Roellinger, Daniel

Introduction: Patients with hypertension (HTN) may remain undiagnosed as the diagnosis requires systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≥ 140 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure (DBP) ≥ 90 mmHg on ≥ 2 different occasions. Hypothesis: We sought to evaluate outcomes of patients without diagnosed hypertension who have elevated BP meeting current thresholds for hypertension on 2 consecutive episodes. Methods: Together with retrospective billing and clinical data, electronic records of all outpatient visits in 2009 were used to identify 24,277 patients with 2 consecutive visits (2CHBP) with SBP ≥ 140mmHg or DBP ≥ 90 mmHg and were compared with a previously identified cohort of 53,998 known hypertension patients. Among the 2CHBP group, 6,071 (25%) were identified without a prior diagnosis of hypertension and were categorized as undiagnosed hypertension. They were compared with patients with known hypertension who had ≥ 1 visit in 2009. Cross-sectional analysis of cardiovascular comorbidities and proportional hazards for survival were done. Results: Of 5,978 undiagnosed HTN patients, 49% were female compared to 51% of 10,311 known HTN. In the undiagnosed HTN group, 19.5% were ≥ 80 years compared to 30.4% of known HTN patients. Cardiovascular comorbidities were generally lower in the undiagnosed HTN group compared to the known HTN group - heart failure (7% v 8%; OR 0.88, 95% CI: 0.77 - 0.99; p < 0.038), atrial fibrillation (11% v 12%, OR 0.88 95% CI 0.79 - 0.97) and coronary artery disease (17% v 26%, OR 0.57 95% CI 0.52 - 0.61). However after a four year followup, mortality was higher in the undiagnosed HTN group with unadjusted hazard ratio HR 1.4 (95% CI 1.29 - 1.60, p<0.0001) and HR 2.41 (2.16 -2.68, p<0.0001) when adjusted for age, sex, heart failure and diabetes. Conclusions: Over a quarter of patients meeting current thresholds on 2 consecutive visits did not carry a known diagnosis of hypertension. Although younger and with less cardiovascular comorbidities than those with diagnosed hypertension, mortality after 4 years was significantly higher in those with undiagnosed hypertension. Electronic records can be used to identify these high risk patients.

Introduction Telehealth service provision has accelerated during the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. As the pandemic continues, clinical practices have discovered ways to resume operations. Opportunities exist to understand patient preferences for telehealth clinical services and to tailor offerings to different demographic groups. Methods We conducted a survey of patients receiving telehealth services through our outpatient practice to understand the types of healthcare services for which patients report preferences for telehealth. Results We received 551 survey responses (response rate = 20.8%; 551/2650). More than half of patients indicated being ‘very likely’ to use telehealth services to refill medication(s) (67.3%), prepare for an upcoming visit (66.1%), review test results (60.3%), or receive education (54.2%). Males had lower odds of preferring telehealth services for reviewing test results (odds ratio (OR) = 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.34–0.94) or mental health issues (OR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.38–0.77). Respondents who received a video visit were significantly more likely than those who received a telephone visit to report preferences for using telehealth for education, care plan discussions, long-term health issues, and mental health. Discussion Patient preferences for telehealth services vary by services provided and respondent demographics. Experience with telehealth increases the likelihood for future use of these services.

Objective: We surveyed patients who visited multiple outpatient specialty practices to understand what summary content was most helpful with the goal of optimizing meaningful outpatient clinical visit summary content. Materials and Methods: We constructed a survey instrument to measure delivery, use, and contents of clinical visit summaries. We surveyed patients who visited with at least 2 different outpatient medical specialties to understand preferences. Results: Most patients in our sample valued the summary information they received, and retained it as healthcare documentation (84%) and/or quick reference in supporting self-care (70%). Patients most commonly reported that information on results of completed tests (91%) and treatment plan instructions (89%) were very helpful. Additionally, patients expressed the importance of online access to clinical visit summary information. Discussion: Most patients used the clinical visit summary as healthcare documentation, and valued online availability of their summary information. Patients most often reported that information on results of recently completed tests and specific instructions on treatment plan were very helpful. Patients who sought further information after their visit most often looked to a provider and/or online. Conclusions: Patients valued clinical visit summary accessibility and as a reference tool to summarize care and provide next steps. Optimal clinical visit summaries might collate and integrate assessments and recommendations from multiple specialties into coherent care plans for patients.

Introduction Safe management of warfarin in the inpatient setting can be challenging. At the Mayo Clinic hospitals in Rochester, Minnesota, we set out to improve the safety of warfarin management among surgical and non-surgical inpatients. Methods A multidisciplinary team designed a pharmacist-managed warfarin protocol (PMWP) which designated warfarin dosing to inpatient pharmacists with guidance from computerised dosing algorithms. Ordering this protocol was ultimately designed as an ‘opt out’ practice. The primary improvement measure was frequency of international normalised ratio (INR) greater than 5; secondary measures included adoption rate of the protocol, a counterbalance INR metric (INR <1.7 three days after first inpatient warfarin dose), and complication rates, including bleeding and thrombosis events. An interrupted time series analysis was conducted to compare outcomes. Results Among over 50 000 inpatient warfarin recipients, the PMWP was adopted for the majority of both surgical and non-surgical inpatients during the study period (1 January 2005 to 31 December 2011). The primary improvement measure decreased from 5.6% to 3.4% for medical patients and from 5.2% to 2.4% for surgical patients during the preimplementation and postimplementation periods, respectively. The INR counterbalance measure did not change. Postoperative bleeding decreased from 13.5% to 11.1% among surgical patients, but bleeding was unchanged among medical patients. Conclusion Our PMWP led to achievement of improved INR control for inpatient warfarin recipients and to less near-term bleeding among higher risk, surgical patients.

To reliably assess quality, a standardized electronic approach is needed to identify bleeding events. The study aims were the following: (1) clinically validate an electronic health record–based algorithm for bleeding and (2) assess interrater results to determine validity and reliability. Data were analyzed before and after implementation of a pharmacist-managed warfarin protocol. Bleeding was based on ≥2 of 3 criteria: (1) diagnosis indicating bleeding, (2) lab value decrease suggesting bleeding, and (3) blood product use. All suspected bleeds (234) and a sample (58) not meeting criteria were compared with clinical review. There were 234 bleeding cases identified electronically. Reviewer agreement was 78.2% (κ = 0.565). Algorithm sensitivity was 93.9% and positive predictive value 46.2%. Algorithm identification was least accurate for those with only 2 criteria but good for those with all criteria. This study supports using multiple electronic criteria to identify bleeding events. However, cases having exactly 2 criteria may require manual review for validation.