Electronic health records: essential tools in integrating substance abuse treatment with primary care.

While substance use problems are considered to be common in medical settings, they are not systematically assessed and diagnosed for treatment management. Research data suggest that the majority of individuals with a substance use disorder either do not use treatment or delay treatment-seeking for over a decade. The separation of substance abuse services from mainstream medical care and a lack of preventive services for substance abuse in primary care can contribute to under-detection of substance use problems. When fully enacted in 2014, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 2010 will address these barriers by supporting preventive services for substance abuse (screening, counseling) and integration of substance abuse care with primary care. One key factor that can help to achieve this goal is to incorporate the standardized screeners or common data elements for substance use and related disorders into the electronic health records (EHR) system in the health care setting. Incentives for care providers to adopt an EHR system for meaningful use are part of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act 2009. This commentary focuses on recent evidence about routine screening and intervention for alcohol/drug use and related disorders in primary care. Federal efforts in developing common data elements for use as screeners for substance use and related disorders are described. A pressing need for empirical data on screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) for drug-related disorders to inform SBIRT and related EHR efforts is highlighted.

A Framework to Support the Sharing and Reuse of Computable Phenotype Definitions Across Health Care Delivery and Clinical Research Applications.

INTRODUCTION: The ability to reproducibly identify clinically equivalent patient populations is critical to the vision of learning health care systems that implement and evaluate evidence-based treatments. The use of common or semantically equivalent phenotype definitions across research and health care use cases will support this aim. Currently, there is no single consolidated repository for computable phenotype definitions, making it difficult to find all definitions that already exist, and also hindering the sharing of definitions between user groups. METHOD: Drawing from our experience in an academic medical center that supports a number of multisite research projects and quality improvement studies, we articulate a framework that will support the sharing of phenotype definitions across research and health care use cases, and highlight gaps and areas that need attention and collaborative solutions. FRAMEWORK: An infrastructure for re-using computable phenotype definitions and sharing experience across health care delivery and clinical research applications includes: access to a collection of existing phenotype definitions, information to evaluate their appropriateness for particular applications, a knowledge base of implementation guidance, supporting tools that are user-friendly and intuitive, and a willingness to use them. NEXT STEPS: We encourage prospective researchers and health administrators to re-use existing EHR-based condition definitions where appropriate and share their results with others to support a national culture of learning health care. There are a number of federally funded resources to support these activities, and research sponsors should encourage their use.

Contributors to and impact of residual shunting after device closure of atrial septal defects.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of residual shunt in patients after device closure of atrial septal defect and its impact on long-term outcome has not been previously defined. METHODS: From a prospective, single-institution registry of 408 patients, we selected individuals with agitated saline studies performed 1 year after closure. Baseline echocardiographic, invasive hemodynamic, and comorbidity data were compared to identify contributors to residual shunt. Survival was determined by review of the medical records and the Social Security Death Index. Survival analysis according to shunt included construction of Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox proportional hazards modeling. RESULTS: Among 213 analyzed patients, 27% were men and age at repair was 47 ± 17 years. Thirty patients (14%) had residual shunt at 1 year. Residual shunt was more common with Helex (22%) and CardioSEAL/STARFlex (40%) occluder devices than Amplatzer devices (9%; P = .005). Residual shunts were more common in whites (79% vs 46%, P = .004). At 7.3 ± 3.3 years of follow-up, 13 (6%) of patients had died, including 8 (5%) with Amplatzer, 5 (25%) with CardioSEAL/STARFlex, and 0 with Helex devices. Patients with residual shunting had a higher hazard of death (20% vs 4%, P = .001; hazard ratio 4.95 [1.59-14.90]). In an exploratory multivariable analysis, residual shunting, age, hypertension, coronary artery disease, and diastolic dysfunction were associated with death. CONCLUSIONS: Residual shunt after atrial septal defect device closure is common and adversely impacts long-term survival.