach, and spread by patient and clinician characteristics. Multilevel logistic regression was used to estimate variance in BPA use at the clinician level. Results A total of 2082 patients (mean [SD] age, 64.1 [11.9] years) and 144 clinicians were included in the analysis. The BPA was used broadly across the health system, resulting in anticoagulation clinic referral for 1389 patients (66.7%). Referral was more common for patients using anticoagulant vs antiplatelet medications (1041 of 1524 [68.3%] vs 346 of 556 [62.2%]; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.51; 95% CI, 1.15-1.98) and for procedures ordered by gastroenterologists vs primary care clinicians (933 of 1241 [75.2%] vs 365 of 618 [59.1%]; aOR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.46-3.17). Individual clinician behavior patterns explained 26.5% (95% CI, 18.7%-36.1%) of variation in anticoagulation clinic referrals. Implementation of the intervention was associated with high patient satisfaction and improvements in multidimensional measures of clinician satisfaction (clinician response rate, 44.2% [144 of 326]). In multivariable analysis, the odds of altered or canceled procedures because of medication mismanagement declined after implementation (8 of 50 [16.0%] vs 1 of 52 [1.9%]; aOR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.01-0.96;P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance A newly implemented BPA and anticoagulation clinic referral process was broadly adopted and used, had high satisfaction by patients and clinicians, and was associated with fewer disruptions to planned procedures caused by medication mismanagement.

BACKGROUND: An effective patient-physician relationship (PPR) is essential to the care of patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). After developing a PPR questionnaire for patients, we sought to develop and validate an IBS-specific instrument to measure physician expectations of the PPR. METHODS: We conducted focus groups about PPRs among 15 clinicians who treat patients with IBS from community and academic centers. Qualitative analysis was used to generate the Patient-Physician Relationship Scale-Physician RESULTS: The PPRS-Physician contained 35 questions pertaining to interpersonal and psychosocial features considered desirable or undesirable in a relationship with IBS patients. 1113 physicians (22%) completed the survey. Physicians were predominantly middle-aged (mean = 55.1 years), male (85.0%), white (74.5%), and practiced primarily within group settings (61.6%), with an average of 25.7% of their patients having IBS. Factor analysis revealed three relevant factors: interfering attributes, positive attributes, and personal connection. The scale ranged from possible 0 to 100 (mean = 83.8; SD = 8.38). Cronbach’s alpha reliability measure of the scale was 0.938, indicating high internal consistency. There was a significant moderate, positive correlation between JSPE and the PPRS (P < 0.001, r = 0.488), establishing concurrent validity. CONCLUSIONS: We describe the development and validation of the first questionnaire to measure physician expectations of the PPR. This instrument can be used clinically, and for future studies on physician communication.

For warfarin-treated patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) at low thromboembolic risk, recent studies have shown harm associated with periprocedural bridging using low–molecular-weight heparin. Clinician surveys have indicated a preference toward excessive bridging, especially among noncardiologists; however, little is known about actual practice patterns in these patients. We performed a retrospective evaluation of bridging in the setting of gastrointestinal endoscopy. We identified 938 patients with AF on warfarin who underwent esophagogastroduodenoscopy or colonoscopy between 2012 and 2016 at a tertiary health center. Urgent, inpatient, or advanced endoscopic procedures were excluded. Clinical variables were abstracted using a predefined data dictionary. Values were expressed as means and compared using a t test or a chi-squared test as appropriate. Three hundred seventy-four patients met criteria for analysis. Twenty-five percent of these patients received bridging therapy, including 11% of patients with CHADS(2) scores of 0 to 2 without valvular AF or previous venous thromboembolism. Of the clinical variables assessed, CHADS(2), CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc, and a history of stroke were the strongest predictors of bridging. Cardiologists were also significantly less likely to prescribe bridging than noncardiology providers (18% vs 30%, p = 0.011); this effect was significant when controlling for CHADS(2), CHA(2)DS(2)-VASc, or stroke history. In conclusion, patients with AF on warfarin receive excessive low–molecular-weight heparin bridging in the setting of endoscopy; the lower rates of bridging observed among cardiologists suggests a need for their increased involvement in this decision making.

