Intervention Protocol for Automated Point-of-Care Surveillance of Outpatient Delays in Cancer Diagnosis

NCT01710293 | Withdrawn DMC

• 2 other identifiers: CRE 12-033CIRB 15-07
• Study Type: interventional
• Target: N/A
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 5

Brief Summary

Many missed and delayed cancer diagnoses result from breakdowns in communication and coordination of abnormal findings suspicious for cancer, which often first emerge in the primary care setting. Delays in the follow-up of abnormal test results persist despite the reliable delivery of test results through the electronic health record. This intervention is the final study in a three-phase project that will develop and test an innovative automated surveillance intervention to improve timely diagnosis and follow-up of five common cancers in primary care practice. The investigators hypothesize that the median time in days from diagnostic clue to follow-up action (e.g. time to colonoscopy examination after am abnormal colon-related test) will be significantly less in the intervention arm than in usual care. The investigators also hypothesize that the proportion of patients receiving appropriate and timely follow-up care will be significantly higher in the intervention arm than in usual care.

Conditions

Lung Cancer; Bladder Cancer; Colorectal Cancer; Hepatocellular Carcinoma; Breast Cancer

Keywords

Electronic Health Records; Diagnostic Delay; Triggers

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (1)

• Median Time from Initial Follow-up Delay to Follow-up Action

  The investigators will conduct chart reviews of patients shown by our automated surveillance system to have not received appropriate follow-up care in both intervention and control groups at least 6 months after the first documentation of a diagnostic clue (e.g., initial abnormal chest X-ray). Chart review will be used to quantify time in days from documentation of the clinical clue to the time when follow-up action on that clue was initiated.

  1 year

Study Arms (2)

Communication of Patients Lost to Follow-up to Providers

EXPERIMENTAL

This intervention will consist of two related, continuous steps over at least a 12-month period. In the first step, the investigators will query the VA's Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW, a repository of near real-time patient data from all VA medical centers) weekly to identify possible lost to follow-up events in a pre-specified time period and for a random sample of about half of the providers at the investigators' study sites. These identified patient charts will be reviewed by Facility Recipients/Cancer Trackers at each site who will then communicate patients truly found to be lost to follow-up to the appropriate provider/care team.

Behavioral: Communication of Patients Lost to Follow-up to Providers

Usual Care

NO INTERVENTION

In the usual care group, providers will continue to use the existing notification system to receive abnormal test results in accordance with institutional norms, policies, and procedures. There are no formal patient-tracking programs currently at our study sites for all abnormal test results. The investigators will apply our computerized surveillance tools in the usual care arm only when the investigators are ready to conduct the final chart reviews on intervention patients and identify these patients in similar time periods as in the intervention arm. If persistent delays are found, the investigators will inform the patients' primary care providers.

Interventions

Communication of Patients Lost to Follow-up to Providers BEHAVIORAL

The investigators will query the VA's database weekly to identify possible lost to follow-up events for a random sample of about half of the providers at our study sites. The queries will use the trigger criteria developed in our previous work for colorectal cancer, lung cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, breast cancer, and bladder cancer. The list of trigger positive patients will be transmitted to a facility-level recipient who will either disseminate the information to existing facility individual cancer care coordinators/trackers or will review the charts of the "triggered" patients in order to determine whether these patients have been truly lost to follow-up or not. If patients are found to be lost to follow-up, the Facility Recipient or cancer care coordinator/tracker will communicate the need for follow-up to the PACT or primary care provider, using secure emails, phone calls, or in person, depending on which method of communication they deem most appropriate and effective.

Communication of Patients Lost to Follow-up to Providers

Eligibility Criteria

• Age: 21 Years+
• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: No
• Age Groups: Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

You may qualify if:

• Patient charts: Medical charts of Veteran patients who receive care from participating VA facility (Madison VAH, Jesse Brown VAMC, Hines VAH, Michael E. DeBakey VAMC, and Minneapolis VAMC) providers during the one year study period (tentatively October 2016-October 2017) and who have potential delays in diagnostic evaluation for lung, colorectal, liver, bladder, or breast cancer will be reviewed as part of the study.
• Providers: Providers who have seen primary care outpatients in any of the participating facilities or their outpatient clinics within the year-long study period.

You may not qualify if:

• Patient Charts: Medical charts of patients who are not receiving care from participating facility providers or charts of patients who do not have potential follow-up delays for lung, colorectal, liver, bladder, or breast cancer in the time period of interest.
• Providers: Providers who have not seen primary care outpatients in any of the participating facilities or their outpatient clinics within the time period of interest.

Sponsors & Collaborators

• VA Office of Research and Development: lead

Study Sites (5)

Jesse Brown VA Medical Center, Chicago, IL

Chicago, Illinois, 60612, United States

Location

Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital, Hines, IL

Hines, Illinois, 60141-5000, United States

Location

Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, MN

Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55417, United States

Location

Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, TX

Houston, Texas, 77030, United States

Location

William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, Madison, WI

Madison, Wisconsin, 53705, United States

Location

Related Publications (12)

• Murphy DR, Meyer AN, Russo E, Sittig DF, Wei L, Singh H. The Burden of Inbox Notifications in Commercial Electronic Health Records. JAMA Intern Med. 2016 Apr;176(4):559-60. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.0209. No abstract available.

