Do changes in health reveal the possibility of undiagnosed pancreatic cancer? Development of a risk-prediction model based on healthcare claims data.

Background and objectiveEarly detection methods for pancreatic cancer are lacking. We aimed to develop a prediction model for pancreatic cancer based on changes in health captured by healthcare claims data.MethodsWe conducted a case-control study on 29,646 Medicare-enrolled patients aged 68 years and above with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) reported to the Surveillance Epidemiology an End Results (SEER) tumor registries program in 2004-2011 and 88,938 age and sex-matched controls. We developed a prediction model using multivariable logistic regression on Medicare claims for 16 risk factors and pre-diagnostic symptoms of PDAC present within 15 months prior to PDAC diagnosis. Claims within 3 months of PDAC diagnosis were excluded in sensitivity analyses. We evaluated the discriminatory power of the model with the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) and performed cross-validation by bootstrapping.ResultsThe prediction model on all cases and controls reached AUC of 0.68. Excluding the final 3 months of claims lowered the AUC to 0.58. Among new-onset diabetes patients, the prediction model reached AUC of 0.73, which decreased to 0.63 when claims from the final 3 months were excluded. Performance measures of the prediction models was confirmed by internal validation using the bootstrap method.ConclusionModels based on healthcare claims for clinical risk factors, symptoms and signs of pancreatic cancer are limited in classifying those who go on to diagnosis of pancreatic cancer and those who do not, especially when excluding claims that immediately precede the diagnosis of PDAC

Quality Measures for the Diagnosis and Non-Operative Management of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome in Occupational Settings

Introduction: Providing higher quality medical care to workers with occupationally associated carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) may reduce disability, facilitate return to work, and lower the associated costs. Although many workers’ compensation systems have adopted treatment guidelines to reduce the overuse of unnecessary care, limited attention has been paid to ensuring that the care workers do receive is high quality. Further, guidelines are not designed to enable objective assessments of quality of care. This study sought to develop quality measures for the diagnostic evaluation and non-operative management of CTS, including managing occupational activities and functional limitations. Methods: Using a variation of the well-established RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, we developed draft quality measures using guidelines and literature reviews. Next, in a two-round modified-Delphi process, a multidisciplinary panel of 11 U.S. experts in CTS rated the measures on validity and feasibility. Results: Of 40 draft measures, experts rated 31 (78%) valid and feasible. Nine measures pertained to diagnostic evaluation, such as assessing symptoms, signs, and risk factors. Eleven pertain to non-operative treatments, such as the use of splints, steroid injections, and medications. Eleven others address assessing the association between symptoms and work, managing occupational activities, and accommodating functional limitations. Conclusions: These measures will complement existing treatment guidelines by enabling providers, payers, policymakers, and researchers to assess quality of care for CTS in an objective, structured manner. Given the characteristics of previous measures developed with these methods, greater adherence to these measures will probably lead to improved patient outcomes at a population level

Understanding Clinicians’ Decisions to Assume Prescriptions for Inherited Patients on Long-term Opioid Therapy: A Qualitative Study

ObjectiveGiven the changing political and social climate around opioids, we examined how clinicians in the outpatient setting made decisions about managing opioid prescriptions for new patients already on long-term opioid therapy.MethodsWe conducted in-depth interviews with 32 clinicians in Southern California who prescribed opioid medications in the outpatient setting for chronic pain. The study design, interview guides, and coding for this qualitative study were guided by constructivist grounded theory methodology.ResultsWe identified three approaches to assuming a new patient's opioid prescriptions. Staunch Opposers, mostly clinicians with specialized training in pain medicine, were averse to continuing opioid prescriptions for new patients and often screened outpatients seeking opioids. Cautious and Conflicted Prescribers were wary about prescribing opioids but were willing to refill prescriptions if they perceived the patient as trustworthy and the medication fell within their comfort zone. Clinicians in the first two groups felt resentful about other clinicians "dumping" patients on opioids on them. Rapport Builders, mostly primary care physicians, were the most willing to assume opioid prescriptions and were strategic in their approach to transitioning patients to safer doses.ConclusionsClinicians with the most training in pain management were the least willing to assume responsibility for opioid prescriptions for patients already on long-term opioid therapy. In contrast, primary care clinicians were the most willing to assume this responsibility. However, primary care clinicians face barriers to providing high-quality care for patients with complex pain conditions, such as short visit times and less specialized training

How Do Clinicians of Different Specialties Perceive and Use Opioid Risk Mitigation Strategies? A Qualitative Study

BackgroundIn response to the opioid crisis, states and health systems are encouraging clinicians to use risk mitigation strategies aimed at assessing a patient's risk for opioid misuse or abuse: opioid agreements, prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMPs), and urine drug tests (UDT). Objective: The objective of this qualitative study was to understand how clinicians perceived and used risk mitigation strategies for opioid abuse/misuse and identify barriers to implementation. Methods: We interviewed clinicians who prescribe opioid medications in the outpatient setting from 2016-2018 and analyzed the data using Constructivist Grounded Theory methodology. Results: We interviewed 21 primary care clinicians and 12 specialists. Nearly all clinicians reported using the PDMP. Some clinicians (adopters) found the opioid agreement and UDTs to be valuable, but most (non-adopters) did not. Adopters found the agreements and UDTs helpful in treating patients equitably, setting limits, and having objective evidence of misuse; protocols and workflows facilitated the use of the strategies. Non-adopters perceived the strategies as awkward, disruptive to the clinician-patient relationship, and introducing a power differential; they also cited lack of time and resources as barriers to use. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that clinicians in certain settings have found effective ways to implement and use the PDMP, opioid agreements, and UDT but that other clinicians are less comfortable with their use. Administrators and policymakers should ensure that the strategies are designed in a way that strengthens the clinician-patient relationship while maximizing safety for patients and that clinicians are adequately trained and supported when introducing the strategies