Opportunity lost: End‐of‐life discussions in cancer patients who die in the hospital

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/98330/1/jhm1989.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/98330/2/jhm1989-sup-0001-SuppInfo.pd

Evaluating the impact of patients' online access to doctors' visit notes: designing and executing the OpenNotes project

Background: Providers and policymakers are pursuing strategies to increase patient engagement in health care. Increasingly, online sections of medical records are viewable by patients though seldom are clinicians' visit notes included. We designed a one-year multi-site trial of online patient accessible office visit notes, OpenNotes. We hypothesized that patients and primary care physicians (PCPs) would want it to continue and that OpenNotes would not lead to significant disruptions to doctors' practices. Methods/Design: Using a mixed methods approach, we designed a quasi-experimental study in 3 diverse healthcare systems in Boston, Pennsylvania, and Seattle. Two sites had existing patient internet portals; the third used an experimental portal. We targeted 3 key areas where we hypothesized the greatest impacts: beliefs and attitudes about OpenNotes, use of the patient internet portals, and patient-doctor communication. PCPs in the 3 sites were invited to participate in the intervention. Patients who were registered portal users of participating PCPs were given access to their PCPs' visit notes for one year. PCPs who declined participation in the intervention and their patients served as the comparison groups for the study. We applied the RE-AIM framework to our design in order to capture as comprehensive a picture as possible of the impact of OpenNotes. We developed pre- and post-intervention surveys for online administration addressing attitudes and experiences based on interviews and focus groups with patients and doctors. In addition, we tracked use of the internet portals before and during the intervention. Results: PCP participation varied from 19% to 87% across the 3 sites; a total of 114 PCPs enrolled in the intervention with their 22,000 patients who were registered portal users. Approximately 40% of intervention and non-intervention patients at the 3 sites responded to the online survey, yielding a total of approximately 38,000 patient surveys. Discussion: Many primary care physicians were willing to participate in this "real world" experiment testing the impact of OpenNotes on their patients and their practices. Results from this trial will inform providers, policy makers, and patients who contemplate such changes at a time of exploding interest in transparency, patient safety, and improving the quality of care

Pathways to breast cancer screening artificial intelligence algorithm validation

As more artificial intelligence (AI)-enhanced mammography screening tools enter the clinical market, greater focus will be placed on external validation in diverse patient populations. In this viewpoint, we outline lessons learned from prior efforts in this field, the need to validate algorithms on newer screening technologies and diverse patient populations, and conclude by discussing the need for a framework for continuous monitoring and recalibration of these AI tools. Sufficient validation and continuous monitoring of emerging AI tools for breast cancer screening will require greater stakeholder engagement and the creation of shared policies and guidelines

Reactions to uncertainty and the accuracy of diagnostic mammography.

BackgroundReactions to uncertainty in clinical medicine can affect decision making.ObjectiveTo assess the extent to which radiologists' reactions to uncertainty influence diagnostic mammography interpretation.DesignCross-sectional responses to a mailed survey assessed reactions to uncertainty using a well-validated instrument. Responses were linked to radiologists' diagnostic mammography interpretive performance obtained from three regional mammography registries.ParticipantsOne hundred thirty-two radiologists from New Hampshire, Colorado, and Washington.MeasurementMean scores and either standard errors or confidence intervals were used to assess physicians' reactions to uncertainty. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit via generalized estimating equations to assess the impact of uncertainty on diagnostic mammography interpretive performance while adjusting for potential confounders.ResultsWhen examining radiologists' interpretation of additional diagnostic mammograms (those after screening mammograms that detected abnormalities), a 5-point increase in the reactions to uncertainty score was associated with a 17% higher odds of having a positive mammogram given cancer was diagnosed during follow-up (sensitivity), a 6% lower odds of a negative mammogram given no cancer (specificity), a 4% lower odds (not significant) of a cancer diagnosis given a positive mammogram (positive predictive value [PPV]), and a 5% higher odds of having a positive mammogram (abnormal interpretation).ConclusionMammograms interpreted by radiologists who have more discomfort with uncertainty have higher likelihood of being recalled

Surgical implications and variability in the use of the flat epithelial atypia diagnosis on breast biopsy specimens.

