Browsing by Author "Revere, Debra"

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Clinical Versus Public Health Perceptions of Notifiable Disease Reporting Burden
    (2014) Revere, Debra; Hills, Rebecca; Grannis, Shaun J; Dixon, Brian E.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Completeness and timeliness of notifiable disease reporting: a comparison of laboratory and provider reports submitted to a large county health department
    (Springer Nature, 2017-06-23) Dixon, Brian E.; Zhang, Zuoyi; Lai, Patrick T. S.; Kirbiyik, Uzay; Williams, Jennifer; Hills, Rebecca; Revere, Debra; Gibson, P. Joseph; Grannis, Shaun J.; BioHealth Informatics, School of Informatics and Computing
    BACKGROUND: Most public health agencies expect reporting of diseases to be initiated by hospital, laboratory or clinic staff even though so-called passive approaches are known to be burdensome for reporters and produce incomplete as well as delayed reports, which can hinder assessment of disease and delay recognition of outbreaks. In this study, we analyze patterns of reporting as well as data completeness and timeliness for traditional, passive reporting of notifiable disease by two distinct sources of information: hospital and clinic staff versus clinical laboratory staff. Reports were submitted via fax machine as well as electronic health information exchange interfaces. METHODS: Data were extracted from all submitted notifiable disease reports for seven representative diseases. Reporting rates are the proportion of known cases having a corresponding case report from a provider, a faxed laboratory report or an electronic laboratory report. Reporting rates were stratified by disease and compared using McNemar's test. For key data fields on the reports, completeness was calculated as the proportion of non-blank fields. Timeliness was measured as the difference between date of laboratory confirmed diagnosis and the date the report was received by the health department. Differences in completeness and timeliness by data source were evaluated using a generalized linear model with Pearson's goodness of fit statistic. RESULTS: We assessed 13,269 reports representing 9034 unique cases. Reporting rates varied by disease with overall rates of 19.1% for providers and 84.4% for laboratories (p < 0.001). All but three of 15 data fields in provider reports were more often complete than those fields within laboratory reports (p <0.001). Laboratory reports, whether faxed or electronically sent, were received, on average, 2.2 days after diagnosis versus a week for provider reports (p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite growth in the use of electronic methods to enhance notifiable disease reporting, there still exists much room for improvement.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Exploring perceptions and experiences of patients who have chronic pain as state prescription opioid policies change: a qualitative study in Indiana
    (BMJ, 2017-11-12) Al Achkar, Morhaf; Revere, Debra; Dennis, Barbara; MacKie, Palmer; Gupta, Sumedha; Grannis, Shaun; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Objectives The misuse and abuse of prescription opioids (POs) is an epidemic in the USA today. Many states have implemented legislation to curb the use of POs resulting from inappropriate prescribing. Indiana legislated opioid prescribing rules that went into effect in December 2013. The rules changed how chronic pain is managed by healthcare providers. This qualitative study aims to evaluate the impact of Indiana’s opioid prescription legislation on the patient experiences around pain management. Setting This is a qualitative study using interviews of patient and primary care providers to obtain triangulated data sources. The patients were recruited from an integrated pain clinic to which chronic pain patients were referred from federally qualified health clinics (FQHCs). The primacy care providers were recruited from the same FQHCs. The study used inductive, emergent thematic analysis. Participants Nine patient participants and five primary care providers were included in the study. Results Living with chronic pain is disruptive to patients’ lives on multiple dimensions. The established pain management practices were disrupted by the change in prescription rules. Patient–provider relationships, which involve power dynamics and decision making, shifted significantly in parallel to the rule change. Conclusions As a result of the changes in pain management practice, some patients experienced significant challenges. Further studies into the magnitude of this change are necessary. In addition, exploring methods for regulating prescribing while assuring adequate access to pain management is crucial.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Improving Notifiable Disease Case Reporting Through Electronic Information Exchange–Facilitated Decision Support: A Controlled Before-and-After Trial
