Wyatt, Kirk D.

Abstract Background Mobile applications allow health care providers to capture point-of-care medical photographs and transfer them to the electronic health record (EHR). It is unclear how providers use these photographs or how they affect clinical care. Objectives We aimed to understand the content, purpose, and outcomes of point-of-care medical photography performed in the pediatric emergency department (ED) at large academic medical center. Methods A retrospective chart review was conducted of patients <21 years of age who were seen in the ED and photographed between March 29, 2015 and July 1, 2017 using a secure smartphone application integrated with the EHR. Inter-rater agreement and reliability between the two reviewers was assessed for the first 50 charts, and any discrepancies in interpretation were resolved before proceeding with the remaining data abstraction. The documented rationale for photography, content of photographs, and outcomes were recorded. Results We identified 619 clinical encounters involving photographs of 605 patients who were eligible for inclusion. Skin was photographed in 499 (81%). The most common finding was rash (N = 177; 29%). Photos were of acceptable quality, with 569 (94%) achieving a score between 4 and 5 out of 5. The primary use of photography was documentation (N = 334; 54%), though teleconsultation was noted in 38 (6%). Nearly one-third (N = 187; 30%) of patients were seen in the ED or outpatient clinic for any reason within 2 weeks, and in 25 (13%), clinical notes explicitly referenced the initial photograph(s). In 53 (9%) cases, patients were photographed at a clinical visit in the subsequent 2 weeks, suggesting that photography was used to track changes over time. Conclusion Documentation of findings using mobile point-of-care photography allows for high-fidelity documentation and facilitates continuity of care.

6526 Background: Most patients diagnosed with breast cancer turn to the Internet to learn about their diagnosis; however, information online is often generic, challenging to navigate, and not expert-curated. To facilitate patient education and engagement in our breast clinic, we piloted the implementation of pre-visit education via brief microlearning videos organized within an online platform. Methods: Seventeen videos of 2-4 minute duration were developed by multidisciplinary content experts. Videos covered a variety of educational topics relevant to breast cancer, including treatment options. Patients received a link via email to create an account, which provided access to the platform. Aggregate viewing data and optional patient surveys (online after viewing 3 videos and at the clinical appointment) were used to assess opt-in rates, engagement, and satisfaction. Results: Between September 2018 and January 2019, 57.4% (240/418) of women with biopsy proven breast cancer who were sent an email invitation registered on the platform. On average, patients watched 11 of the 17 videos, with 93.7% of users (225/240) viewing at least one. Overall, 85% (168/198) of women recommend the microlearning format for patient education. The most-viewed video topics included types of breast cancer, breast abnormality and biopsy, understanding biopsy results, tumor markers, and staging. Seventy-eight percent (154/198) of women reported that they planned to share the videos with family or caregivers, and 67% (133/198) felt that the educational content increased their satisfaction with their overall experience. Barriers to video access were emails marked as junk, not having an email address, and difficulties with videos loading. Conclusions: The majority of patients participating in this pilot registered on the platform and watched pre-visit microlearning educational videos. These expert-curated videos contributed to high levels of satisfaction and engagement. Strategies to overcome barriers to access will be developed to expand the reach of this new valuable component of breast cancer care.

High-dose methotrexate has been a treatment for osteosarcoma; however, its nephrotoxic effects are considerable. Carboxypeptidase-G2 (glucarpidase) was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2012 for treatment of toxic methotrexate levels. We report our experience using glucarpidase under compassionate use before Food and Drug Administration approval in 2 patients who had delayed methotrexate clearance and prolonged kidney injury despite glucarpidase administration. Our results show that patients with methotrexate toxicity may require repeated doses of glucarpidase in addition to supportive measures, such as dialysis.

AbstractBackgroundMayo Clinic developed an internal iOS‐based, point‐of‐care clinical image capture application for clinicians. We aimed to assess the adoption and utilization of the application at Mayo Clinic.MethodsMetadata of 22,784 photos of 6417 patients taken by 606 users over 8040 clinical encounters between 3/1/2015 and 10/31/2015 were analyzed. A random sample of photos from 100 clinical encounters was assessed for quality using a five‐item rubric. Use of traditional medical photography services before and after application launch were compared.ResultsThe largest group of users was residents/fellows, accounting for 31% of users but only 18% of all photos. Attending physicians accounted for 29% of users and 30% of photos. Nurses accounted for 14% of users and 28% of photos. Surgical specialties had the most users (36% of users), followed by dermatology (14% of users); however, dermatology accounted for 54% of all photos, and surgery accounted for 26% of photos. Images received an average of 91% of possible points on the quality scoring rubric. Most frequent reasons for missing points were the location on the body not clearly being demonstrated (19% of encounters) and the perspective/scale not being clearly demonstrated (12% of encounters). There was no discernible pre‐post effect of the application's launch on use of traditional medical photography services.ConclusionsPoint‐of‐care clinical photography is a growing phenomenon with potential to become the new standard of care. Patient and provider attitudes and the impact on patient outcomes remain unclear.