Background: Primary immunodeficiencies (PIs) are a set of heterogeneous chronic disorders characterized by immune dysfunction. They are diagnostically challenging because of their clinical heterogeneity, knowledge gaps among primary care physicians, and continuing shortages of clinically trained immunologists. As a result, patients with undiagnosed PIs are at increased risk for recurrent infections, cancers, and autoimmune diseases.
Objective: The aim of this research is to develop and implement a clinical decision support (CDS) tool for the identification of underlying PIs.
Methods: We will develop and implement a CDS tool for the identification of underlying PIs among patients who receive primary care through a health care provider at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics. The CDS tool will function through an algorithm that is based on the Immune Deficiency Foundation’s 10 Warning Signs for Primary Immunodeficiency. Over the course of a year, we will use Lean Six Sigma principles and the Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control (DMAIC) framework to guide the project. The primary measure is the number of newly diagnosed PI patients per month. Secondary measures include the following: (1) the number of new patients identified by the CDS as being at high risk for PI, (2) the number of new PI cases in which immunoglobulin replacement or rotating antibiotics are started, (3) the cost of evaluation of each patient identified by the CDS tool as being at high risk for PIs, (4) the number of new consults not diagnosed with a PI, and (5) patient satisfaction with the process of referral to the Immunology Clinic.
Results: This study was determined to not be Human Subjects Research by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Iowa. Data collection will begin in August 2021.
Conclusions: The development and implementation of a CDS tool is a promising approach to identifying patients with underlying PI. This protocol assesses whether such an approach will be able to achieve its objective of reducing diagnostic delays. The disciplined approach, using Lean Six Sigma and the DMAIC framework, will guide implementation to maximize opportunities for a successful intervention that meets the study’s goals and objectives as well as to allow for replication and adaptation of these methods at other sites.
International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/32635
Primary immunodeficiencies (PIs) are diagnostically challenging chronic disorders involving the immune system that lead to recurrent infections, increased risk for cancer, and autoimmune disease . PIs may present at any age and manifest due to genetic predilection and environmental exposures [ ].
Diagnoses of PIs are frequently delayed because of this clinical heterogeneity, knowledge gaps among primary care physicians, and continuing shortages of clinically trained immunologists [- ]. These delays in obtaining care lead to increased mortality and morbidity as well as decreased quality of life [ - ].
PI diagnostic delays also cost a calculated $85,882 per patient  and contribute $40 billion in costs to the US health care system. It has been estimated that early diagnosis can save $6500 per patient [ ]. Earlier identification of PI is critical for the following reasons:
- To permit more appropriate management of the underlying condition. Immune globulin replacement and immunomodulators have demonstrated efficacy in reducing the frequency and severity of infections [ , ].
- To enable more appropriate preventative health measures. Guidelines from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) state that immunocompromised patients, including those with PIs, have different requirements for vaccinations [ , ]. Identification of PIs enables more timely vaccinations and prevention of illness. Conversely, certain live vaccinations are contraindicated in certain types of PIs and should be avoided to prevent adverse events [ ]. Finally, those with PI are at 1.4 to 1.6-fold increased risk for malignancy, with some estimates of prevalence of malignancy as high as 25% [ , ]. Therefore, a diagnosis of a PI significantly impacts screening guidelines for malignancy.
- To prevent downstream diagnostic errors. Patients with a PI are more likely to present with atypical manifestations of infections that are less likely to be identified early on. Local infections are also more likely to become systemic, leading to increased morbidity and mortality [ ]. Recognition of PIs enables providers to consider these diagnoses earlier and prevent further diagnostic delays. Studies also demonstrate that early diagnosis prevents further readmissions and improves Accountable Care Organization (ACO) scores [ ].
- To uncover diagnoses of family members. PIs are inherited conditions [ ]. Identification of a proband in a family with immune deficiency enables family members who have compatible signs and symptoms to share information with one another.
- To empower patients about chronic illness. A diagnosis of PI is empowering to patients and enables them to reach out to support systems. Studies have demonstrated that early detection and diagnosis improves patient satisfaction and quality of life [ ].
