Mikael Anne Greenwood-Hickman

Participation in older adult physical activity programs and risk for falls requiring medical care, Washington State, 2005-2011

Introduction Physical activity is known to prevent falls; however, use of widely available exercise programs for older adults, including EnhanceFitness and Silver Sneakers, has not been examined in relation to effects on falls among program participants. We aimed to determine whether participation in EnhanceFitness or Silver Sneakers is associated with a reduced risk of falls resulting in medical care. Methods A retrospective cohort study examined a demographically representative sample from a Washington State integrated health system. Health plan members aged 65 or older, including 2,095 EnhanceFitness users, 13,576 Silver Sneakers users, and 55,127 nonusers from 2005 through 2011, were classified as consistent users (used a program ≥2 times in all years they were enrolled in the health plan during the study period); intermittent users (used a program ≥2 times in 1 or more years enrolled but not all years), or nonusers of EnhanceFitness or Silver Sneakers. The main outcome was measured as time-to-first-fall requiring inpatient or out-of-hospital medical treatment based on the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification, Sixth Edition and E-codes. Results In fully adjusted Cox proportional hazards models, consistent (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63–0.88) and intermittent (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.8–0.94) EnhanceFitness participation were both associated with a reduced risk of falls resulting in medical care. Intermittent Silver Sneakers participation showed a reduced risk (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.90–0.97). Conclusion Participation in widely available community-based exercise programs geared toward older adults (but not specific to fall prevention) reduced the risk of medical falls. Structured programs that include balance and strength exercise, as EnhanceFitness does, may be effective in reducing fall risk.

Opinions, practice patterns, and perceived barriers to lung cancer screening among attending and resident primary care physicians

Introduction The US Preventive Services Task Force recommended annual lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for high-risk patients in December 2013. We compared lung cancer screening-related opinions and practices among attending and resident primary care physicians (PCPs). Methods In 2015, we conducted a 23-item survey among physicians at a large academic medical center. We surveyed 100 resident PCPs (30% response rate) and 86 attending PCPs (49% response rate) in Family Medicine and Internal Medicine. The questions focused on physicians’ opinions, knowledge of recommendations, self-reported practice patterns, and barriers to lung cancer screening. In 2015 and 2016, we compared responses among attending versus resident PCPs using chi-square/Fisher’s exact tests and 2-samples t-tests. Results Compared with resident PCPs, attending PCPs were older (mean age =47 vs 30 years) and more likely to be male (54% vs 37%). Over half of both groups concurred that inconsistent recommendations make deciding whether or not to screen difficult. A substantial proportion in both groups indicated that they were undecided about the benefit of lung cancer screening for patients (43% attending PCPs and 55% resident PCPs). The majority of attending and resident PCPs agreed that barriers to screening included limited time during patient visits (62% and 78%, respectively), cost to patients (74% and 83%, respectively), potential for complications (53% and 70%, respectively), and a high false-positive rate (67% and 73%, respectively). Conclusion There was no evidence to suggest that attending and resident PCPs had differing opinions about lung cancer screening. For population-based implementation of lung cancer screening, physicians and trainees will need resources and time to address the benefits and harms with their patients.

Characterizing Potentially Preventable Cancer- and Chronic Disease–Related Emergency Department Use in the Year After Treatment Initiation: A Regional Study

PURPOSE As new quality metrics and interventions for potentially preventable emergency department (ED) visits are implemented, we sought to compare methods for evaluating the prevalence and costs of potentially preventable ED visits that were related to cancer and chronic disease among a commercially insured oncology population in the year after treatment initiation. METHODS We linked SEER records in western Washington from 2011 to 2016 with claims from two commercial insurers. The study included patients who were diagnosed with a solid tumor and tracked ED utilization for 1 year after the start of chemotherapy or radiation. Cancer symptoms from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services metric and a patient-reported outcome intervention were labeled potentially preventable (PpCancer). Prevention Quality Indicators of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality were labeled potentially preventable-chronic disease (PpChronic). We reported the primary diagnosis, all diagnosis field coding (1 to 10), and 2016 adjusted reimbursements. RESULTS Of 5,853 eligible patients, 27% had at least one ED visit, which yielded 2,400 total visits. Using primary diagnosis coding, 49.8% of ED visits had a PpCancer diagnosis, whereas 3.2% had a PpChronic diagnosis. Considering all diagnosis fields, 45.0%, 9.4%, and 18.5% included a PpCancer only, a PpChronic only, and both a PpCancer and a PpChronic diagnosis, respectively. The median reimbursement per visit was

Do perceived barriers to lung cancer screening differ between attending physicians and residents

735 (interquartile ratio,

Lung cancer screening knowledge and beliefs among primary care providers and pulmonologists.

