Despite recent study findings, jury is still out on screening ECGs

It’s not unusual for adult patients to undergo a 12-lead electrocardiography (ECG) during or soon after a preventive health visit. A 2017 analysis of administrative data in Ontario, Canada, found that more than 1 in 5 patients had an ECG within 30 days of a routine checkup. Unsurprisingly, patients with screening ECGs were more likely than others to receive additional cardiac tests, visits, or procedures. However, no significant differences in mortality, hospitalizations for cardiac reasons, or coronary revascularization between the groups were reported.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has consistently recommended against using ECG to screen for coronary heart disease in asymptomatic, low-risk adults. This recommendation was also included in the Choosing Wisely campaign. The rationale for not testing is that ECGs are unlikely to benefit these patients but can initiate harmful cascades of care. Nonetheless, research on the use of ECGs to identify patients with undiagnosed atrial fibrillation and other potentially serious abnormalities has continued. A 2019 report summarized previous studies that found associations between abnormal screening ECGs and worse cardiovascular outcomes after adjusting for traditional risk factors.

A recent study took advantage of the practice of performing ECGs as a mandatory part of annual health checks in Japanese adults 35 to 65 years of age. In the study, 3.7 million individuals with no history of cardiovascular disease or prior abnormal ECGs had an ECG in 2016 and were followed for a median of 5.5 years for the composite outcome of all-cause death or hospital admission for cardiovascular disease; 17% had one minor ECG abnormality, 4% had two or more minor abnormalities, and 1.5% had a major abnormality. Compared with people with normal ECGs, those with any ECG abnormality had a greater risk of experiencing the composite outcome.

In an accompanying commentary, former USPSTF member and family physician Alex Krist, MD, MPH, explained why these results probably will not change current recommendations:

For clinicians and patients, merely knowing that someone is at risk for an adverse event is not helpful without knowing what should be done to reduce that risk. There are multiple effective and recommended strategies to reduce people’s risk of CVD, including statin use for people at risk, screening for and managing hypertension, and counseling for healthy diet, exercise, and smoking cessation. Clinicians should routinely offer all of these preventive services to patients irrespective of whether their ECG result is normal or abnormal. Before recommending screening ECG, future studies will need to show that doing something different in response to an abnormal ECG changes a health outcome for a person.

A 2018 Lown Right Care article by Drs. Alan Roth, Andy Lazris, and Sarju Ganatra discussed overuse of cardiac tests in asymptomatic patients, including ECG, stress tests, and coronary artery calcium scoring.

**

This post first appeared on the AFP Community Blog.

Can large language models handle the complexity of family medicine?

Should family physicians be excited or apprehensive about the potential applications of artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLMs) in primary care? An article by Dr. Richard Young and colleagues in the Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine recently made the case for both. Observing that primary care is a “complex adaptive system,” the authors suggested that AI “will likely work when its tasks are limited in scope, have clean data that are mostly linear and deterministic, and fit well into existing workflows.” On the other hand, AI may struggle to incorporate contextual and relational factors, process noisy and inaccurate data, or document vague symptoms that do not indicate a single disease condition.

In an editorial on chatbots and LLMs in the June 2024 issue of American Family Physician, Dr. Aaron Saguil discussed how family medicine practices are turning to LLMs to “help decrease administrative burden and combat burnout.” These tools can already compose visit notes, remotely monitor patients with interactive chats, and draft replies to patient portal messages.

In the future, LLMs may be integrated into electronic health records to provide real-time clinical decision support, suggesting “diagnostic possibilities, recommended ancillary evaluations, and possible treatment strategies.” To minimize the risks of LLMs propagating biased data, generating misinformation, or usurping the family physician’s role on health care teams, Dr. Saguil advised being actively involved in their implementation:

The best defense against AI risks becoming realities is conscientious physicians guiding the development and implementation of LLMs into clinical care settings, pointing out what LLMs can do and what they cannot. In family medicine, no LLM can yet address a complex patient in a unique sociocultural situation with overlapping comorbidities and health states from the vantage point of a longitudinal relationship.

A related FPM article by Dr. Steven Waldren, chief medical informatics officer at the American Academy of Family Physicians, explored other uses of LLMs in primary care, such as rewriting medical or legal forms for patients with lower health literacy or native languages other than English; summarizing information from a medical record, guideline, or research articles; drafting referral letters, prior authorization requests, and insurance appeals; and populating clinical registries. Dr. Waldren recommended three safeguards when using AI in medical practice: using LLMs only “when the physician or other user is able to easily verify the accuracy of the AI output”; not entering protected health or private organizational information in open online LLMs such as ChatGPT; and for now, using LLMs only in low-risk (nonclinical) situations. Echoing Dr. Saguil, Dr. Waldren called on family physicians to “weigh in on the design, development, and deployment of AI in medicine to ensure it is more helpful than harmful to patients, primary care physicians, and practices.”

**

This post first appeared on the AFP Community Blog.

Clinical documentation and health inequities

Poor treatment by a clinician leads to suspicion of the motives of the health care system, increasing one’s reluctance to seek necessary care and the risk of a having an uncomfortable health care interaction in the future. For many patients—particularly those who identify with one or more racial, sexual, gender, and religious minority groups—this vicious cycle often leads to worse health outcomes.

A Lown Right Care article in the June 2024 issue of American Family Physician addresses the consequences of stigmatizing clinical documentation. In the case scenario, a patient feels stereotyped by his new primary care physician, who incorrectly describes him as African American (he self-identifies as Dominican Hispanic) and noncompliant for not filling a prescription or seeing a subspecialist he could not afford. Drs. Alan Roth and Andy Lazris explain how this language could negatively affect encounters with other clinicians:

Patients who identify as Black are more likely than those who identify as White to have comments using negative words or connotations in their history and physical documentation and may be subject to systemic bias in physicians' perceptions of their credibility.… The stigmatizing language used to describe patients in medical records can influence other clinicians and physicians-in-training in their attitudes toward the patient and their medication-prescribing behavior. This is an important and potentially damaging pathway by which bias can be propagated from one clinician to another.

In a previous AFP editorial, Drs. Megan Healy and Khameer Kidia presented several strategies to reduce bias and avoid stigmatizing language in medical records and other clinical communications. These strategies include not using labels, not blaming patients for their conditions, and not beginning presentations with race, ethnicity, language, socioeconomic status, or other social identifiers that may activate unconscious bias.

In 2021, a controversial JAMA social media post questioned the existence of structural racism and made the incredible claim that “no physician is racist.” This unfortunate episode contrasted with AFP’s active approach to advancing health equity, including sharing and promoting antiracist practices. Nonetheless, the medical profession has a long way to go to align its behaviors with its ideals. In a first-person narrative published in the New England Journal of Medicine, a Black health equity researcher visiting the emergency department receives callous treatment from two nurses and is mocked by a physician for suggesting that her area of expertise had something to do with the indifferent care she received. Making excuses for the health professionals involved (e.g., the emergency department was overcrowded, the nurses were tired and harried, the doctor was just having a bad day) amounts to being part of the problem. Instead, family physicians and other primary care clinicians can choose to be part of the solution to eliminating health inequities in kidney transplant, infertility care, skin conditions, asthma and lung diseases, cardiovascular disease, end-of-life care, and preventive care, among others.

**

This post first appeared on the AFP Community Blog.