- To address health disparities. PIs are more likely to affect patients in particular ethnic populations, including those of Middle Eastern descent [ ]. Experts also voice concern that diagnostic delays disproportionately affect Black, Indigenous, and other people of color (BIPOC) and those with already reduced access to health care [ , ]. Additionally, PIs affect women in specific ways that amplify the downstream effects of diagnostic delays, including gynecologic and obstetric complications [ ].
Objectives and Specific Aims
The objective of this study is to develop and implement a clinical decision support (CDS) tool for identifying patients with an underlying PI. The Jeffrey Modell Foundation has published a set of 10 warning signs for PIs for both adults and children . We will adapt these warning signs to a CDS tool to help stratify the risk of a patient having an underlying PI. This CDS tool will enable primary care providers within the University of Iowa to refer patients to the University of Iowa’s Immunology Clinic, and guide laboratory investigations prior to referral to ensure readiness prior to the visit.
Toward that end, there are two specific aims:
- Identify the total number of patients who present to the University of Iowa General Internal Medicine, Pediatrics, or Family Medicine clinics with two or more warning signs of a PI over a 12-month period.
- Refer at least 10% of these identified patients to a University of Iowa clinical immunologist for evaluation within 12 months of their initial presentation.
Rationale for the Intervention
CDS tools for PIs have not yet been developed and assessed in peer-reviewed literature. This intervention would represent the first attempt to address this critical need. However, we build upon several lines of evidence that bolster the rationale that a CDS tool is needed to identify PI patients:
- A 2019 study of a large pediatric cohort of 185,892 patients revealed 2188 patients (1.26%) at medium to high risk for PIs [ ]. The authors concluded that early identification of PIs in the 98 patients who were at highest risk within this cohort would represent an annual cost savings of up to $7.7 million.
- CDS tools for identifying secondary immunodeficiencies, including HIV, have been developed. Although these methods are different and guidelines for implementation vary considerably, they add to the evidence of the feasibility of immunodeficiency screening of large populations [ ].
- Several CDS tools have been developed for tracking antibiotic usage, including at the University of Iowa [ ]. The purposes of these CDS tools vary, but collection of data about the frequency of use and type of antibiotic is vital in this proposal, further supporting the feasibility of our approach.
Settings and Target Population
University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics (UIHC) represents the only comprehensive academic medical center within the state of Iowa. Between July 1, 2019, and June 30, 2020, there were 1,039,681 clinic visits, 32,872 inpatient admissions, and 50,468 emergency department visits. In the UIHC system, there are 77,779 patients that have a primary care provider in Family Medicine, General Internal Medicine, and General Pediatrics.
Patients with suspected immunodeficiencies are evaluated at the Allergy and Immunology Clinic located at the University of Iowa’s clinics in Iowa City. If patients are determined to have an immunodeficiency, then they return to the Allergy and Immunology Clinic to obtain specialized care. Per year, there are 1863 half-day clinics staffed by 12 physicians serving 8963 patients. There are approximately 1684 patients with a diagnosis of a PI whose management is overseen by physicians and other practitioners in the Immunology Clinic. The average wait time to a new appointment is 5.46 weeks for adults and 13.16 weeks for pediatric patients.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Inclusion criteria include patients who receive their care from one of the General Internal Medicine, Pediatrics, or Family Medicine clinics through the UIHC system. Exclusion criteria include patients with an established secondary or acquired immunodeficiency, and patients with an established PI diagnosis.
Quality Improvement Framework
We will use Lean Six Sigma principles and the Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control (DMAIC) framework to implement this intervention. The Lean Six Sigma approach has been previously described in health services research literature as a methodology to improve health care delivery . It combines two distinct process improvement methodologies: Lean and Six Sigma. The Toyota Motor Corporation initially developed Lean to improve manufacturing quality through the elimination of waste and creation of value for customers [ ]. Lean complements Six Sigma, a data-driven management approach aimed at the elimination of defects and reduction of unwarranted variability [ ].
