Browsing by Author "Ma, Jessica E"

Filter results by typing the first few letters
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Identifying Family and Unpaid Caregivers in Electronic Health Records: Descriptive Analysis.
    (JMIR formative research, 2022-07) Ma, Jessica E; Grubber, Janet; Coffman, Cynthia J; Wang, Virginia; Hastings, S Nicole; Allen, Kelli D; Shepherd-Banigan, Megan; Decosimo, Kasey; Dadolf, Joshua; Sullivan, Caitlin; Sperber, Nina R; Van Houtven, Courtney H

    Background

    Most efforts to identify caregivers for research use passive approaches such as self-nomination. We describe an approach in which electronic health records (EHRs) can help identify, recruit, and increase diverse representations of family and other unpaid caregivers.

    Objective

    Few health systems have implemented systematic processes for identifying caregivers. This study aimed to develop and evaluate an EHR-driven process for identifying veterans likely to have unpaid caregivers in a caregiver survey study. We additionally examined whether there were EHR-derived veteran characteristics associated with veterans having unpaid caregivers.

    Methods

    We selected EHR home- and community-based referrals suggestive of veterans' need for supportive care from friends or family. We identified veterans with these referrals across the 8 US Department of Veteran Affairs medical centers enrolled in our study. Phone calls to a subset of these veterans confirmed whether they had a caregiver, specifically an unpaid caregiver. We calculated the screening contact rate for unpaid caregivers of veterans using attempted phone screening and for those who completed phone screening. The veteran characteristics from the EHR were compared across referral and screening groups using descriptive statistics, and logistic regression was used to compare the likelihood of having an unpaid caregiver among veterans who completed phone screening.

    Results

    During the study period, our EHR-driven process identified 12,212 veterans with home- and community-based referrals; 2134 (17.47%) veteran households were called for phone screening. Among the 2134 veterans called, 1367 (64.06%) answered the call, and 813 (38.1%) veterans had a caregiver based on self-report of the veteran, their caregiver, or another person in the household. The unpaid caregiver identification rate was 38.1% and 59.5% among those with an attempted phone screening and completed phone screening, respectively. Veterans had increased odds of having an unpaid caregiver if they were married (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.69, 95% CI 1.68-4.34), had respite care (adjusted OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.41-3.41), or had adult day health care (adjusted OR 3.69, 95% CI 1.60-10.00). Veterans with a dementia diagnosis (adjusted OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.00-1.89) or veteran-directed care referral (adjusted OR 1.95, 95% CI 0.97-4.20) were also suggestive of an association with having an unpaid caregiver.

    Conclusions

    The EHR-driven process to identify veterans likely to have unpaid caregivers is systematic and resource intensive. Approximately 60% (813/1367) of veterans who were successfully screened had unpaid caregivers. In the absence of discrete fields in the EHR, our EHR-driven process can be used to identify unpaid caregivers; however, incorporating caregiver identification fields into the EHR would support a more efficient and systematic identification of caregivers.

    Trial registration

    ClincalTrials.gov NCT03474380; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03474380.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Internal Medicine Resident Barriers to Advance Care Planning in the Primary Care Continuity Clinic
    (American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, 2023-01-01) Dussault, Nicole; Nickolopoulos, Elissa; Henderson, Katherine; Hemming, Patrick; Cho, Alex; Ma, Jessica E
    Background: While primary care providers regularly engage in Advance Care Planning (ACP) conversations, it is not well known what challenges resident physicians face to achieving this core competency. Objectives: We aimed to assess resident perceptions of barriers and potential interventions to outpatient ACP. Methods: We distributed an electronic survey to Internal Medicine and Medicine-Psychiatry residents at our institution in 2022. Questions addressed outpatient ACP barriers and potential interventions in several domains: structural issues, personal knowledge, and communication skills. We reported results using descriptive statistics and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, comparing responses by residency year (interns vs upperyears). Likert-scale responses were dichotomized to a “not at all or slightly” vs “moderate or extreme” barrier or helpful intervention. Results: Of 149 residents, 71 completed the survey (48%). Highest scoring barriers were structural, including 1) lack of clinic time (99%), 2) need to prioritize other medical problems (94%), and 3) lack of patient continuity (62%). Highest scoring interventions included the ability to schedule dedicated ACP visits with themselves (96%) or another clinician (82%). Interns were statistically significantly less confident in their ability to conduct ACP, and more likely to report lack of knowledge (i.e., not understanding ACP, patient prognosis, or how to complete paperwork, P <.05). Conclusions: Residents report significant structural barriers to outpatient ACP, including limitations in time, continuity, and competing medical priorities, that may warrant greater program attention to interventions such as clinic schedules and work-flow. Additional trainings may be most beneficial if targeted to the beginning of intern year.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Provider Interaction With an Electronic Health Record Notification to Identify Eligible Patients for a Cluster Randomized Trial of Advance Care Planning in Primary Care: Secondary Analysis.
    (Journal of medical Internet research, 2023-05) Ma, Jessica E; Lowe, Jared; Berkowitz, Callie; Kim, Azalea; Togo, Ira; Musser, R Clayton; Fischer, Jonathan; Shah, Kevin; Ibrahim, Salam; Bosworth, Hayden B; Totten, Annette M; Dolor, Rowena

    Background

    Advance care planning (ACP) improves patient-provider communication and aligns care to patient values, preferences, and goals. Within a multisite Meta-network Learning and Research Center ACP study, one health system deployed an electronic health record (EHR) notification and algorithm to alert providers about patients potentially appropriate for ACP and the clinical study.

    Objective

    The aim of the study is to describe the implementation and usage of an EHR notification for referring patients to an ACP study, evaluate the association of notifications with study referrals and engagement in ACP, and assess provider interactions with and perspectives on the notifications.

    Methods

    A secondary analysis assessed provider usage and their response to the notification (eg, acknowledge, dismiss, or engage patient in ACP conversation and refer patient to the clinical study). We evaluated all patients identified by the EHR algorithm during the Meta-network Learning and Research Center ACP study. Descriptive statistics compared patients referred to the study to those who were not referred to the study. Health care utilization, hospice referrals, and mortality as well as documentation and billing for ACP and related legal documents are reported. We evaluated associations between notifications with provider actions (ie, referral to study, ACP not documentation, and ACP billing). Provider free-text comments in the notifications were summarized qualitatively. Providers were surveyed on their satisfaction with the notification.

    Results

    Among the 2877 patients identified by the EHR algorithm over 20 months, 17,047 unique notifications were presented to 45 providers in 6 clinics, who then referred 290 (10%) patients. Providers had a median of 269 (IQR 65-552) total notifications, and patients had a median of 4 (IQR 2-8). Patients with more (over 5) notifications were less likely to be referred to the study than those with fewer notifications (57/1092, 5.2% vs 233/1785, 13.1%; P<.001). The most common free-text comment on the notification was lack of time. Providers who referred patients to the study were more likely to document ACP and submit ACP billing codes (P<.001). In the survey, 11 providers would recommend the notification (n=7, 64%); however, the notification impacted clinical workflow (n=9, 82%) and was difficult to navigate (n=6, 55%).

    Conclusions

    An EHR notification can be implemented to remind providers to both perform ACP conversations and refer patients to a clinical study. There were diminishing returns after the fifth EHR notification where additional notifications did not lead to more trial referrals, ACP documentation, or ACP billing. Creation and optimization of EHR notifications for study referrals and ACP should consider the provider user, their workflow, and alert fatigue to improve implementation and adoption.

    Trial registration

    ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03577002; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03577002.