Background This systematic review aims to assess the accuracy of hydrogen breath testing as a predictor of bowel preparation. Methods Studies were identified from MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and clinicaltrials.gov. Two investigators evaluated abstracts for inclusion criteria - report of correlation between hydrogen breath levels and bowel preparation quality, prospective design and non-emergent colonoscopy in adults. Included studies underwent duplicate data extraction using a standardized approach. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool assessed quality of the studies. Results One hundred fifty-nine publications were identified, and six unique studies met inclusion criteria. The number of patients analyzed ranged from 61 to 127. Three studies were performed in the USA, one in Japan and two in Italy. Three studies used a prebiotic in addition to a purgative, with the intention of enhancing the discriminating ability of hydrogen breath levels. Three studies assessed baseline hydrogen levels. In five of the six studies, hydrogen breath levels were predictive of inadequate bowel preparation. Suggested absolute hydrogen levels to distinguish adequate from inadequate bowel preparation ranged from 3 to 10 parts per million. Depending on the cutoff value, sensitivity ranged from 71% to 100% and specificity from 87% to 100%. There was significant heterogeneity among studies in breath testing protocol and breath analyzer used. Full-text studies had low risk of bias in most assessed domains. Conclusion Hydrogen breath levels predict bowel preparation adequacy but existing studies have significant limitations. Further studies should use standardized methods and consider the real-world practicality of self-administered home breath testing.

Many patients with symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) not responding to a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) undergo an upper endoscopy. We hypothesized that an incomplete response to a PPI is not associated with findings of esophageal pathology on endoscopy, and that psychological distress is associated inversely with pathology.We enrolled consecutive individuals aged 40 to 79 years with prior heartburn or regurgitation. Logistic regression was used to estimate the effects of incomplete response of GERD symptoms and psychological distress on the odds of finding erosive esophagitis or Barrett's esophagus.A total of 625 patients completed the study. A total of 254 (66.8% of those taking PPI) had GERD symptoms incompletely responsive to a PPI and 352 (56.3%) had severe somatization. An incomplete response to a PPI was associated with psychological distress (P.001). Erosive esophagitis was found in 148 subjects (23.7%) and Barrett's esophagus in 58 (9.3%). Overall, an incomplete response to a PPI was not found to be associated with these pathologies (odds ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.720-1.91). In contrast, greater psychological distress was associated inversely with erosive esophagitis or Barrett's esophagus (in particular, highest vs lowest tertile somatization: odds ratio, 0.590; 95% CI, 0.365-0.952).Patients undergoing upper endoscopy frequently have GERD symptoms incompletely responding to a PPI and a high burden of somatization. However, an incomplete response of GERD symptoms is a poor predictor for endoscopic pathology, and should not be relied upon for selecting patients for screening for Barrett's esophagus. Patients with high psychological distress are less likely to have esophageal pathology.