  PMID: 26974737 BACKGROUND

• Bhise V, Meyer AND, Singh H, Wei L, Russo E, Al-Mutairi A, Murphy DR. Errors in Diagnosis of Spinal Epidural Abscesses in the Era of Electronic Health Records. Am J Med. 2017 Aug;130(8):975-981. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2017.03.009. Epub 2017 Mar 31.

  PMID: 28366427 RESULT

• Murphy DR, Meyer AN, Vaghani V, Russo E, Sittig DF, Richards KA, Wei L, Wu L, Singh H. Application of Electronic Algorithms to Improve Diagnostic Evaluation for Bladder Cancer. Appl Clin Inform. 2017 Mar 22;8(1):279-290. doi: 10.4338/ACI-2016-10-RA-0176.

  PMID: 28326433 RESULT

• Meyer AND, Murphy DR, Al-Mutairi A, Sittig DF, Wei L, Russo E, Singh H. Electronic Detection of Delayed Test Result Follow-Up in Patients with Hypothyroidism. J Gen Intern Med. 2017 Jul;32(7):753-759. doi: 10.1007/s11606-017-3988-z. Epub 2017 Jan 30.

  PMID: 28138875 RESULT

• Menon S, Singh H, Giardina TD, Rayburn WL, Davis BP, Russo EM, Sittig DF. Safety huddles to proactively identify and address electronic health record safety. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017 Mar 1;24(2):261-267. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocw153.

  PMID: 28031286 RESULT

• Baldwin JL, Singh H, Sittig DF, Giardina TD. Patient portals and health apps: Pitfalls, promises, and what one might learn from the other. Healthc (Amst). 2017 Sep;5(3):81-85. doi: 10.1016/j.hjdsi.2016.08.004. Epub 2016 Oct 3.

  PMID: 27720139 RESULT

• Singh H, Graber ML, Hofer TP. Measures to Improve Diagnostic Safety in Clinical Practice. J Patient Saf. 2019 Dec;15(4):311-316. doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000338.

  PMID: 27768655 RESULT

• Singh H. Improving Diagnostic Safety in Primary Care by Unlocking Digital Data. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2017 Jan;43(1):29-31. doi: 10.1016/j.jcjq.2016.10.007. Epub 2016 Oct 14. No abstract available.

  PMID: 28334582 RESULT

• Giardina TD, Sarkar U, Gourley G, Modi V, Meyer AN, Singh H. Online public reactions to frequency of diagnostic errors in US outpatient care. Diagnosis (Berl). 2016 Mar;3(1):17-22. doi: 10.1515/dx-2015-0022. Epub 2016 Feb 19.

  PMID: 27347474 RESULT

• Singh H, Schiff GD, Graber ML, Onakpoya I, Thompson MJ. The global burden of diagnostic errors in primary care. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017 Jun;26(6):484-494. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2016-005401. Epub 2016 Aug 16.

  PMID: 27530239 RESULT

• Sittig DF, Wright A, Ash J, Singh H. New Unintended Adverse Consequences of Electronic Health Records. Yearb Med Inform. 2016 Nov 10;(1):7-12. doi: 10.15265/IY-2016-023.

  PMID: 27830226 RESULT

• Pfoh ER, Engineer L, Singh H, Hall LL, Fried ED, Berger Z, Wu AW. Informing the Design of a New Pragmatic Registry to Stimulate Near Miss Reporting in Ambulatory Care. J Patient Saf. 2021 Apr 1;17(3):e121-e127. doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000317.

  PMID: 28248748 RESULT

MeSH Terms

Conditions

Lung Neoplasms; Urinary Bladder Neoplasms; Colorectal Neoplasms; Carcinoma, Hepatocellular; Breast Neoplasms

Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Respiratory Tract Neoplasms; Thoracic Neoplasms; Neoplasms by Site; Neoplasms; Lung Diseases; Respiratory Tract Diseases; Urologic Neoplasms; Urogenital Neoplasms; Female Urogenital Diseases; Female Urogenital Diseases and Pregnancy Complications; Urogenital Diseases; Urinary Bladder Diseases; Urologic Diseases; Male Urogenital Diseases; Intestinal Neoplasms; Gastrointestinal Neoplasms; Digestive System Neoplasms; Digestive System Diseases; Gastrointestinal Diseases; Colonic Diseases; Intestinal Diseases; Rectal Diseases; Adenocarcinoma; Carcinoma; Neoplasms, Glandular and Epithelial; Neoplasms by Histologic Type; Liver Neoplasms; Liver Diseases; Breast Diseases; Skin Diseases; Skin and Connective Tissue Diseases

Study Officials

• Hardeep Singh, MD MPH BS

  Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, TX

  PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Study Design

• Study Type: interventional
• Phase: not applicable
• Allocation: RANDOMIZED
• Masking: SINGLE
• Who Masked: CARE PROVIDER
• Purpose: HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH
• Intervention Model: PARALLEL
• Sponsor Type: FED
• Responsible Party: SPONSOR

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: October 16, 2012
• First Posted: October 19, 2012
• Study Start: January 27, 2017
• Primary Completion: January 27, 2017
• Study Completion: January 27, 2017
• Last Updated: February 26, 2018

Record last verified: 2018-02

Data Sharing

• IPD Sharing: Will not share

Locations

US (5)