Intervention Protocol for Automated Point-of-Care Surveillance of Outpatient Delays in Cancer Diagnosis
NCT ID: NCT01710293
Last Updated: 2018-02-26
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
WITHDRAWN
NA
INTERVENTIONAL
2017-01-27
2017-01-27
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
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.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Maximizing Benefit of Lung Cancer Screening Incidental Findings of Cardiovascular, Respiratory and Breast Measures
NCT05900544
A Prospective Study of Electronic Symptom Reporting Via Mobile Phone Among Patients With Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
NCT03616522
Post-Treatment Surveillance in Lung Cancer
NCT03475420
Video-Assisted Intervention in Improving Recovery in Patients With Cancer Undergoing Lung Surgery and Caregivers
NCT02345798
Home Telemonitoring for Patients With Lung Cancer
NCT01670539
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
This project will improve communication and coordination of cancer-related diagnostic information to improve quality and safety.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
SINGLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
Communication of Patients Lost to Follow-up to Providers
This intervention will consist of two related, continuous steps over at least a 12-month period. In the first step, the investigators will query the VA's Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW, a repository of near real-time patient data from all VA medical centers) weekly to identify possible lost to follow-up events in a pre-specified time period and for a random sample of about half of the providers at the investigators' study sites. These identified patient charts will be reviewed by Facility Recipients/Cancer Trackers at each site who will then communicate patients truly found to be lost to follow-up to the appropriate provider/care team.
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.
Usual Care
In the usual care group, providers will continue to use the existing notification system to receive abnormal test results in accordance with institutional norms, policies, and procedures. There are no formal patient-tracking programs currently at our study sites for all abnormal test results. The investigators will apply our computerized surveillance tools in the usual care arm only when the investigators are ready to conduct the final chart reviews on intervention patients and identify these patients in similar time periods as in the intervention arm. If persistent delays are found, the investigators will inform the patients' primary care providers.
No interventions assigned to this group
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
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.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
* 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
* 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.
21 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
VA Office of Research and Development
FED
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Hardeep Singh, MD MPH BS
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, TX
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
Jesse Brown VA Medical Center, Chicago, IL
Chicago, Illinois, United States
Edward Hines Jr. VA Hospital, Hines, IL
Hines, Illinois, United States
Minneapolis VA Health Care System, Minneapolis, MN
Minneapolis, Minnesota, 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
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
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. No abstract available.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Singh H, Graber ML, Hofer TP. Measures to Improve Diagnostic Safety in Clinical Practice. J Patient Saf. 2019 Dec;15(4):311-316. doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000338.
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. No abstract available.
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. doi: 10.1515/dx-2015-0022. Epub 2016 Feb 19.
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.
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. doi: 10.15265/IY-2016-023.
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. 2021 Apr 1;17(3):e121-e127. doi: 10.1097/PTS.0000000000000317.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
CIRB 15-07
Identifier Type: OTHER
Identifier Source: secondary_id
CRE 12-033
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.