In line with the DMAIC framework (), we have begun defining the scope of the project. We have developed a project charter to articulate the problem at hand, our project goals, and customer requirements. The project charter also delineates the time frame for completion of tasks ( ).
Additionally, to understand the needs of the customers, we are using Voice of the Customer to clarify experiences, expectations, and needs. We are currently conducting semistructured interviews with 20 patients with PIs to understand their experiences. EK, a core member of the team, is a patient with PI and is helping to formulate questions and analyze data.
During the Measure phase, we anticipate collection of data regarding our primary and secondary outcomes. The primary measure, as articulated in the project charter, is the number of newly diagnosed PI patients per month. We will measure the rate over the past 24 months to obtain a baseline, and then monitor it throughout the course of the protocol.
We will also measure the following five secondary measures:
- Number of new patients identified by the CDS tool as being at high risk for PI.
- Number of new PI cases in which immunoglobulin replacement or rotating antibiotics are started.
- Cost of evaluation of each patient identified by CDS tool as being at high risk for PIs.
- Number of new consults not diagnosed with a PI.
- Patient satisfaction with the process of referral to the Immunology Clinic.
Administrative data will be used for the primary measure and secondary measures 1-4. For secondary measure 5, we will conduct semistructured interviews and surveys to obtain the Voice of the Customer.
Throughout the analyze phase, we will use the data being obtained as part of the Measure phase to assess the efficacy of the intervention and to guide modifications as necessary.
For quantitative data, we will construct both run and control charts. The specific type of chart will be dependent on the number of evaluated patients and specific outcome measures. For example, if the CDS tool is unable to find many patients with PI, then a T-chart may be more appropriate than an X-bar chart.
For qualitative data, we will continue to use Voice of the Customer. Once the CDS tool is implemented, we will conduct semistructured interviews with primary care providers to better understand their perspectives and opportunities for further refinement so that the CDS tool is more user-friendly.
For individual cases of newly diagnosed PI, we will perform more detailed analysis to recognize causes of diagnostic delays. We will use value-added analysis to calculate the costs of diagnosis and identify causes of inefficiency in diagnosis. Additionally, we will use time analysis to chronologically map out opportunities for earlier diagnosis. Both of these analyses will then be used to further refine the CDS tool.
During the Improve phase, we will employ sequential Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles to refine the CDS tool to different settings, starting with Internal Medicine, then Pediatrics, and finally Family Medicine. The investigators will continue to use Voice of the Customer as a key Lean Six Sigma tool to guide these PDSA cycles.
Additionally, as we begin to finalize the CDS tool, we will use failure mode and effect analysis to proactively determine how the newly established process for identifying PIs may create inefficiencies and result in failures in diagnosis.
Toward the end of the quality improvement project, we will develop a monitoring and proactive response plan to sustain the improvement plan. Using those measures, we will establish a trigger level to ensure that new cases of suspected PIs are screened through the CDS tool. Additionally, with advances in the diagnosis of PIs, such as genetic testing, we will incorporate newer modes of evaluation into the CDS tool.
Finally, we intend on publishing our findings and presenting them at national meetings. Thorough documentation of the process, including this protocol, will be essential for transfer of knowledge to other settings and implementation in different settings.
Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate
This study protocol was submitted to the University of Iowa Institutional Review Board and determined not to be Human Subjects Research.
As of July 31, 2021, this protocol has been funded by the Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine as a DxQI Grant. It has been determined to not be Human Subjects Research by the University of Iowa Institutional Research Board on July 13, 2021. Data collection will begin on August 15, 2021, and end on July 31, 2022. We intend on publishing results in winter 2022.
While there have been tremendous advances in the modalities used to diagnose PIs, evidence of real-world interventions to better identify PI are largely lacking. To fill that evidence gap, this study protocol outlines a quality improvement initiative to help reduce delays in diagnosing PIs. To bolster the likelihood of success, we have designed our initiative in line with the principles of Lean Six Sigma and have structured it via the DMAIC framework.
We anticipate a series of challenges and have a comprehensive strategy to address these challenges as they arise. First, we have a screening algorithm () that has multiple redundancies for optionality if one method of obtaining data cannot be completed properly.
