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

Breast Cancer Clinical Trial

— PACT CREATE 3  

Official title:

Automated Point-of-Care Surveillance of Outpatient Delays in Cancer Diagnosis

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Withdrawn

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT01710293
• Other study ID #: CRE 12-033
• Secondary ID: CIRB 15-07
• Status: Withdrawn
• Phase: N/A
• First received: October 16, 2012
• Last updated: February 22, 2018
• Start date: January 27, 2017
• Est. completion date: January 27, 2017

Study information

• Verified date: February 2018
• Source: VA Office of Research and Development
• Contact: n/a
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Study type: Interventional

Clinical Trial 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.

Description:

The CREATE Project encompasses three phases, the first and second of which do not contain interventions. The first phase of the project determines the effectiveness of computerized queries the investigators develop to accurately identify which patients are at risk for delays in cancer diagnosis. Patients the investigators identify will have abnormal test results or symptoms that have not been followed up by their providers. In Phase 2 of the study, the research team will use interviewing and other participatory techniques to determine the best way to convey information about such at-risk patients to providers in an automated fashion. In Phase 3 of the project, the investigators will evaluate the effects of an automated surveillance intervention on the timeliness of the diagnostic process of five cancers.

This project will improve communication and coordination of cancer-related diagnostic information to improve quality and safety.

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Withdrawn
• Enrollment: 0
• Est. completion date: January 27, 2017
• Est. primary completion date: January 27, 2017
• Accepts healthy volunteers: No
• Gender: All
• Age group: 21 Years and older

Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria:

• 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.

Exclusion Criteria:

• 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.

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Bladder Cancer
• Breast Cancer
• Carcinoma, Hepatocellular
• Colorectal Cancer
• Colorectal Neoplasms
• Hepatocellular Carcinoma
• Lung Cancer
• Urinary Bladder Neoplasms

Intervention

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

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
United States	Jesse Brown VA Medical Center, Chicago, IL	Chicago	Illinois
United States	Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital, Hines, IL	Hines	Illinois
United States	Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, TX	Houston	Texas
United States	William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans Hospital, Madison, WI	Madison	Wisconsin
United States	Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, MN	Minneapolis	Minnesota

Sponsors (1)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
VA Office of Research and Development

Country where clinical trial is conducted

United States, 

References & Publications (12)

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. — View Citation

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. — View Citation

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. Epub 2016 Feb 19. — View Citation

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. — View Citation

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. — View Citation

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. — View Citation

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. — View Citation

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. 2017 Feb 28. doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000317. [Epub ahead of print] — View Citation

Singh H, Graber ML, Hofer TP. Measures to Improve Diagnostic Safety in Clinical Practice. J Patient Saf. 2016 Oct 20. [Epub ahead of print] — View Citation

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. — View Citation

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. — View Citation

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. — View Citation

* Note: There are 12 references in all — Click here to view all references

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	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