Dataset Information

Appointment attendance and patient perception of drive-up INR testing in a rural anticoagulation clinic during the COVID-19 pandemic.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The Anticoagulation Forum and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommend drive-up international normalized ratio (INR) testing to combat INR non-adherence and increase safety during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Patient perceptions and impact on attendance have not been studied.

Objective

To assess appointment volume and patient perception after initiation of drive-up INR testing in a rural pharmacist-managed anticoagulation clinic.

Methods

This cross-sectional cohort survey study offered each patient attending the anticoagulation clinic via drive-up or in-office visit a survey between May 27 and July 2, 2020. Patients testing off-site were excluded. Study end points included monthly patient volume, visit type preference, testing barriers, desired drive-up duration, and overall clinic satisfaction. Clinic appointment volume from October 2019 to June 2020 was collected retrospectively through a schedule review.

Results

Sixty-four (80%) of 80 surveys offered were completed: 46.6% of respondents preferred drive-up testing, 26.7% indifferent, and 26.7% preferred in-office visits; 38.7% of respondents indicated a greater likelihood of continuing routine INR monitoring via drive-up testing. Of the respondents completing the survey curbside, 46% and 27% of respondents identified reduced COVID-19 transmission risk and ease of transportation as benefits of drive-up INR testing, respectively. March and April clinic volumes were 19% and 22% below average, respectively, returning to baseline after drive-up testing was implemented. Clinic rating before and after drive-up testing remained high at 2.75 on a scale of 0-3. While infection risk was identified as the biggest barrier to care by 32.8% of respondents, 59.3% of all respondents wanted drive-up testing to continue indefinitely.

Conclusions

Drive-up INR testing improves patient attendance during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patient perception of drive-up testing is positive. About 46% of respondents preferred drive-up INR testing with telehealth follow-up and 59.3% of respondents want drive-up testing to continue indefinitely, which suggests this approach to INR testing as a potential method to allay barriers to routine monitoring beyond the scope of the pandemic.

SUBMITTER: Zobeck B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8014677 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEffective management of patients using warfarin is resource-intensive, requiring frequent in-clinic testing of the international normalized ratio (INR). Patient self-testing (PST) using portable at-home INR monitoring devices has emerged as a convenient alternative. As revealed by The Home INR Study (THINRS), event rates for PST were not significantly different from those for in-clinic high-quality anticoagulation management (HQACM), and a cumulative gain in quality of life was observed for patients undergoing PST.ObjectiveTo perform a cost-utility analysis of weekly PST versus monthly HQACM and to examine the sensitivity of these results to testing frequency.Patients/interventionsIn this study, 2922 patients taking warfarin for atrial fibrillation or mechanical heart valve, and who demonstrated PST competence, were randomized to either weekly PST (n = 1465) or monthly in-clinic testing (n = 1457). In a sub-study, 234 additional patients were randomized to PST once every 4 weeks (n = 116) or PST twice weekly (n = 118). The endpoints were quality of life (measured by the Health Utilities Index), health care utilization, and costs over 2 years of follow-up.ResultsPST and HQACM participants were similar with regard to gender, age, and CHADS2 score. The total cost per patient over 2 years of follow-up was $32,484 for HQACM and $33,460 for weekly PST, representing a difference of $976. The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained with PST once weekly was $5566 (95 % CI, -$11,490 to $25,142). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was sensitive to testing frequency: weekly PST dominated PST twice weekly and once every 4 weeks. Compared to HQACM, weekly PST was associated with statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in quality of life. The ICER for weekly PST versus HQACM was well within accepted standards for cost-effectiveness, and was preferred over more or less frequent PST. These results were robust to sensitivity analyses of key assumptions.ConclusionWeekly PST is a cost-effective alternative to monthly HQACM and a preferred testing frequency compared to twice weekly or monthly PST.

