Effect of a Clinical Evidence Technology on Patient Skin Disease Outcomes in Primary Care: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial

Objective: Providers’ use of clinical evidence technologies (CETs) improves their diagnosis and treatment decisions. Despite these benefits, few studies have evaluated the impact of CETs on patient outcomes. Investigators evaluated the effect of one CET, VisualDx, on skin problem outcomes in primary care. Methods: The cluster-randomized controlled pragmatic trial was set in outpatient clinics at an academic medical center in the Northeast. Participants were Primary Care Providers (PCPs) and adult patients seen for skin problems. The intervention was VisualDx as used by PCPs. Outcomes were patient-reported time from index clinic visit to problem resolution, and the number of follow-up visits to any provider for the same problem. PCPs assigned to intervention agreed to use VisualDx as their primary evidence source for skin problems. Control group PCPs agreed not to use VisualDx. Investigators collected outcome data from patients by phone at 30 day intervals. Cox proportional hazards models assessed time to resolution. Wilcoxon-rank sum tests and logistic regression compared return appointments. Results: Thirty-two PCPs and 433 patients participated. In proportional hazards modelling adjusted for provider clusters, the days from index visit to skin problem resolution were similar in both groups (HR 0.92; CI 0.70, 1.21 P= 0.54). Patient follow-up appointments did not differ significantly between groups (OR 1.26 95% CI 0.94, 1.70 P =0.29). Conclusion: This pragmatic trial tested the effectiveness of VisualDx on patient reported skin disease outcomes in a generalizable clinical setting. There was no difference in skin problem resolution or number of follow-up visits when PCPs used VisualDx

Barriers and Facilitators to Use of a Clinical Evidence Technology for Management of Skin Problems in Primary Care: Insights from Mixed Methods

Background: A previous cluster-randomized controlled trial tested the effectiveness of a clinical evidence technology (CET), VisualDx, for skin problems seen by Primary Care Providers (PCPs). Based on patient report, there was no effect on time to problem resolution or return appointments. Objective: To explain, from the provider perspective, why the CET did not make a difference in the clinical trial and to identify barriers and facilitators to use. Methods: Mixed methods study design. Providers from both arms completed a survey about their use of VisualDx and information-seeking during and after the trial. Active arm providers participated in interviews to explore their opinions and experiences using VisualDx. Behavioral steps of the evidence-based medicine (EBM) paradigm informed the 6 step model. Results: PCPs found VisualDx easy to use (median 3 on a 1-4 scale), but found it only somewhat useful (median 2 on a 1-4 scale). PCPs with fewer years in practice used it more often and found it easier to use. Interviews identified facilitators and barriers to using VisualDx. Facilitators included diagnostic uncertainty, positive attitude, easy access, utility for diagnosis and therapy decisions, and utility for patient communication. Barriers included confidence in dermatology, preference for other sources, interface difficulty, and retrieval of irrelevant diagnoses and images. Some PCPs reported positive impacts on patient treatment and fewer referrals; others saw no difference. PCPs found VisualDx easy to access, but some found the interface difficult to use. They found it useful and relevant at times, but also frustrating and time-consuming. They used other sources in addition to, or instead of, VisualDx. Conclusion: PCPs did not perceive VisualDx as “useful” often enough for them to use it frequently or exclusively, thereby reducing the likelihood of its making a difference in patient-level outcomes such as problem resolution and return appointments

Barriers and Facilitators to Use of a Clinical Evidence Technology in the Management of Skin Problems in Primary Care: Insights from Mixed Methods

Objective: Few studies have examined the impact of a single clinical evidence technology (CET) on provider practice or patient outcomes from the provider’s perspective. A previous cluster-randomized controlled trial with patient-reported data tested the effectiveness of a CET (i.e., VisualDx) in improving skin problem outcomes but found no significant effect. The objectives of this follow-up study were to identify barriers and facilitators to the use of the CET from the perspective of primary care providers (PCPs) and to identify reasons why the CET did not affect outcomes in the trial. Methods: Using a convergent mixed methods design, PCPs completed a post-trial survey and participated in interviews about using the CET for the management of patients’ skin problems. Data from both methods were integrated. Results: PCPs found the CET somewhat easy to use but only occasionally useful. Less experienced PCPs used the CET more frequently. Data from interviews revealed barriers and facilitators at four steps of evidence-based practice: clinical question recognition, information acquisition, appraisal of relevance, and application with patients. Facilitators included uncertainty in dermatology, intention for use, convenience of access, diagnosis and treatment support, and patient communication. Barriers included confidence in dermatology, preference for other sources, interface difficulties, presence of irrelevant information, and lack of decision impact. Conclusion: PCPs found the CET useful for diagnosis, treatment support, and patient communication. However, the barriers of interface difficulties, irrelevant search results, and preferred use of other sources limited its positive impact on patient skin problem management

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Strategies to Implement in Cardiogenic Shock Management

The Surviving Sepsis Guidelines can serve as a structure to help educate and create a set of recommendations on how to care for patients through this complicated pathway of shock. Designing a cardiogenic shock bundle could reduce the variability of care and possibly improve survival. Also, a more standard protocol would allow a review of the outcomes and a system to change practice nationally when new data or technology becomes available. This could create a continuous quality improvement cycle. Creating a “Surviving Cardiogenic Shock” system could help provide awareness for recognition of cardiogenic shock and advanced management alternatives needed at level one and two hospitals. The creation of cardiogenic shock systems of care would support smaller hospitals with a Hub and Spoke structure. Cardiogenic shock is not septic shock, but those in cardiology and cardiac critical care can and should take lessons from the Surviving Sepsis Campaign

A Large, Severely Obstructive, Calcified Mass in the Midsegment of Aortic Arch.

Severe obstructive lesions in the aortic arch are rare. Crossing such lesions poses additional challenges in patients who require cardiac catheterizations. Oftentimes, specialized catheters are required to negotiate the lesion. Herein, we are reporting a series of case images that illustrate a severe lesion in the aortic arch during coronary angiography

Thomas W. Burke, MD, Oral History Interview, March 11, 2014

Major Topics Covered: Personal and educational background Military service A portrait of a clinician with an “entrepreneurial spirit” Research: combination therapies for gynecologic cancershttps://openworks.mdanderson.org/mchv_interviewsessions/1218/thumbnail.jp

Thomas W. Burke, MD, Oral History Interview, March 18, 2014

Major Topics Covered: Gynecologic Oncology at MD Anderson and multi-disciplinary care Development of multi-disciplinary care at MD Anderson Roles as Physician-in-Chief Developing MD Anderson support serviceshttps://openworks.mdanderson.org/mchv_interviewsessions/1219/thumbnail.jp

Thomas W. Burke, MD, Oral History Interview, April 29, 2014

Major Topics Covered: Developing networks to serve MD Anderson MD Anderson culture: changes and continuities amid growth MD Anderson’s financial challenges and strategies to navigate themhttps://openworks.mdanderson.org/mchv_interviewsessions/1220/thumbnail.jp