Background: Healthcare providers are often targeted as research participants, especially for implementation science studies evaluating provider- or system-level issues. Frequently, provider eligibility is based on both provider and patient factors. Manual chart review and self-report are common provider screening strategies but require substantial time, effort, and resources. The automated use of electronic health record (EHR) data may streamline provider identification for implementation science research. Here, we describe an approach to provider screening for a Veterans Health Administration (VHA)-funded study focused on implementing risk-aligned surveillance for bladder cancer patients.
Methods: Our goal was to identify providers at 6 pre-specified facilities who performed ≥10 surveillance cystoscopy procedures among bladder cancer patients in the 12 months prior to recruitment start on January 16, 2020, and who were currently practicing at 1 of 6 pre-specified facilities. Using VHA EHR data (using CPT, ICD10 procedure, and ICD10 diagnosis codes), we identified cystoscopy procedures performed after an initial bladder cancer diagnosis (i.e., surveillance procedures). Procedures were linked to VHA staff data to determine the provider of record, the number of cystoscopies they performed, and their current location of practice. To validate this approach, we performed a chart review of 105 procedures performed by a random sample of identified providers. The proportion of correctly identified procedures was calculated (Positive Predictive Value (PPV)), along with binomial 95% confidence intervals (CI).
Findings: We identified 1,917,856 cystoscopies performed on 703,324 patients from October 1, 1999-January 16, 2020, across the nationwide VHA. Of those procedures, 40% were done on patients who had a prior record of bladder cancer and were completed by 15,065 distinct providers. Of those, 61 performed ≥ 10 procedures and were currently practicing at 1 of the 6 facilities of interest in the 1 year prior to study recruitment. The random chart review of 7 providers found 101 of 105 procedures (PPV: 96%; 95% CI: 91% to 99%) were surveillance procedures and were performed by the selected provider on the recorded date.
Implications: These results show that EHR data can be used for accurate identification of healthcare providers as research participants when inclusion criteria consist of both patient- (temporal relationship between diagnosis and procedure) and provider-level (frequency of procedure and location of current practice) factors. As administrative codes and provider identifiers are collected in most, if not all, EHRs for billing purposes this approach can be translated from provider recruitment in VHA to other healthcare systems. Implementation studies should consider this method of screening providers.