Project description:ImportanceTime pressure to provide a quick fix is commonly cited as a reason why opioids are frequently prescribed in the United States, but there is little evidence of an association between appointment timing and clinical decision-making. As the workday progresses and appointments run behind schedule, physicians may be more likely to prescribe opioids.ObjectiveTo estimate whether characteristics of appointment timing are associated with clinical decision-making about pain treatment.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study of physician behavior used data from electronic health record systems in primary care offices in the United States to analyze primary care appointments occurring in 2017 for patients with a new painful condition who had not received an opioid prescription within the past year.Main outcomes and measuresThe association between treatment decisions and 2 dimensions of appointment timing (order of appointment occurrence and delay relative to scheduled start time) were assessed. The rates of opioid prescribing were measured and compared with rates of nonopioid pain medication (ie, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) prescribing and referral to physical therapy. All rates were estimated within the same physician using physician fixed effects, adjusting for patient, appointment, and seasonal characteristics.ResultsAmong 678 319 primary care appointments (642 262 patients; 392 422 [61.1%] women) with 5603 primary care physicians, the likelihood that an appointment resulted in an opioid prescription increased by 33% as the workday progressed (1st to 3rd appointment, 4.0% [95% CI, 3.9%-4.1%] vs 19th to 21st appointment, 5.3% [95% CI. 5.1%-5.6%]; P < .001) and by 17% as appointments ran behind schedule (0-9 minutes late, 4.4% [95% CI, 4.3%-4.6%] vs ≥60 minutes late, 5.2% [95% CI, 5.0%-5.4%]; P < .001). Prescribing of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and referral to physical therapy did not display similar patterns.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that, even within an individual physician's schedule, clinical decision-making for opioid prescribing varies by the timing and lateness of appointments.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Geographic and transportation barriers are associated with poorer HIV-related health outcomes in sub-Saharan Africa, but data on the impact of these barriers on prevention interventions are limited. We estimated the association between distance to clinic and other transportation-related barriers on pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) uptake and initial clinic visit attendance in a rural community in southwestern Uganda enrolled in the ongoing SEARCH study (NCT01864603). METHODS:Community-wide HIV testing was conducted and offered to adult (?15 years) participants in Ruhoko. Participants were eligible for PrEP based on an empiric risk score, having an HIV-discordant partner, or self-referral at either the community health campaign or during home-based testing from March to April 2017. We collected data from PrEP-eligible households on GPS-measured distance to clinic, walking time to clinic and road difficulty. A sample of participants was also asked to identify their primary barriers to PrEP use with a semi-quantitative questionnaire. We used multivariable logistic regression to evaluate the association between transportation barriers and (1) PrEP uptake among PrEP-eligible individuals and (2) four-week clinic visit attendance among PrEP initiators. RESULTS:Of the 701 PrEP-eligible participants, 272 (39%) started PrEP within four weeks; of these, 45 (17%) were retained at four weeks. Participants with a distance to clinic of ?2 km were less likely to start PrEP (aOR 0.34; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.79, p = 0.012) and less likely to be retained on PrEP once initiated (aOR 0.29; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.84; p = 0.024). Participants who were deemed eligible during home-based testing and did not have the option of same-day PrEP start were also substantially less likely to initiate PrEP (aOR 0.16, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.37, p < 0.001). Of participants asked to name barriers to PrEP use (N = 98), the most frequently cited were "needing to take PrEP every day" (N = 18) and "low/no risk of getting HIV" (N = 18). Transportation-related barriers, including "clinic is too far away" (N = 6) and "travel away from home" (N = 4) were also reported. CONCLUSIONS:Distance to clinic is a significant predictor of PrEP uptake and four-week follow-up visit attendance in a community in rural Uganda. Interventions that address geographic and transportation barriers may improve PrEP uptake and retention in sub-Saharan Africa.

Project description:IntroductionHIV-positive people's clinic attendance for medication pick-up is critical for successful HIV treatment. However, limited evidence exists on it especially in low-income settings such as Nepal. Moreover, the role of family support in clinic attendance remains under-explored. Therefore, this study was conducted to examine the association between perceived family support and regular clinic attendance and to assess factors associated with regular clinic attendance for antiretroviral pills pick-up among HIV-positive individuals in Nepal.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted among 423 HIV-positive people in three districts of Nepal. Clinic attendance was assessed retrospectively for the period of 12 months. To assess the factors associated, an interview survey was conducted using a semi-structured questionnaire from July to August, 2015. Multiple logistic regression models were used to assess the factors associated with regular clinic attendance.ResultsOf 423 HIV-positive people, only 32.6% attended the clinics regularly. They were more likely to attend them regularly when they received high family support (AOR = 3.98, 95% CI = 2.29, 6.92), participated in support programs (AOR = 1.68, 95% CI = 1.00, 2.82), and had knowledge on the benefits of antiretroviral therapy (AOR = 2.62, 95% CI = 1.15, 5.99). In contrast, they were less likely to attend them regularly when they commuted more than 60 minutes to the clinics (AOR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.30, 0.93), when they self-rated their health status as being very good (AOR = 0.13, 95% CI = 0.04, 0.44), good (AOR = 0.14, 95% CI = 0.04, 0.46), and fair (AOR = 0.21, 95% CI = 0.06, 0.70).ConclusionHIV-positive individuals are more likely to attend the clinics regularly when they receive high family support, know the benefits of antiretroviral therapy, and participate in support programs. To improve clinic attendance, family support should be incorporated with HIV care programs in resource limited settings. Service providers should also consider educating them about the benefits of antiretroviral therapy.

Project description:ImportanceOutpatient colonoscopy is important for colorectal cancer screening. However, nonadherence and poor bowel preparation are common.ObjectiveTo determine if an automated text messaging intervention with a focus on informational and reminder functions could improve attendance rates and bowel preparation quality for outpatient colonoscopy.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized clinical trial was conducted in an endoscopy center at an urban academic medical center. Adult patients scheduled for outpatient colonoscopy between January and September 2019 were enrolled by telephone call (early phase) or by automated text message (late phase). Data were analyzed from October 2019 to January 2020.InterventionsAfter enrollment, patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to usual care (ie, written instructions and nurse telephone call) or to the intervention (ie, usual care plus an automated series of 9 educational or reminder text messages in the week prior to scheduled colonoscopy).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was appointment attendance rate with good or excellent bowel preparation. Secondary outcomes included appointment attendance rate, bowel preparation quality (poor or inadequate, fair or adequate, and good or excellent), and cancellation lead time (in days).ResultsAmong 753 patients included and randomized in the trial (median [interquartile range] age, 56 [49-64] years; 364 [48.3%] men; 429 [57.2%] Black), 367 patients were randomized to the intervention group and 386 patients were randomized to the control group. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome between groups (patients attending appointments with good or excellent bowel preparation: intervention, 195 patients [53.1%]; control, 210 patients [54.4%]; P = .73), including when stratified by early or late phase enrollment groups. Similarly, there were no significant differences in secondary outcomes.Conclusions and relevanceThis randomized clinical trial found no significant difference in appointment attendance or bowel preparation quality with an automated text messaging intervention compared with the usual care control. Future work could optimize the content and delivery of text message interventions or identify patient subgroups that may benefit from this approach.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03710213.