OBJECTIVES To assess patient preferences for colorectal cancer screening with stool-based tests after initial colonoscopy with suboptimal bowel preparation. METHODS An online scenario-based survey of adults aged 45 to 75 years at average risk for colorectal cancer was performed. RESULTS When presented with a hypothetical scenario of screening colonoscopy with suboptimal bowel preparation, 59% of respondents chose stool-based testing as a next step, 29% preferred a repeat colonoscopy within a year, and 12% preferred a repeat colonoscopy in 10 years (N = 1,080). CONCLUSIONS Clinicians should consider offering stool-based screening tests as an alternative to repeat colonoscopy after suboptimal bowel preparation.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of evidence-based practices often requires tailoring implementation strategies to local contextual factors, including available resources, expertise, and cultural norms. Using an exemplar case, we describe how health systems engineering methods can be used to understand system-level variation that must be accounted for prior to broad implementation. METHODS: Within the context of a single-center quality improvement activity, a multi-disciplinary stakeholder team used health systems engineering methods to describe how pre-endoscopy antithrombotic management was executed, and implemented a redesigned process to improve clinical care. The research team then conducted multiple stakeholder focus groups at four different health-care systems to describe and compare current processes for pre-endoscopy antithrombotic medication management. Detailed work flow maps for each health-care system were developed, analyzed, and integrated to develop an overarching current work flow map, identify key process steps, and describe areas of process variation. RESULTS: Five key process steps were identified across the four health systems: (1) place an endoscopy order, (2) screen for antithrombotic use, (3) coordinate medication management, (4) instruct the patient, and (5) confirm appropriate medication management before procedure. Across health systems, we found a high degree of variation in each step (e.g., who performed, use of technology, systematic vs. ad hoc process). This variation was influenced by two key system-level contextual factors: (1) degree of health system integration and (2) role and training level of available staff. These key steps, areas of variation, and contextual factors were integrated into an assessment tool designed to facilitate tailoring of a future implementation and dissemination strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Tools from health systems engineering can be used to identify key work flow process steps, variations in how those steps are executed, and influential contextual factors. This process and the associated assessment tool may facilitate broader implementation tailoring. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s11606-020-06121-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Little is known about how reports on the adverse effects of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) impact patients' perceptions of these drugs and medication use. We sought to determine patients' level of concern about PPI adverse effects and its association with attempts to discontinue these drugs.This study is an online survey of US adults who use PPIs for gastroesophageal reflux disease. Topics included awareness of and concern about PPI adverse effects, prior discussion with providers, and attempts to stop PPI because of concern about adverse effects. For the primary analysis, we used logistic regression to identify associations between having attempted to stop PPI and concern about PPI-related adverse effects, a provider's recommendation to stop, risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), age, and gender.Among 755 patient participants, mean age was 49 years (s.d. 16), 71% were women, and 24% were at high risk of UGIB. Twenty percent of patients were able to write in ≥1 reported adverse effect, and 46% endorsed awareness of ≥1 adverse effect when presented with a list, most commonly chronic kidney disease (17%). Thirty-three percent of patients were slightly concerned, 32% somewhat concerned, and 14% extremely concerned about adverse effects. Twenty-four percent of patients had discussed PPI risks and benefits with a provider, and 9% had been recommended to stop. Thirty-nine percent had attempted to stop their PPI, most (83%) without a provider recommendation. Factors associated with an attempt at stopping PPI included: (i) provider recommendation to stop (odds ratio [OR] 3.26 [1.82-5.83]); (ii) concern about adverse effects (OR 5.13 [2.77-9.51] for slightly, 12.0 [6.51-22.2] for somewhat, and 19.4 [9.75-38.7] for extremely concerned); and (iii) female gender (OR 1.64 [1.12-2.39]). Patients at high risk of UGIB were as likely to have attempted to stop as others (OR 0.98 [0.66-1.44]).Concern about PPIs is common and strongly associated with attempts at discontinuation, even without a provider's recommendation. Notably, individuals at high risk of UGIB, who benefit from PPIs, were equally likely to have tried stopping PPIs as others. Providers should proactively discuss the risks and benefits of PPIs with their patients, who may otherwise make unwise decisions about PPI management on their own.