194 to

Performance of digital screening mammography in a population-based cohort of black and white women

1,549). CONCLUSION The prevalence of potentially preventable ED visits was generally high, but varied depending on the diagnosis code fields and the group of codes considered. Future research is needed to understand the complex landscape of potentially preventable ED visits and measures to improve value in cancer care delivery.

Patient engagement on claims-registry reports of cost and quality.

192 Background: In February 2015, legislation went into effect requiring Medicare to cover lung cancer (LC) screening with low dose computed tomography (LDCT) for high risk patients. Despite this, much debate and uncertainty exist among physicians about LC screening best practices. We aim to compare perceived barriers to LC screening between resident and attending physicians in Family and Internal Medicine, two departments selected for their high likelihood of seeing patients eligible for LC screening. METHODS Between February and July of 2015, a 23 question Qualtrics survey was conducted among physicians and residents at a large academic hospital to assess knowledge and beliefs of LC screening. In the Family and Internal Medicine departments, we surveyed 100 residents (30% response rate) and 86 attendings (49% response rate). Responses from the two departments were combined and stratified by attending or resident status. RESULTS Most respondents were White and non-Hispanic. Attendings were older (mean age 47, range 32-64) and mostly male (54%), while residents were younger (mean age 30, range 28-35) and mostly female (63%). The majority of attendings (62%) and residents (78%) agreed that limited time during patient visits requires presenting problems take priority over LC screening. Other barriers cited by both groups included cost to patients (74% attendings and 83% residents), potential for complications (53% and 70%), and too many false positives (67% and 73%). Over half of both groups agreed that inconsistent recommendations make it difficult to decide whether or not to screen for LC. In addition, the majority of both groups indicated that they were undecided about the benefit of LC screening for patients (43% attendings and 55% residents). No statistically significant differences were found. CONCLUSIONS Regardless of resident or attending status, respondents identified inconsistent recommendations, time restrictions during visits, cost to patients, potential complications, and a high false positive rate as barriers to LC screening. Both groups reported being undecided about the utility of LC screening. These findings suggest a need for alternative strategies for future LC screening implementation.

Costs of potentially preventable emergency department use during cancer treatment: A regional study.

191 Background: In response to the National Lung Screening Trials findings, numerous professional organizations have published guidelines recommending annual lung cancer (LC) screening with low dose computed tomography (LDCT) for eligible patients. In the wake of these guidelines, we sought to assess LC screening practices and beliefs among providers at a large academic medical center. METHODS In 2015, we surveyed 54 physicians and 9 residents in pulmonology (27% response rate) and 86 physicians and 100 residents in family/internal medicine (39% response rate). The 23 question Qualtrics survey focused on beliefs and knowledge about LC screening recommendations, guidelines, and practices. RESULTS Survey respondents in both groups were mostly White non-Hispanic clinicians with a mean age of 40 (range 28-67). Pulmonology respondents were mostly male (69%) and family/internal medicine respondents were mostly female (53%). The pulmonology group was more likely than family/internal medicine to believe that LC screening is beneficial for patients (p < 0.0001) and cost effective (p = 0.02). Over 76% of the pulmonology group reported ordering a LDCT for an asymptomatic patient in the past 12 months compared to 41% in the family/internal medicine group (p = 0.012). Additionally, 76% in pulmonology were aware of the American College of Chest Physicians recommendations versus 38% in family/internal medicine (p = 0.02). The majority of both groups agreed that an electronic prompt would increase the likelihood of referring a patient for LC screening. While both groups agreed that a LC screening registry would benefit the quality of patient care (100% pulmonology; 65% family/internal medicine; p = 0.02) and make them more likely to refer patients to a LC screening program (88%; 54%; p = 0.04), a significantly larger majority of the pulmonology group held these beliefs. CONCLUSIONS Pulmonology respondents had more knowledge of guidelines and more favorable opinions of LC screening than family/internal medicine respondents. Our findings suggest future studies should focus on educating providers about recommendations and understanding why the family/internal medicine group is less likely to refer patients for LC screening.