Publications

Importance

As part of the Choosing Wisely campaign, primary care, surgery, and neurology societies have identified carotid imaging ordered for screening, preoperative evaluation, and syncope as frequently low value.

Objective

To determine the changes in overall and indication-specific rates of carotid imaging following Choosing Wisely recommendations.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This serial cross-sectional study compared annual rates of carotid imaging before Choosing Wisely recommendations (ie, 2007 to 2012) and after (ie, 2013 to 2016) among adults receiving care in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) national health system. Data analysis was performed from April 10, 2019, to November 27, 2019.

Exposures

Release of the Choosing Wisely recommendations.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Annual rates of overall imaging, imaging ordered for stroke workup, imaging ordered for low-value indications (ie, screening owing to carotid bruit, preoperative evaluation, and syncope). Indications were identified using a text lexicon algorithm based on electronic health record review of a stratified random sample of 1000 free-text imaging orders. The subsequent performance of carotid procedures within 6 months after carotid imaging was assessed.

Results

Between 2007 and 2016, 809 071 carotid imaging examinations were identified (mean [SD] age of patients undergoing imaging, 69 [10] years; 776 632 [96%] men), of which 201 467 images (24.9%) were ordered for low-value indications (67 064 [8.2%] for carotid bruit, 25 032 [3.1%] for preoperative evaluation, and 109 400 [13.5%] for syncope), 257 369 (31.8%) for stroke workup, and 350 235 (43.3%) for other indications. Imaging for carotid bruits declined across the study period while there was no significant change in imaging for syncope or preoperative evaluation. Compared with the 6 years before, during the 4 years following Choosing Wisely recommendations, there was no change in the trend for syncope, a small decline in preoperative imaging (post-Choosing Wisely trend, -0.1 [95% CI, -0.1 to <-0.1] images per 10 000 veterans), and a continued but less steep decline in imaging for carotid bruits (post-Choosing Wisely trend, -0.3 [95% CI, -0.3 to -0.2] images per 10 000 veterans). During the study period, 17 689 carotid procedures were identified, of which 3232 (18.3%) were preceded by carotid imaging ordered for low-value indications.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that Choosing Wisely recommendations were not associated with a meaningful change in low-value carotid imaging in a national integrated health system. To reduce low-value testing and utilization cascades, interventions targeting ordering clinicians are needed to augment the impact of public awareness campaigns.

PURPOSE

A minority of eligible patients participate in cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programs. Availability of home-based CR programs improves participation in CR, yet many continue to decline to enroll. We sought to explore among patients the rationale for declining to participate in CR even when a home-based CR program is available.

METHODS

We conducted a mixed-methods evaluation of reasons for declining to participate in CR. Between August 2015 and August 2017, a total of 630 patients were referred for CR evaluation during index hospitalization (San Francisco VA Medical Center). Three hundred three patients (48%) declined to participate in CR. Of these, 171 completed a 14-item survey and 10 patients also provided qualitative data through semistructured phone interviews.

RESULTS

The most common reason, identified by 61% of patients on the survey, was "I already know what to do for my heart." Interviews helped clarify reasons for nonparticipation and identified system barriers and personal barriers. These interviews further highlighted that declining to participate in CR was often due to competing life priorities, no memory of the initial CR consultation, and inadequate understanding of CR despite referral.

CONCLUSION

We identified that most patients declining to participate in a home-based CR program did not understand the benefits and rationale for CR. This could be related to the timing of the consultation or presentation method. Many patients also indicated that competing life priorities prevented their participation. Modifications in the consultation process and efforts to accommodate personal barriers may improve participation.

INTRODUCTION

For older adults with type 2 diabetes, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) Framework uses comorbidities and functional status to categorize patients by estimated life expectancy to guide individualization of glycemic treatment. We evaluated whether modifying the ADA Framework by removing three comorbidities and incorporating age could improve life expectancy stratification and better identify patients likely to benefit from intensive treatment.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We examined 3166 Health and Retirement Study participants aged ≥65 with diabetes from 1998 to 2004, using a prospective cohort design with mortality follow-up through 2016. We classified participants into one of three ADA Framework categories: Healthy, Intermediate Health, and Poor Health. We created modified categories by excluding comorbidities weakly associated with mortality (hypertension, arthritis, and incontinence). Using Gompertz regression, we estimated life expectancy across age strata for both original and modified ADA Framework categories.

RESULTS

The original ADA Framework classified 34% as Healthy (likely to benefit from intensive treatment), 50% as Intermediate Health, and 16% as Poor Health (unlikely to benefit from intensive treatment). Our comorbidity modification reclassified 20% of participants from Intermediate Health to Healthy. Using the modified ADA Framework, median life expectancy of the Healthy varied greatly by age (aged 65-69: 16.3 years; aged ≥80: 7.6 years), indicating differing likelihood of benefit. Additionally, age ≥80 made extended life expectancy unlikely (median life expectancy for Healthy 7.6 years, Intermediate Health 5.9 years, Poor Health 2.5 years), suggesting adults ≥80 are unlikely to benefit from intensive treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Modifying the ADA Framework by incorporating age and focusing on comorbidities associated with mortality improved life expectancy stratification, resulting in different treatment recommendations for many older adults.