Dataset Information

Addressing cancer survivors' cardiovascular health using the automated heart health assessment (AH-HA) EHR tool: Initial protocol and modifications to address COVID-19 challenges.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The purpose of this paper is to describe the Automated Heart-Health Assessment (AH-HA) study protocol, which demonstrates an agile approach to cancer care delivery research. This study aims to assess the effect of a clinical decision support tool for cancer survivors on cardiovascular health (CVH) discussions, referrals, completed visits with primary care providers and cardiologists, and control of modifiable CVH factors and behaviors. The COVID-19 pandemic has caused widespread disruption to clinical trial accrual and operations. Studies conducted with potentially vulnerable populations, including cancer survivors, must shift towards virtual consent, data collection, and study visits to reduce risk for participants and study staff. Studies examining cancer care delivery innovations may also need to accommodate the increased use of virtual visits.

Methods/design

This group-randomized, mixed methods study will recruit 600 cancer survivors from 12 National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) practices. Survivors at intervention sites will use the AH-HA tool with their oncology provider; survivors at usual care sites will complete routine survivorship visits. Outcomes will be measured immediately after the study visit, with follow-up at 6 and 12 months. The study was amended during the COVID-19 pandemic to allow for virtual consent, data collection, and intervention options, with the goal of minimizing participant-staff in-person contact and accommodating virtual survivorship visits.

Conclusions

Changes to the study protocol and procedures allow important cancer care delivery research to continue safely during the COVID-19 pandemic and give sites and survivors flexibility to conduct study activities in-person or remotely.

SUBMITTER: Foraker RE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8220316 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundElectronic health record (EHR) transitions are inherently disruptive to healthcare workers who must rapidly learn a new EHR and adapt to altered clinical workflows. Healthcare workers' perceptions of EHR usability and their EHR use patterns following transitions are poorly understood. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is currently replacing its homegrown EHR with a commercial Cerner EHR, presenting a unique opportunity to examine EHR use trends and usability perceptions.ObjectiveTo assess EHR usability and uptake up to 1-year post-transition at the first VA EHR transition site using a novel longitudinal, mixed methods approach.DesignA concurrent mixed methods strategy using EHR use metrics and qualitative interview data.Participants141 clinicians with data from select EHR use metrics in Cerner Lights On Network®. Interviews with 25 healthcare workers in various clinical and administrative roles.ApproachWe assessed changes in total EHR time, documentation time, and order time per patient post-transition. Interview transcripts (n = 90) were coded and analyzed for content specific to EHR usability.Key resultsTotal EHR time, documentation time, and order time all decreased precipitously within the first four months after go-live and demonstrated gradual improvements over 12 months. Interview participants expressed ongoing concerns with the EHR's usability and functionality up to a year after go-live such as tasks taking longer than the old system and inefficiencies related to inadequate training and inherent features of the new system. These sentiments did not seem to reflect the observed improvements in EHR use metrics.ConclusionsThe integration of quantitative and qualitative data yielded a complex picture of EHR usability. Participants described persistent challenges with EHR usability 1 year after go-live contrasting with observed improvements in EHR use metrics. Combining findings across methods can provide a clearer, contextualized understanding of EHR adoption and use patterns during EHR transitions.

Project description:Even with advanced inverse-planning techniques, radiation treatment plan opti-mization remains a very time-consuming task with great output variability, which prompted the development of more automated approaches. One commercially available technique mimics the actions of experienced human operators to pro-gressively guide the traditional optimization process with automatically created regions of interest and associated dose-volume objectives. We report on the initial evaluation of this algorithm on 10 challenging cases of locoreginally advanced head and neck cancer. All patients were treated with VMAT to 70 Gy to the gross disease and 56 Gy to the elective bilateral nodes. The results of post-treatment autoplanning (AP) were compared to the original human-driven plans (HDP). We used an objective scoring system based on defining a collection of specific dosimetric metrics and corresponding numeric score functions for each. Five AP techniques with different input dose goals were applied to all patients. The best of them averaged the composite score 8% lower than the HDP, across the patient population. The difference in median values was statistically significant at the 95% confidence level (Wilcoxon paired signed-rank test p = 0.027). This result reflects the premium the institution places on dose homogeneity, which was consistently higher with the HDPs. The OAR sparing was consistently better with the APs, the differences reaching statistical significance for the mean doses to the parotid glands (p < 0.001) and the inferior pharyngeal constrictor (p = 0.016), as well as for the maximum doses to the spinal cord (p = 0.018) and brainstem (p = 0.040). If one is prepared to accept less stringent dose homogeneity criteria from the RTOG 1016 protocol, nine APs would comply with the protocol, while providing lower OAR doses than the HDPs. Overall, AP is a promising clinical tool, but it could benefit from a better process for shifting the balance between the target dose coverage/homogeneity and OAR sparing.

Project description:ObjectiveTo understand if providers who had additional electronic health record (EHR) training improved their satisfaction, decreased personal EHR-use time, and decreased turnaround time on tasks.Materials and methodsThis pre-post study with no controls evaluated the impact of a supplemental EHR training program on a group of academic and community practice clinicians that previously had go-live group EHR training and 20 months experience using this EHR on self-reported data, calculated EHR time, and vendor-reported metrics.ResultsProviders self-reported significant improvements in their knowledge of efficiency tools in the EHR after training and doubled (significant) their preference list entries (mean pre = 38.1 [65.88], post = 63.5 [90.47], P < .01). Of the 7 EHR satisfaction variables, only 1 self-reported variable significantly improved after training: Control over my workload in the EHR (mean pre = 2.7 [0.96], post = 3.0 [1.04], P < .01). There was no significant decrease in their calculated EHR usage outside of clinic (mean pre = 0.39 [0.77] to post = 0.37 [0.48], P = .73). No significant difference was seen in turnaround time for patient calls (mean pre = 2.3 [2.06] days, post = 1.9 [1.76] days, P = .08) and results (mean before = 4.0 [2.79] days, after = 3.2 [2.33] days, P = .03).DiscussionMultiple sources of data provide a holistic view of the provider experience in the EHR. This study suggests that individualized EHR training can improve the knowledge of EHR tools and satisfaction with their perceived control of EHR workload, however this did not translate into less Clinician Logged-In Outside Clinic (CLOC) time, a calculated metric, nor quicker turnaround on in box tasks. CLOC time emerged as a potential less-costly surrogate metric for provider satisfaction in EHR work than surveying clinicians. Further study is required to understand the cost-benefit of various interventions to decrease CLOC time.ConclusionsThis supplemental EHR training session, 20 months post go-live, where most participants elected to receive 2 or fewer sessions did significantly improve provider satisfaction with perceived control over their workload in the EHR, but it was not effective in decreasing EHR-use time outside of clinic. CLOC time, a calculated metric, could be a practical trackable surrogate for provider satisfaction (inverse correlation) with after-hours time spent in the EHR. Further study into interventions that decrease CLOC time and improve turnaround time to respond to inbox tasks are suggested next steps.