Joann L. Wagner

The Association Between Health Literacy and Cancer-Related Attitudes, Behaviors, and Knowledge

Using a multidimensional assessment of health literacy (the Cancer Message Literacy Test-Listening, the Cancer Message Literacy Test-Reading, and the Lipkus Numeracy Scale), the authors assessed a stratified random sample of 1013 insured adults (40–70 years of age). The authors explored whether low health literacy across all 3 domains (n =111) was associated with sets of variables likely to affect engagement in cancer prevention and screening activities: (a) attitudes and behaviors relating to health care encounters and providers, (b) attitudes toward cancer and health, (c) knowledge of cancer screening tests, and (d) attitudes toward health related media and actual media use. Adults with low health literacy were more likely to report avoiding doctors visits, to have more fatalistic attitudes toward cancer, to be less accurate in identifying the purpose of cancer screening tests, and more likely to avoid information about diseases they did not have. Compared with other participants, those with lower health literacy were more likely to say that they would seek information about cancer prevention or screening from a health care professional and less likely to turn to the Internet first for such information. Those with lower health literacy reported reading on fewer days and using the computer on fewer days than did other participants. The authors assessed the association of low health literacy with colorectal cancer screening in an age-appropriate subgroup for which colorectal cancer screening is recommended. In these insured subjects receiving care in integrated health care delivery systems, those with low health literacy were less likely to be up to date on screening for colorectal cancer, but the difference was not statistically significant.

Medication errors in the homes of children with chronic conditions

Background Children with chronic conditions often have complex medication regimens, usually administered at home by their parents. Objective To describe the types of medication errors in the homes of children with chronic conditions. Methods Our home visit methods include direct observation of administration, medication review and prescription dose checking. Parents of children with sickle cell disease and seizure disorders taking daily medications were recruited from paediatric subspecialty clinics from November 2007 to April 2009. Potential errors were reviewed by two physicians who made judgements about whether an error had occurred or not, and its severity. Results On 52 home visits, the authors reviewed 280 medications and found 61 medication errors (95% CI 46 to 123), including 31 with a potential to injure the child and 9 which did injure the child. Injuries often occurred when parents failed to fill prescriptions or to change doses due to communication problems, leading to further testing or continued pain, inflammation, seizures, vitamin deficiencies or other injuries. Errors not previously reported in the literature included communication failures between two parents at home leading to administration errors and difficulty preparing the medication for administration. 95% of parents not using support tools (eg, alarms, reminders) for medication use at home had an error compared to 44% of those using supports (χ2=13.9, p=0.0002). Conclusions Home visits detected previously undescribed types of outpatient errors which were common among children with sickle cell disease and seizure disorders. These should be targeted in future intervention development.

A critical review of methods to evaluate the impact of FDA regulatory actions

To conduct a synthesis of the literature on methods to evaluate the impacts of FDA regulatory actions and identify best practices for future evaluations.

Adult Willingness to Use Email and Social Media for Peer-to-Peer Cancer Screening Communication: Quantitative Interview Study

Background Adults over age 40 are increasing their use of email and social media, raising interest in use of peer-to-peer Internet-based messaging to promote cancer screening. Objective The objective of our study was to assess current practices and attitudes toward use of email and other e-communication for peer-to-peer dialogues on cancer screening. Methods We conducted in-person interviews with 438 insured adults ages 42-73 in Georgia, Hawaii, and Massachusetts. Participants reported on use of email and other e-communication including social media to discuss with peers routine health topics including breast and colorectal cancer (CRC). We ascertained willingness to share personal CRC screening experiences via conversation, postcard, email, or other e-communication. Health literacy scores were measured. Results Email had been used by one-third (33.8%, 148/438) to discuss routine health topics, by 14.6% (64/438) to discuss breast cancer screening, and by 12.6% (55/438) to discuss CRC screening. Other e-communication was used to discuss routine health topics (11.6%, 51/438), screening for breast cancer (3.9%, 17/438), and CRC (2.3%, 10/438). In the preceding week, 84.5% (370/438) of participants had used email, 55.9% (245/438) had used e-communication of some type; 44.3% (194/438) text, 32.9% (144/438) Facebook, 12.3% (54/438) instant message, 7.1% (31/438) video chat, and 4.8% (21/438) Twitter. Many participants were willing to share their CRC screening experiences via email (32.4%, 142/438 might be willing; 36.3%, 159/438 very willing) and via other e-communication (15.8%, 69/438 might be willing; 14.4%, 63/438 very willing). Individuals willing to send CRC screening emails scored significantly higher on tests of health literacy compared to those willing to send only postcards (P<.001). Conclusions Many adults are willing to use email and e-communication to promote cancer screening to peers. Optimal approaches for encouraging peer-to-peer transmission of accurate and appropriate cancer screening messages must be studied.

Multisite parent-centered risk assessment to reduce pediatric oral chemotherapy errors.

