Person:

Simon, Steven

Background: Despite benefits of adherence, little is known about the degree to which patients will express their perceptions of medications as more or less important to take as prescribed. We determined the frequency with which Veteran patients would explicitly identify one of their medications as “most important” or “least important.” Findings: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients from ambulatory clinics at VA Boston from April 2010-July 2011. Patients answered two questions: “Which one of your medicines, if any, do you think is the most important? (if none, please write ‘none’)” and “Which one of your medicines, if any, do you think is the least important? (if none, please write ‘none’).” We determined the prevalence of response categories for each question. Our cohort of 104 patients was predominantly male (95%), with a mean of 9 medications (SD 5.7). Regarding their most important medication, 41 patients (39%) identified one specific medication; 26 (25%) selected more than one; 21 (20%) wrote “none”; and 16 (15%) did not answer the question. For their least important medication, 31 Veterans (30%) chose one specific medication; two (2%) chose more than one; 51 (49%) wrote “none”; and 20 (19%) did not directly answer the question. Conclusions: Thirty-five percent of patients did not identify a most important medication, and 68% did not identify a least important medication. Better understanding of how patients prioritize medications and how best to elicit this information will improve patient-provider communication, which may in turn lead to better adherence.

Background Automated telephone outreach with speech recognition (ATO-SR) is used extensively by health plans. Whether ATO-SR can increase rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is unknown.

Methods We randomly allocated 40 000 health plan members to ATO-SR and 40 000 to usual care, of whom 10 432 and 10 506 in the intervention and usual care groups, respectively, had not been previously screened and were therefore eligible for analysis. The intervention was a single interactive outreach call using speech recognition to engage participants in conversation about the importance of CRC screening and options for and barriers to screening. The intervention directed participants to contact their primary care provider to schedule screening. The primary end point was any CRC screening in the year following intervention. Colonoscopy in the year following intervention was a secondary outcome.

Results The incidence of any CRC screening was 30.6% in the intervention group and 30.4% in the usual care group (P = .76). After adjustment for available covariates, there remained no intervention effect (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94-1.07). A total of 21.4% of members in the intervention group and 20.3% in the usual care group underwent colonoscopy (P = .04). In multivariate analysis, there was a small intervention effect on colonoscopy (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.00-1.16).

Conclusions This study showed that ATO-SR failed to improve rates of CRC screening. Future studies should examine approaches that combine efforts to target patients and their health care providers to overcome the barriers to CRC screening.

Background: We define electronic consultations (“e-consults”) as asynchronous, consultative, provider-to-provider communications within a shared electronic health record (EHR) or web-based platform. E-consults are intended to improve access to specialty expertise for patients and providers without the need for a face-to-face visit. Our goal was to systematically review and summarize the literature describing the use and effects of e-consults. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL for studies related to e-consults published between 1990 through December 2014. Three reviewers identified empirical studies and system descriptions, including articles on systems that used a shared EHR or web-based platform, connected providers in the same health system, were used for two-way provider communication, and were text-based. Results: Our final review included 27 articles. Twenty-two were research studies and five were system descriptions. Eighteen originated from one of three sites with well-developed e-consult programs. Most studies reported on workflow impact, timeliness of specialty input, and/or provider perceptions of e-consults. E-consultations are used in a variety of ways within and across medical centers. They provide timely access to specialty care and are well-received by primary care providers. Discussion E-consults are feasible in a variety of settings, flexible in their application, and facilitate timely specialty advice. More extensive and rigorous studies are needed to inform the e-consult process and describe its effect on access to specialty visits, cost and clinical outcomes.

Background Computerized Provider Order Entry (CPOE) can improve patient safety, quality and efficiency, but hospitals face a host of barriers to adopting CPOE, ranging from resistance among physicians to the cost of the systems. In response to the incentives for meaningful use of health information technology and other market forces, hospitals in the United States are increasingly moving toward the adoption of CPOE. The purpose of this study was to characterize the experiences of hospitals that have successfully implemented CPOE.

Methods We used a qualitative approach to observe clinical activities and capture the experiences of physicians, nurses, pharmacists and administrators at five community hospitals in Massachusetts (USA) that adopted CPOE in the past few years. We conducted formal, structured observations of care processes in diverse inpatient settings within each of the hospitals and completed in-depth, semi-structured interviews with clinicians and staff by telephone. After transcribing the audiorecorded interviews, we analyzed the content of the transcripts iteratively, guided by principles of the Immersion and Crystallization analytic approach. Our objective was to identify attitudes, behaviors and experiences that would constitute useful lessons for other hospitals embarking on CPOE implementation.

Results Analysis of observations and interviews resulted in findings about the CPOE implementation process in five domains: governance, preparation, support, perceptions and consequences. Successful institutions implemented clear organizational decision-making mechanisms that involved clinicians (governance). They anticipated the need for education and training of a wide range of users (preparation). These hospitals deployed ample human resources for live, in-person training and support during implementation. Successful implementation hinged on the ability of clinical leaders to address and manage perceptions and the fear of change. Implementation proceeded smoothly when institutions identified and anticipated the consequences of the change.

Conclusions The lessons learned in the five domains identified in this study may be useful for other community hospitals embarking on CPOE adoption.