SurgiCal Obesity Treatment Study (SCOTS): protocol for a national prospective cohort study of patients undergoing bariatric surgery in Scotland.

Introduction The efficacy of bariatric surgery for large-scale, long-term weight loss is well established. However, many questions remain over the continual benefits and cost-effectiveness of that weight loss for overall health, particularly when accounting for potential complications and adverse events of surgery. Health research institutes in the UK and the USA have called for high-quality longitudinal cohort studies of patients undergoing bariatric surgery, assessing outcomes such as surgical complications, mortality, diabetes remission, microvascular complications, cardiovascular events, mental health, cost and healthcare use. Methods and analysis SurgiCal Obesity Treatment Study (SCOTS) is a national, prospective, observational, cohort study of patients undergoing primary bariatric surgical procedures in Scotland. This study aims to recruit 2000 patients and conduct a follow-up for 10 years postbariatric surgery using multiple data collection methods: surgeon-recorded data, electronic health record linkage, and patient-reported outcome measures. Outcomes measured will include: mortality, weight change, diabetes, surgical, cardiovascular, cancer, behavioural, reproductive/urological and nutritional variables. Healthcare utilisation and economic productivity will be collected to inform cost-effectiveness analysis. Ethics and dissemination The study has received a favourable ethical opinion from the West of Scotland Research Ethics committee. All publications arising from this cohort study will be published in open-access peer-reviewed journals. All SCOTS investigators (all members of the research team at every recruiting site) will have the ability to propose research suggestions and potential publications using SCOTS data; a publications committee will approve all requests for use of SCOTS data and propose writing committees and timelines. Lay-person summaries of all research findings will be published simultaneously on the SCOTS website (http://www.scotsurgeystudy.org.uk)

Use of electronic medical records and biomarkers to manage risk and resource efficiencies

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

An electronic family health history tool to identify and manage patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BackgroundColorectal cancer is the fourth most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States. Approximately 3-10% of the population has an increased risk for colorectal cancer due to family history and warrants more frequent or intensive screening. Yet, < 50% of that high-risk population receives guideline-concordant care. Systematic collection of family health history and decision support may improve guideline-concordant screening for patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer. We seek to test the effectiveness of a web-based, systematic family health history collection tool and decision support platform (MeTree) to improve risk assessment and appropriate management of colorectal cancer risk among patients in the Department of Veterans Affairs primary care practices.MethodsIn this ongoing randomized controlled trial, primary care providers at the Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System and the Madison VA Medical Center are randomized to immediate intervention or wait-list control. Veterans are eligible if assigned to enrolled providers, have an upcoming primary care appointment, and have no conditions that would place them at increased risk for colorectal cancer (such as personal history, adenomatous polyps, or inflammatory bowel disease). Those with a recent lower endoscopy (e.g. colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy) are excluded. Immediate intervention patients put their family health history information into a web-based platform, MeTree, which provides both patient- and provider-facing decision support reports. Wait-list control patients access MeTree 12 months post-consent. The primary outcome is the risk-concordant colorectal cancer screening referral rate obtained via chart review. Secondary outcomes include patient completion of risk management recommendations (e.g. colonoscopy) and referral for genetic consultation. We will also conduct an economic analysis and an assessment of providers' experience with MeTree clinical decision support recommendations to inform future implementation efforts if the intervention is found to be effective.DiscussionThis trial will assess the feasibility and effectiveness of patient-collected family health history linked to decision support to promote risk-appropriate screening in a large healthcare system such as the Department of Veterans Affairs.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02247336 . Registered on 25 September 2014

Developing clinical decision tools to implement chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care: the BETTER 2 program (building on existing tools to improve chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care).

BackgroundThe Building on Existing Tools to Improve Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Family Practice (BETTER) trial demonstrated the effectiveness of an approach to chronic disease prevention and screening (CDPS) through a new skilled role of a 'prevention practitioner'(PP). The PP has appointments with patients 40-65 years of age that focus on primary prevention activities and screening of cancer (breast, colorectal, cervical), diabetes and cardiovascular disease and associated lifestyle factors. There are numerous and occasionally conflicting evidence-based guidelines for CDPS, and the majority of these guidelines are focused on specific diseases or conditions; however, primary care providers often attend to patients with multiple conditions. To ensure that high-level evidence guidelines were used, existing clinical practice guidelines and tools were reviewed and integrated into blended BETTER tool kits. Building on the results of the BETTER trial, the BETTER tools were updated for implementation of the BETTER 2 program into participating urban, rural and remote communities across Canada.MethodsA clinical working group consisting of PPs, clinicians and researchers with support from the Centre for Effective Practice reviewed the literature to update, revise and adapt the integrated evidence algorithms and tool kits used in the BETTER trial. These resources are nuanced, based on individual patient risk, values and preferences and are designed to facilitate decision-making between providers across the target diseases and lifestyle factors included in the BETTER 2 program. Using the updated BETTER 2 toolkit, clinicians 1) determine which CDPS actions patients are eligible to receive and 2) develop individualized 'prevention prescriptions' with patients through shared decision-making and motivational interviewing.ResultsThe tools identify the patients' risks and eligible primary CDPS activities: the patient survey captures the patient's health history; the prevention visit form and integrated CDPS care map identify eligible CDPS activities and facilitate decisions when certain conditions are met; and the 'bubble diagram' and 'prevention prescription' promote shared decision-making.ConclusionThe integrated clinical decision-making tools of BETTER 2 provide resources for clinicians and policymakers that address patients' complex care needs beyond single disease approaches and can be adapted to facilitate CDPS in the urban, rural and remote clinical setting.Trial registrationThe registration number of the original RCT BETTER trial was ISRCTN07170460

