BackgroundUniversal human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening remains low in many clinical practices despite published guidelines recommending screening for all patients between ages 13–65. Electronic clinical decision support tools have improved screening rates for many chronic diseases. We designed a quality improvement project to improve the rate of universal HIV screening of adult patients in a Midwest primary care practice using a clinical decision support tool.MethodsWe conducted this quality improvement project in Rochester, Minnesota from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014. Baseline primary care practice HIV screening data were acquired from January 1, 2014 to April 30, 2014. We surveyed providers and educated them about current CDC recommended screening guidelines. We then added an HIV screening alert to an existing electronic clinical decision support tool and post-intervention HIV screening rates were obtained from May 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014. The primary quality outcome being assessed was change in universal HIV screening rates.ResultsTwelve thousand five hundred ninety-six unique patients were eligible for HIV screening in 2014; 327 were screened for HIV. 6,070 and 6,526 patients were seen before and after the intervention, respectively. 1.80 % of eligible patients and 3.34 % of eligible patients were screened prior to and after the intervention, respectively (difference of −1.54 % [−2.1 %, −0.99 %], p < 0.0001); OR 1.89 (1.50, 2.38). Prior to the intervention, African Americans were more likely to have been screened for HIV (OR 3.86 (2.22, 6.71; p < 0.001) than Whites, but this effect decreased significantly after the intervention (OR 1.90 (1.12, 3.21; p = 0.03).ConclusionsThese data showed that an electronic alert almost doubled the rates of universal HIV screening by primary care providers in a Midwestern practice and reduced racial disparities, but there is still substantial room for improvement in universal screening practices. Opportunities for universal HIV screening remain abundant, as many providers either do not understand the importance of screening average risk patients or do not remember to discuss it. Alerts to remind providers of current guidelines and help identify screening opportunities can be helpful.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12911-016-0320-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

SummaryBackgroundThe 2013 American College of Cardiology / American Heart Association Guidelines for the Treatment of Blood Cholesterol emphasize treatment based on cardiovascular risk. But finding time in a primary care visit to manually calculate cardiovascular risk and prescribe treatment based on risk is challenging. We developed an informatics-based clinical decision support tool, MayoExpertAdvisor, to deliver automated cardiovascular risk scores and guideline-based treatment recommendations based on patient-specific data in the electronic heath record.ObjectiveTo assess the impact of our clinical decision support tool on the efficiency and accuracy of clinician calculation of cardiovascular risk and its effect on the delivery of guideline-consistent treatment recommendations.MethodsClinicians were asked to review the EHR records of selected patients. We evaluated the amount of time and the number of clicks and keystrokes needed to calculate cardiovascular risk and provide a treatment recommendation with and without our clinical decision support tool. We also compared the treatment recommendation arrived at by clinicians with and without the use of our tool to those recommended by the guidelines.ResultsClinicians saved 3 minutes and 38 seconds in completing both tasks with MayoExpertAdvisor, used 94 fewer clicks and 23 fewer key strokes, and improved accuracy from the baseline of 60.61% to 100% for both the risk score calculation and guideline-consistent treatment recommendation.ConclusionInformatics solution can greatly improve the efficiency and accuracy of individualized treatment recommendations and have the potential to increase guideline compliance.

AIMTo determine the frequency and risk factors for colorectal cancer (CRC) development among individuals with resected advanced adenoma (AA)/traditional serrated adenoma (TSA)/advanced sessile serrated adenoma (ASSA).METHODSData was collected from medical records of 14663 subjects found to have AA, TSA, or ASSA at screening or surveillance colonoscopy. Patients with inflammatory bowel disease or known genetic predisposition for CRC were excluded from the study. Factors associated with CRC developing after endoscopic management of high risk polyps were calculated in 4610 such patients who had at least one surveillance colonoscopy within 10 years following the original polypectomy of the incident advanced polyp.RESULTS84/4610 (1.8%) patients developed CRC at the polypectomy site within a median of 4.2 years (mean 4.89 years), and 1.2% (54/4610) developed CRC in a region distinct from the AA/TSA/ASSA resection site within a median of 5.1 years (mean 6.67 years). Approximately, 30% (25/84) of patients who developed CRC at the AA/TSA/ASSA site and 27.8% (15/54) of patients who developed CRC at another site had colonoscopy at recommended surveillance intervals. Increasing age; polyp size; male sex; right-sided location; high degree of dysplasia; higher number of polyps resected; and piecemeal removal were associated with an increased risk for CRC development at the same site as the index polyp. Increasing age; right-sided location; higher number of polyps resected and sessile endoscopic appearance of the index AA/TSA/ASSA were significantly associated with an increased risk for CRC development at a different site.CONCLUSIONRecognition that CRC may develop following AA/TSA/ASSA removal is one step toward improving our practice efficiency and preventing a portion of CRC related morbidity and mortality.

Background A clinical decision support system (CDSS) for cervical cancer screening identifies patients due for routine cervical cancer screening. Yet, high-risk patients who require more frequent screening or earlier follow-up to address past abnormal results are not identified. We aimed to assess the effect of a complex CDSS, incorporating national guidelines for high-risk patient screening and abnormal result management, its implementation to identify patients overdue for testing, and the outcome of sending a targeted recommendation for follow-up. Methods At 3 primary care clinics affiliated with an academic medical center, a reminder recommending an appointment for Papanicolaou (Pap) testing or Pap and human papillomavirus co-testing was sent to high-risk women age 18 through 65 years (intervention group) identified by CDSS as overdue for testing. Historical control patients, who did not receive a reminder, were identified by CDSS 1 year before the date when reminders were sent to the intervention group. Test completion rates were compared between the intervention and control groups through a generalized estimating equation extension. Results Across the 3 sites, the average completion rate of recommended follow-up testing was significantly higher in the intervention group at 23.7% (61/257) than the completion rate at 3.3% (17/516) in the control group (P<.001). Conclusions A CDSS with enhanced capabilities to identify high-risk women due for cervical cancer testing beyond routine screening intervals, with subsequent patient notification, has the potential to decrease cervical precancer and cancer by improving adherence to guidelines-compliant follow-up and needed treatment.