Background Periprocedural antithrombotic medication management is a complex, often confusing process for patients and their providers. Communication difficulties often lead to suboptimal medication management, resulting in delayed or canceled procedures. Methods We conducted telephone surveys with patients taking chronic antithrombotic medications who had recently undergone an endoscopy procedure. In the survey, we sought to better understand the periprocedural process for patients taking antithrombotic medications. We conducted a content analysis of patients’ unstructured responses from the periprocedural patient phone calls. We used a multistep group coding process to analyze responses. Relationships between different themes and categories were analyzed using original quotes and retrieving thematic segments from the transcripts. Results The survey was administered to 81 patients; 74/81 respondents (91%) said they understood the plan to manage their antithrombotics, but 21/81 respondents (26%) were not completely satisfied with the coordination, communication, and management of their medications. Five primary themes emerged from the content analysis as patient-centered design features affecting periprocedural care: (1) patients require accurate and timely information; (2) a patient's prior experience with antithrombotic therapy affects their understanding of the process; (3) patients prefer receiving their information from a single source, and (4) also prefer different methods of instruction; (5) finally, patients expect their clinician(s) to be available through the periprocedural management process. Conclusion To optimize the periprocedural medication management communication process, patients desire timeliness, accuracy, and adaptiveness to prior patient experience while offering a single, consistently available point of contact.

OBJECTIVES: To understand how physicians from various specialties perceive coordination of care when managing peri-procedural anticoagulation. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey of cardiologists, gastroenterologists, and primary care physicians (PCPs) in an integrated health system (N=251). METHODS: The survey began with a vignette of a patient with atrial fibrillation co-managed by his PCP, cardiologist, and an anticoagulation clinic who must hold warfarin for a colonoscopy. Respondents’ experiences and opinions around responsibilities and institutional support for managing peri-procedural anticoagulation were elicited using multiple choice questions. We examined differences in responses across specialties using chi-square analysis. RESULTS: The response rate was 51% (n=127). 52% were PCPs, 28% cardiologists, and 21% gastroenterologists. Nearly half (47.2%) of respondents believed that the cardiologist should be primarily responsible for managing peri-procedural anticoagulation, while fewer identified the PCP (25.2%), anticoagulation clinic (21.3%), or gastroenterologist (6.3%; p=0.09). Respondents across specialties had significantly different approaches to deciding how to manage the clinical case presented (p

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is viewed as a diagnosis of exclusion by most providers. The aim of our study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the utility of C-reactive protein (CRP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), fecal calprotectin, and fecal lactoferrin to distinguish between patients with IBS and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and healthy controls (HCs).A systematic online database search was performed. Included studies were prospective, adult, diagnostic cohort studies with any of the four tests. The means and s.d. values of biomarker logarithms were estimated based on studies that gave medians and either confidence intervals for the median, interquartile ranges, or ranges. We used a Naive Bayes approach to estimate the probability of being a HC, having IBS, or having IBD based on the biomarker values.Systematic review identified 1,252 citations. After cross-referencing medical subject headings, detailed evaluation identified 140 potentially relevant journal articles/abstracts for CRP, ESR, calprotectin, and lactoferrin of which 4, 4, 8, and 2 fulfilled our inclusion criteria, respectively. None of the biomarkers reliably distinguished between IBS and healthy controls. At a CRP level of ≤0.5 or calprotectin level of ≤40 μg/g, there was a ≤1% probability of having IBD. Individual analysis of ESR and lactoferrin had little clinical utility.CRP and calprotectin of ≤0.5 or 40, respectively, essentially excludes IBD in patients with IBS symptoms. The addition of CRP and calprotectin to symptom-based criteria may improve the confident diagnosis of IBS.

To determine the volume and nature (or topic) of consultations submitted to a psychiatric pharmacist embedded in an ambulatory psychiatry clinic, within a tertiary care academic medical center and to increase our understanding about the ways in which providers consult with an available psychiatric pharmacist.Authors analyze and describe the ambulatory psychiatric pharmacist consultation log at an academic ambulatory clinic. All consultation questions were submitted between July 2012 and October 2014.Psychiatry residents, attending physicians, and advanced practice nurse practitioners submitted 280 primary questions. The most common consultation questions from providers consulted were related to drug-drug interactions (n =70), drug formulations/dosing (n =48), adverse effects (n =43), and pharmacokinetics/lab monitoring/cross-tapering (n =36).This is a preliminary analysis that provides information about how psychiatry residents, attending physicians, and advanced practice nurse practitioners at our health system utilize a psychiatric pharmacist. This collaborative relationship may have implications for the future of psychiatric care delivery.