Complex Care Management Program Overview - Technology

This report provides an overview of technology based complex care management programs, including:Cook County Health and Hospitals System - Computer Assisted Quality of Life and Symptom Assessment of Complex PatientsUniversity of Missouri - TigerPlaceWenatchee Valley Medical Center - Health Buddy -- Patient Telemonitoring Progra

Accuracy of medical billing data against the electronic health record in the measurement of colorectal cancer screening rates.

ObjectiveMedical billing data are an attractive source of secondary analysis because of their ease of use and potential to answer population-health questions with statistical power. Although these datasets have known susceptibilities to biases, the degree to which they can distort the assessment of quality measures such as colorectal cancer screening rates are not widely appreciated, nor are their causes and possible solutions.MethodsUsing a billing code database derived from our institution's electronic health records, we estimated the colorectal cancer screening rate of average-risk patients aged 50-74 years seen in primary care or gastroenterology clinic in 2016-2017. 200 records (150 unscreened, 50 screened) were sampled to quantify the accuracy against manual review.ResultsOut of 4611 patients, an analysis of billing data suggested a 61% screening rate, an estimate that matches the estimate by the Centers for Disease Control. Manual review revealed a positive predictive value of 96% (86%-100%), negative predictive value of 21% (15%-29%) and a corrected screening rate of 85% (81%-90%). Most false negatives occurred due to examinations performed outside the scope of the database-both within and outside of our institution-but 21% of false negatives fell within the database's scope. False positives occurred due to incomplete examinations and inadequate bowel preparation. Reasons for screening failure include ordered but incomplete examinations (48%), lack of or incorrect documentation by primary care (29%) including incorrect screening intervals (13%) and patients declining screening (13%).ConclusionsBilling databases are prone to substantial bias that may go undetected even in the presence of confirmatory external estimates. Caution is recommended when performing population-level inference from these data. We propose several solutions to improve the use of these data for the assessment of healthcare quality

EHR-Based Care Coordination Performance Measures in Ambulatory Care

Describes electronic health record-based measures for assessing coordination in referrals, including information communicated with referral, communication to patient, and specialist report to primary care physician. Offers preliminary evaluation findings

Communication Bandwidth Considerations for Exploration Medical Care During Space Missions

Destinations beyond low Earth orbit, especially Mars, have several important constraints, including limited resupply, limited to no possibility of medical evacuation, and delayed communication with ground support teams. Therefore, medical care is driven towards greater autonomy and necessitates a medical system that supports this paradigm, including the potential for high medical data transfer rates in order to share medical information and coordinate care with the ground in an intermittent fashion as communication allows. The medical data transfer needs for a Martian exploration mission were estimated by defining two medical scenarios that would require high data rate communications between the spacecraft and Earth. One medical scenario involves a case of hydronephrosis (outflow obstruction of the kidney) that evolves into pyelonephritis (kidney infection), then urosepsis (systemic infection originating from the kidney), due to obstruction by a kidney stone. A second medical scenario involved the death of a crewmembers child back on Earth that requires behavioral health care. For each of these scenarios, a data communications timeline was created following the medical care described by the scenario. From these timelines, total medical data transfers and burst transmission rates were estimated. Total data transferred from the vehicle-to-ground were estimated to be 94 gigabytes (GB) and 835 GB for the hydronephrosis and behavioral health scenarios, respectively. Data burst rates were estimated to be 7.7 megabytes per second (MB/s) and 15 MB/s for the hydronephrosis and behavioral health scenarios, respectively. Even though any crewed Mars mission should be capable of functioning autonomously, as long as the possibility of communication between Earth and Mars exists, Earth-based subject matter experts will be relied upon to augment mission medical capability. Therefore, setting an upper boundary limit for medical communication rates can help factor medical system needs into total vehicle communication requirements