OBJECTIVES: Flat epithelial atypia (FEA) is a relatively new diagnostic term with uncertain clinical significance for surgical management. Any implied risk of invasive breast cancer associated with FEA is contingent upon diagnostic reproducibility, yet little is known regarding its use. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pathologists in the Breast Pathology Study interpreted one of four 60-case test sets, one slide per case, constructed from 240 breast biopsy specimens. An electronic data form with standardized diagnostic categories was used; participants were instructed to indicate all diagnoses present. We assessed participants\u27 use of FEA as a diagnostic term within: 1) each test set; 2) 72 cases classified by reference as benign without FEA; and 3) six cases classified by reference as FEA. 115 pathologists participated, providing 6900 total independent assessments. RESULTS: Notation of FEA ranged from 0% to 35% of the cases interpreted, with most pathologists noting FEA on 4 or more test cases. At least one participant noted FEA in 34 of the 72 benign non-FEA cases. For the 6 reference FEA cases, participant agreement with the case reference FEA diagnosis ranged from 17% to 52%; diagnoses noted by participating pathologists for these FEA cases included columnar cell hyperplasia, usual ductal hyperplasia, atypical lobular hyperplasia, and atypical ductal hyperplasia. CONCLUSIONS: We observed wide variation in the diagnosis of FEA among U.S. pathologists. This suggests that perceptions of diagnostic criteria and any implied risk associated with FEA may also vary. Surgical excision following a core biopsy diagnosis of FEA should be reconsidered and studied further

Characteristics associated with requests by pathologists for second opinions on breast biopsies.

AIMS: Second opinions in pathology improve patient safety by reducing diagnostic errors, leading to more appropriate clinical treatment decisions. Little objective data are available regarding the factors triggering a request for second opinion despite second opinion consultations being part of the diagnostic system of pathology. Therefore we sought to assess breast biopsy cases and interpreting pathologists characteristics associated with second opinion requests. METHODS: Collected pathologist surveys and their interpretations of 60 test set cases were used to explore the relationships between case characteristics, pathologist characteristics and case perceptions, and requests for second opinions. Data were evaluated by logistic regression and generalised estimating equations. RESULTS: 115 pathologists provided 6900 assessments; pathologists requested second opinions on 70% (4827/6900) of their assessments 36% (1731/4827) of these would not have been required by policy. All associations between case characteristics and requesting second opinions were statistically significant, including diagnostic category, breast density, biopsy type, and number of diagnoses noted per case. Exclusive of institutional policies, pathologists wanted second opinions most frequently for atypia (66%) and least frequently for invasive cancer (20%). Second opinion rates were higher when the pathologist had lower assessment confidence, in cases with higher perceived difficulty, and cases with borderline diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: Pathologists request second opinions for challenging cases, particularly those with atypia, high breast density, core needle biopsies, or many co-existing diagnoses. Further studies should evaluate whether the case characteristics identified in this study could be used as clinical criteria to prompt system-level strategies for mandating second opinions

Specificity of Clinical Breast Examination in Community Practice

BACKGROUND: Millions of women receive clinical breast examination (CBE) each year, as either a breast cancer screening test or a diagnostic test for breast symptoms. While screening CBE had moderately high specificity (∼94%) in clinical trials, community clinicians may be comparatively inexperienced and may conduct relatively brief examinations, resulting in even higher specificity but lower sensitivity. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the specificity of screening and diagnostic CBE in clinical practice and identify patient factors associated with specificity. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SUBJECTS: Breast-cancer-free female health plan enrollees in 5 states (WA, OR, CA, MA, and MN) who received CBE (N = 1,484). MEASUREMENTS: Medical charts were abstracted to ascertain breast cancer risk factors, examination purpose (screening vs diagnostic), and results (true-negative vs false-positive). Women were considered “average-risk” if they had neither a family history of breast cancer nor a prior breast biopsy and “increased-risk” otherwise. RESULTS: Among average- and increased-risk women, respectively, the specificity (true-negative proportion) of screening CBE was 99.4% [95% confidence interval (CI): 98.8–99.7%] and 97.1% (95% CI: 95.7–98.0%), and the specificity of diagnostic CBE was 68.7% (95% CI: 59.7–76.5%) and 57.1% (95% CI: 51.1–63.0%). The odds of a true-negative screening CBE (specificity) were significantly lower among women at increased risk of breast cancer (adjusted odds ratio 0.21; 95% CI: 0.10–0.46). CONCLUSIONS: Screening CBE likely has higher specificity among community clinicians compared to examiners in clinical trials of breast cancer screening, even among women at increased breast cancer risk. Highly specific examinations, however, may have relatively low sensitivity for breast cancer. Diagnostic CBE, meanwhile, is relatively nonspecific