Citations

ObjectiveTo explore the perspectives and experiences of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) whose assessments of their disease differ from those of their rheumatology care provider.MethodsA total of 20 adult RA patients with patient‐provider discordance at their most recent rheumatology appointment (within 4 weeks) were recruited. Discordance was defined by an absolute difference of 25 or more between patient and provider global assessments on a visual analog scale (VAS) of disease activity. For descriptive purposes, participants completed the Health Assessment Questionnaire II, pain VAS, and Patient Health Questionnaire 9 depression scale. Interviews were conducted in person and individually with each patient with a semistructured interview guide. Topics ranged widely, including participants’ perspectives and experiences with living with RA, clinical disease assessments, patient‐provider communication, and psychosocial or other needs. Data from the interviews were analyzed using interpretive phenomenological analysis.ResultsSix major themes emerged from the patient interviews describing patient‐provider discordance and disease assessment: being misunderstood by others, limitations of provider assessments, discrepancy with provider findings, inadequate active listening on the part of health care providers, unmet psychosocial needs, and lack of patient empowerment.ConclusionPatients described discordance in terms of symptom assessment and understanding how RA affects everyday life. Typical clinical assessments did not capture their experience. The resulting conceptual framework should inform future interventional studies seeking to enhance concordance of patient‐physician communication and to optimize satisfaction with care and health‐related quality‐of‐life outcomes for patients with RA.

Objectives To assess the degree to which self‐reported symptoms predict unplanned readmission or emergency department ( ED ) care within 30 days of high‐risk, elderly adults enrolled in a posthospitalization care transition program ( CTP ). Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting Posthospitalization CTP at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, from January 1, 2013, through March 3, 2015. Participants Frail, elderly adults (N = 230; mean age 83.5 ± 8.3, 46.5% male). Measurements Charlson Comorbidity Index ( CCI ) and self‐reported symptoms, measured using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System ( ESAS ), were ascertained upon CTP enrollment. Results Mean CCI was 3.9 ± 2.3. Of 51 participants returning to the hospital within 30 days of discharge, 13 had ED visits, and 38 were readmitted. Age, sex, and CCI were not significantly different between returning and nonreturning participants, but returning participants were significantly more likely to report shortness of breath ( P = .004), anxiety ( P = .02), depression ( P = .02), and drowsiness ( P = .01). Overall ESAS score was also a significant predictor of hospital return ( P = .01). Conclusion Four self‐reported symptoms and overall ESAS score, but not CCI , ascertained after hospital discharge were strong predictors of hospital return within 30 days. Including symptoms in risk stratification of high‐risk elderly adults may help target interventions and reduce readmissions.

Introduction Clinical practice guidelines facilitate optimal clinical practice. Point of care access, interpretation and application of such guidelines, however, is inconsistent. Informatics-based tools may help clinicians apply guidelines more consistently. We have developed a novel clinical decision support tool that presents guideline-relevant information and actionable items to clinicians at the point of care. We aim to test whether this tool improves the management of hyperlipidaemia, atrial fibrillation and heart failure by primary care clinicians. Methods/analysis Clinician care teams were cluster randomised to receive access to the clinical decision support tool or passive access to institutional guidelines on 16 May 2016. The trial began on 1 June 2016 when access to the tool was granted to the intervention clinicians. The trial will be run for 6 months to ensure a sufficient number of patient encounters to achieve 80% power to detect a twofold increase in the primary outcome at the 0.05 level of significance. The primary outcome measure will be the percentage of guideline-based recommendations acted on by clinicians for hyperlipidaemia, atrial fibrillation and heart failure. We hypothesise care teams with access to the clinical decision support tool will act on recommendations at a higher rate than care teams in the standard of care arm. Ethics and dissemination The Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board approved all study procedures. Informed consent was obtained from clinicians. A waiver of informed consent and of Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) authorisation for patients managed by clinicians in the study was granted. In addition to publication, results will be disseminated via meetings and newsletters. Trial registration number NCT02742545 .

Abstract Objectives To determine whether use of a patient portal during hospitalization is associated with improvement in hospital outcomes, 30-day readmissions, inpatient mortality, and 30-day mortality. Materials and Methods We performed a retrospective propensity score–matched study that included all adult patients admitted to Mayo Clinic Hospital in Jacksonville, Florida, from August 1, 2012, to July 31, 2014, who had signed up for a patient portal account prior to hospitalization (N = 7538). Results Out of the admitted patients with a portal account, 1566 (20.8%) accessed the portal while in the hospital. Compared to patients who did not access the portal, patients who accessed the portal were younger (58.8 years vs 62.3 years), had fewer elective admissions (54.2% vs 64.1%), were more frequently admitted to medical services (45.8% vs 35.2%), and were more likely to have liver disease (21.9% vs 12.9%) and higher disease severity scores (0.653 vs 0.456). After propensity score matching, there was no statistically significant difference between the 2 cohorts with respect to 30-day readmission (P = .13), inpatient mortality (P = .82), or 30-day mortality (P = .082). Conclusion Use of the patient portal in the inpatient setting may not improve hospital outcomes. Future research should examine the association of portal use with more immediate inpatient health outcomes such as patient experience, patient engagement, medication reconciliation, and prevention of adverse events.

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a progressive, fatal neurologic disorder with predictable challenges regarding disease progression and end-of-life care. These include need for respiratory and nutritional support. Little is known about how such choices impact end-of-life health service utilization for these patients. Using OptumLabs Data Warehouse, a large administrative claims database with more than 150 million privately insured, geographically diverse enrollees, we sought to explore outcomes associated with the use of enteral nutrition (EN). Patients were of age ≥18 years, with first ALS diagnosis during calendar years 2006-2012, and 6 months of continuous health plan coverage before first diagnosis. EN use was identified using procedure codes. Data were summarized descriptively. Among 1974 patients with ALS, mean age was 60.0 ± 12.5 years, 41.8% were women, and 9.7% demonstrated use of EN. Median time from ALS diagnosis to evidence of EN was 211 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 70-426). Those receiving EN had greater aggregate comorbidity (47% with Charlson-Deyo Comorbidity Index ≥ 3 vs only 27% in non-EN subset). In total, 38.1% of patients had at least 1 hospitalization, with median time to hospitalization of 162 days. Unfortunately, the EN group ended coverage a median of 155 days after EN started (IQR: 63.5-388), thereby limiting ability to capture outcomes. Although many ALS patients were identified, EN use was lower than expected, due to being earlier in disease trajectory and lost to follow-up with transition from private insurance. As such, databases exclusively including privately insured patients may be suboptimal for detecting late complications of protracted illnesses.