Tilburt, Jon C.

Health care services that increase costs but fail to improve health are of low value. Limiting low-value services has potential to decrease health care expenditures by eliminating waste. We examined the opinions of Continuing Medical Education attendees about the “Choosing Wisely” campaign and decreasing use of potentially unnecessary services of low value. We compared our attendees’ responses to those of participants who completed a survey a year earlier. Respondents acknowledged waste of resources as a common and serious problem and noted frequent opportunities to address low-value services with their patients. They also reported limited ability to successfully reduce unnecessary services in daily clinical care. Lack of familiarity with “Choosing Wisely” may be related.

BackgroundCommunication failures between clinicians and dermatopathologists are prevalent. Our primary objective was to characterize the concerns and challenges of dermatopathologists posed by incomplete or inaccurate clinical information in the skin biopsy requisition form.MethodsAn explanatory sequential, mixed‐methods study design comprised of a survey sent to 1103 members of the American Society of Dermatopathology (ASDP), followed by two focus group sessions.ResultsA total of 54% (598/1103) of dermatopathologists completed the questionnaire. Most dermatopathologists (80%; 436/548) viewed their roles to be providers of histopathological diagnosis and a report that is clinically meaningful. Paper or electronic requisition forms were the most common communication method (85%; 458/541) and were associated with the highest rates of dissatisfaction in 36% (193/537) of respondents. Inadequacy of specimens emerged as an important factor influencing judgment of the quality of provided clinical information. 44.7% (261/584) of dermatopathologists spent 30 minutes or more on average every day searching for relevant clinical information to assist with their histopathologic interpretation.ConclusionASDP dermatopathologists expressed significant dissatisfaction with the quality of clinical information in the requisition form and the time spent gathering information necessary for accurate, timely and clinically meaningful diagnosis. These findings have implications for the quality, safety and efficiency of dermatologic care.

AbstractBackgroundShared decision making is promoted to improve cancer care quality. Patients and clinicians may have different ideas about what constitutes a cancer care decision, which may limit the validity of self‐reported measures of shared decision making. We sought to estimate the extent to which patients and clinicians agree on whether a cancer care decision was made during an outpatient encounter.MethodsWe surveyed patients and clinicians immediately after an oncology encounter at a large, tertiary medical centre and calculated agreement in response to the single‐item question, ‘Was a specific decision about cancer care made during the appointment today?’ Answer options were ‘yes’ and ‘no’. Participants were 315 oncology patients, with any solid tumour malignancy and at any stage of management, and their clinicians (22 staff oncologists, nine senior fellows and five nurse practitioners).ResultsPatients and clinicians reported having made a cancer care decision in 184 (58%) and 174 (55%) of encounters, respectively. They agreed on whether a cancer care decision was made in 213 (68%) of encounters (chance‐adjusted agreement was 0.34); in 56 of the 102 discordant encounters, the patient reported making a decision while the clinician did not. We found no significant correlates with discordance.ConclusionsPatients and clinicians do not always agree on whether a cancer care decision was made. As such, measures that ask patients and/or clinicians to evaluate a decision‐making process or outcome may be methodologically insufficient when they do not explicitly orient respondents towards the thing they are being asked to assess.

Surveys are an important tool for assessing physician and nursing professionals’ practice patterns and guideline adherence. Obtaining quality survey data consisting of low item and unit nonresponse remains a persistent challenge in these populations. We tested the relative impact of two envelope types (padded vs. priority mail) on unit and item nonresponse in a survey of Minnesota health care workers. Respondents were randomized to receive a survey in one of two envelope types: a padded 8.5′′ × 11′′ envelope or a similarly sized priority mail envelope. After the first mailing, the response rate was 53.9% and did not differ across envelope conditions. Females and RNs were more likely to respond to the priority envelope than the padded envelope, but this finding did not hold in multivariate analysis. There was no difference in item nonresponse across the two envelope conditions. It may be that our two approaches were not enough to permeate the semi-porous membrane of gatekeeping that has been posited as a driver of low physician survey response rates relative to those observed in the general population. Nonetheless, our findings suggest that packaging may matter for some populations and not others.