Citations

Bulk messaging is an important population health tool used to engage patients in preventive care and chronic disease management, yet little is known about optimal formatting of the communication. One factor to consider is whether the signatory of the patient-facing communication is the patient’s own Primary Care Provider (PCP) or a generic care team signature. In this quasi-randomized, non-blinded study we compared identical generic bulk outreach messages directed toward patients with an upcoming appointment and invited them to self-schedule a Medicare Annual wellness visit prior to their scheduled PCP appointment. Twenty-eight PCPs (1582 patients) were assigned to the PCP signature group, and 22 PCPs (1289 patients) to the care team signature group. The primary outcome was patient engagement, defined as a reply to the outreach message. Demographic, utilization, and rates of reading the bulk outreach message were similar between groups. Reply rates were significantly higher in the PCP signature group compared with the care team signature group (39.2% vs. 25.2%; odds ratio 1.86; P < 0.001). These findings suggest that using a patient’s own PCP signature in bulk outreach can meaningfully increase engagement, likely leveraging the trust inherent in established PCP–patient relationships. These results may inform health system leaders and population health teams seeking to optimize digital outreach strategies.

AbstractElectronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) can improve care for people with cancer, but effectiveness hinges on well-supported integration in clinical settings.We evaluated clinician use of specific clinical decision support (CDS) tools in the electronic health record (EHR) designed to facilitate timely, clinically appropriate responses to ePROM scores for six symptoms commonly experienced by cancer patients.The parent pragmatic trial, which took place at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota, United States) and its affiliated community health care system between March 2019 and January 2023, evaluated the population-level effectiveness and implementation of an ePROM surveillance and EHR-facilitated collaborative care symptom management intervention. The present evaluation used a case study approach with four data sources: (1) clinician interactions with CDS tools abstracted from the EHR; (2) clinician notes identified with an institution-specific textual search tool; (3) qualitative interviews and group discussions with care teams; and (4) administrative records reviewed to identify training and outreach to care teams.EHR metrics showed very low adoption of CDS tools including alerts and symptom-specific order sets, despite educational outreach and information technology support provided to clinical care teams. Qualitative findings revealed that CDS use was not easy to integrate into busy clinical workflows and highlighted clinician perceptions that the collaborative care intervention provided additional patient support that reduced clinicians' need to utilize CDS tools. They also highlight the importance of contextual factors, including institutional priorities and EHR changes.This pragmatic clinical trial case study found limited adoption of EHR CDS tools that had been developed to increase clinicians' awareness of and responses to ePROM data. Findings suggest the need to align clinician and organizational implementation strategies, simplify CDS tools to fit practice expectations, and identify and address contextual factors that could undercut strategies like education and peer support. This may be especially important for teams who aim to iteratively evaluate and refine CDS and implementation strategies for multicomponent interventions or introduce new strategies that are responsive to barriers while maintaining scalability.

AbstractThe Enhanced EHR-facilitated Cancer Symptom Control (E2C2) Trial is a pragmatic trial testing a collaborative care approach for managing common cancer symptoms. There were challenges in identifying cancer site and metastatic status.This study compares three different approaches to determine cancer site and six strategies for identifying the presence of metastasis using EHR and cancer registry data.The E2C2 cohort included 50,559 patients seen in the medical oncology clinics of a large health system. SPPADE symptoms were assessed with 0 to 10 numeric rating scales (NRS). A multistep process was used to develop three approaches for representing cancer site: the single most prevalent International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision (ICD-10) code, the two most prevalent codes, and any diagnostic code. Six approaches for identifying metastatic disease were compared: ICD-10 codes, natural language processing (NLP), cancer registry, medications typically prescribed for incurable disease, treatment plan, and evaluation for phase 1 trials.The approach counting the two most prevalent ICD-10 cancer site diagnoses per patient detected a median of 92% of the cases identified by counting all cancer site diagnoses, whereas the approach counting only the single most prevalent cancer site diagnosis identified a median of 65%. However, agreement among the three approaches was very good (kappa > 0.80) for most cancer sites. ICD and NLP methods could be applied to the entire cohort and had the highest agreement (kappa = 0.53) for identifying metastasis. Cancer registry data was available for less than half of the patients.Identification of cancer site and metastatic disease using EHR data was feasible in this large and diverse cohort of patients with common cancer symptoms. The methods were pragmatic and may be acceptable for covariates, but likely require refinement for key dependent and independent variables.