PURPOSE Observational studies describe high rates of errors in home oral chemotherapy use in children. In hospitals, proactive risk assessment methods help front-line health care workers develop error prevention strategies. Our objective was to engage parents of children with cancer in a multisite study using proactive risk assessment methods to identify how errors occur at home and propose risk reduction strategies. METHODS We recruited parents from three outpatient pediatric oncology clinics in the northeast and southeast United States to participate in failure mode and effects analyses (FMEA). An FMEA is a systematic team-based proactive risk assessment approach in understanding ways a process can fail and develop prevention strategies. Steps included diagram the process, brainstorm and prioritize failure modes (places where things go wrong), and propose risk reduction strategies. We focused on home oral chemotherapy administration after a change in dose because prior studies identified this area as high risk. RESULTS Parent teams consisted of four parents at two of the sites and 10 at the third. Parents developed a 13-step process map, with two to 19 failure modes per step. The highest priority failure modes included miscommunication when receiving instructions from the clinician (caused by conflicting instructions or parent lapses) and unsafe chemotherapy handling at home. Recommended risk assessment strategies included novel uses of technology to improve parent access to information, clinicians, and other parents while at home. CONCLUSION Parents of pediatric oncology patients readily participated in a proactive risk assessment method, identifying processes that pose a risk for medication errors involving home oral chemotherapy.

Immediate financial impact of computerized clinical decision support for long-term care residents with renal insufficiency: a case study

In a randomized trial of a clinical decision support system for drug prescribing for residents with renal insufficiency in a large long-term care facility, analyses were conducted to estimate the systems immediate, direct financial impact. We determined the costs that would have been incurred if drug orders that triggered the alert system had actually been completed compared to the costs of the final submitted orders and then compared intervention units to control units. The costs incurred by additional laboratory testing that resulted from alerts were also estimated. Drug orders were conservatively assigned a duration of 30 days of use for a chronic drug and 10 days for antibiotics. It was determined that there were modest reductions in drug costs, partially offset by an increase in laboratory-related costs. Overall, there was a reduction in direct costs (US

E-mail to Promote Colorectal Cancer Screening Within Social Networks: Acceptability and Content

1391.43, net 7.6% reduction). However, sensitivity analyses based on alternative estimates of duration of drug use suggested a reduction as high as US

Measuring Harm in Health Care: Optimizing Adverse Event Review

7998.33 if orders for non-antibiotic drugs were assumed to be continued for 180 days. The authors conclude that the immediate and direct financial impact of a clinical decision support system for medication ordering for residents with renal insufficiency is modest and that the primary motivation for such efforts must be to improve the quality and safety of medication ordering.

Response to the letter by Mol

Effective techniques to encourage colorectal cancer screening in underscreened populations have included social support interventions and e-mail reminders from physicians. Personalized e-mail messages to promote colorectal cancer screening within social networks could be even more effective but have not been studied. The authors interviewed 387 e-mail users, aged 42–73 years in Georgia, Hawaii, and Massachusetts. Participants were asked to edit a sample message in which the sender shares a recent colonoscopy experience and urges the recipient to discuss colorectal cancer screening with a doctor. For those reporting willingness to send this message, changes to the message and suggested subject lines were recorded. Edited text was analyzed for content and concordance with original message. The majority of participants (74.4%) were willing to e-mail a modifiable message. Of those willing, 63.5% edited the message. Common edits included deletion (17.7%) or modification (17.4%) of a negatively framed sentence on colon cancer risks and addition or modification of personalizing words (15.6%). Few edits changed the meaning of the message (5.6%), and even fewer introduced factual inaccuracies (1.7%). Modifiable e-mail messages offer a way for screened individuals to promote colorectal cancer screening to social network members. The accuracy and effects of such messages should be further studied.

PS2-25: Prostate Cancer Screening: Benefits, Barriers and Conflicting Information

Objective: The objective of this study was to identify modifiable factors that improve the reliability of ratings of severity of health care–associated harm in clinical practice improvement and research. Methods: A diverse group of clinicians rated 8 types of adverse events: blood product, device or medical/surgical supply, fall, health care–associated infection, medication, perinatal, pressure ulcer, surgery. We used a generalizability theory framework to estimate the impact of number of raters, rater experience, and rater provider type on reliability. Results: Pharmacists were slightly more precise and consistent in their ratings than either physicians or nurses. For example, to achieve high reliability of 0.83, 3 physicians could be replaced by 2 pharmacists without loss in precision of measurement. If only 1 rater was available for rating, ∼5% of the reviews for severe harm would have been incorrectly categorized. Reliability was greatly improved with 2 reviewers. Conclusions: We identified factors that influence the reliability of clinician reviews of health care–associated harm. Our novel use of generalizability analyses improved our understanding of how differences affect reliability. This approach was useful in optimizing resource utilization when selecting raters to assess harm and may have similar applications in other settings in health care.