    (Sage, 2020) Dixon, Brian E.; Zhang, Zuoyi; Arno, Janet N.; Revere, Debra; Gibson, P. Joseph; Grannis, Shaun J.; Epidemiology, School of Public Health
    Objective: Outbreak detection and disease control may be improved by simplified, semi-automated reporting of notifiable diseases to public health authorities. The objective of this study was to determine the effect of an electronic, prepopulated notifiable disease report form on case reporting rates by ambulatory care clinics to public health authorities. Methods: We conducted a 2-year (2012-2014) controlled before-and-after trial of a health information exchange (HIE) intervention in Indiana designed to prepopulate notifiable disease reporting forms to providers. We analyzed data collected from electronic prepopulated reports and "usual care" (paper, fax) reports submitted to a local health department for 7 conditions by using a difference-in-differences model. Primary outcomes were changes in reporting rates, completeness, and timeliness between intervention and control clinics. Results: Provider reporting rates for chlamydia and gonorrhea in intervention clinics increased significantly from 56.9% and 55.6%, respectively, during the baseline period (2012) to 66.4% and 58.3%, respectively, during the intervention period (2013-2014); they decreased from 28.8% and 27.5%, respectively, to 21.7% and 20.6%, respectively, in control clinics (P < .001). Completeness improved from baseline to intervention for 4 of 15 fields in reports from intervention clinics (P < .001), although mean completeness improved for 11 fields in both intervention and control clinics. Timeliness improved for both intervention and control clinics; however, reports from control clinics were timelier (mean, 7.9 days) than reports from intervention clinics (mean, 9.7 days). Conclusions: Electronic, prepopulated case reporting forms integrated into providers' workflow, enabled by an HIE network, can be effective in increasing notifiable disease reporting rates and completeness of information. However, it was difficult to assess the effect of using the forms for diseases with low prevalence (eg, salmonellosis, histoplasmosis).
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Measuring the impact of a health information exchange intervention on provider-based notifiable disease reporting using mixed methods: a study protocol
    (2013-10) Dixon, Brian E.; Grannis, Shaun J; Revere, Debra
    Background Health information exchange (HIE) is the electronic sharing of data and information between clinical care and public health entities. Previous research has shown that using HIE to electronically report laboratory results to public health can improve surveillance practice, yet there has been little utilization of HIE for improving provider-based disease reporting. This article describes a study protocol that uses mixed methods to evaluate an intervention to electronically pre-populate provider-based notifiable disease case reporting forms with clinical, laboratory and patient data available through an operational HIE. The evaluation seeks to: (1) identify barriers and facilitators to implementation, adoption and utilization of the intervention; (2) measure impacts on workflow, provider awareness, and end-user satisfaction; and (3) describe the contextual factors that impact the effectiveness of the intervention within heterogeneous clinical settings and the HIE. Methods/Design The intervention will be implemented over a staggered schedule in one of the largest and oldest HIE infrastructures in the U.S., the Indiana Network for Patient Care. Evaluation will be conducted utilizing a concurrent design mixed methods framework in which qualitative methods are embedded within the quantitative methods. Quantitative data will include reporting rates, timeliness and burden and report completeness and accuracy, analyzed using interrupted time-series and other pre-post comparisons. Qualitative data regarding pre-post provider perceptions of report completeness, accuracy, and timeliness, reporting burden, data quality, benefits, utility, adoption, utilization and impact on reporting workflow will be collected using semi-structured interviews and open-ended survey items. Data will be triangulated to find convergence or agreement by cross-validating results to produce a contextualized portrayal of the facilitators and barriers to implementation and use of the intervention. Discussion By applying mixed research methods and measuring context, facilitators and barriers, and individual, organizational and data quality factors that may impact adoption and utilization of the intervention, we will document whether and how the intervention streamlines provider-based manual reporting workflows, lowers barriers to reporting, increases data completeness, improves reporting timeliness and captures a greater portion of communicable disease burden in the community.