Second, we have a plan to accommodate increased volumes of patients who would need evaluation. Currently, there are 1863 half-day immunology clinics among 12 faculty members serving 8963 unique patients. The average wait time to a new appointment is 5.46 weeks for adults and 13.16 weeks for pediatric patients. The division has plans to expand with the hiring of 1-2 new faculty members over the coming academic year. Additionally, as allergy/immunology faculty are certified to see both adult and pediatric patients, flexibility can be arranged to accommodate incoming evaluations.
Third, the CDS tool will be implemented in a stepwise pattern through the clinics to assess its ability to achieve our stated specific aims. Therefore, we have the capacity to revise the tool accordingly as we recognize the specificity and sensitivity of elements within the algorithm in detecting cases of PI.
This study is funded by the Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine DxQI Seed Grant Program. The funding body had no role in the study design, manuscript writing, or decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The authors acknowledge Kristin Goedkin, Kristina Greiner, Aaron Knaack, Boyd Knosp, Kirk Philips, and Scott Vogelgesang for their help in editing and revising the grant proposal.
BK, SZ, BD, ELKE, M Suneja, and M Swee contributed to the conceptualization of the study. BK, M Suneja, M Swee, and SZ designed the study protocol. BK, M Swee, and M Suneja drafted the manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest
Primary immunodeficiency screening algorithm.DOCX File , 65 KB
Peer review reports from the Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine.PDF File (Adobe PDF File), 299 KB
- Devonshire AL, Makhija M. Approach to primary immunodeficiency. Allergy Asthma Proc 2019 Nov 01;40(6):465-469. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Bucciol G, Meyts I. Recent advances in primary immunodeficiency: from molecular diagnosis to treatment. F1000Res 2020;9:194 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Gruber C, Bogunovic D. Incomplete penetrance in primary immunodeficiency: a skeleton in the closet. Hum Genet 2020 Jun;139(6-7):745-757 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- O'Keefe AW, Halbrich M, Ben-Shoshan M, McCusker C. Primary immunodeficiency for the primary care provider. Paediatr Child Health 2016 Mar;21(2):e10-e14 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Marshall GD. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2007 Apr;119(4):802-807. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Bonilla FA, Khan DA, Ballas ZK, Chinen J, Frank MM, Hsu JT, et al. Practice parameter for the diagnosis and management of primary immunodeficiency. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2015 Nov;136(5):1186-205.e1. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Ataeinia B, Montazeri A, Tavakol M, Azizi G, Kiaee F, Tavakolinia N, et al. Measurement of Health-Related Quality of Life in Primary Antibody-Deficient Patients. Immunol Invest 2017 May;46(4):329-340. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Zhang S, Kline M, Fuleihan RL, Consortium U, Scalchunes C, Sullivan KE, et al. PROMIS-29 survey confirms major impact of fatigue on health-related quality of life in common variable immunodeficiency. Immunol Res 2020 Dec;68(6):379-388. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Fernández Pérez ER, Hunter M, Katial RK. United States trends in mortality rates for primary immunodeficiency diseases. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2019 Mar;7(3):1045-1048. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Modell V, Orange JS, Quinn J, Modell F. Global report on primary immunodeficiencies: 2018 update from the Jeffrey Modell Centers Network on disease classification, regional trends, treatment modalities, and physician reported outcomes. Immunol Res 2018 Jun;66(3):367-380. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Sadeghi B, Abolhassani H, Naseri A, Rezaei N, Aghamohammadi A. Economic burden of common variable immunodeficiency: annual cost of disease. Expert Rev Clin Immunol 2015 May;11(5):681-688. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Jolles S, Rojavin MA, Lawo J, Nelson R, Wasserman RL, Borte M, et al. Long-Term Efficacy and Safety of Hizentra in Patients with Primary Immunodeficiency in Japan, Europe, and the United States: a Review of 7 Phase 3 Trials. J Clin Immunol 2018 Nov;38(8):864-875 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Wasserman RL. Personalized Therapy: Immunoglobulin Replacement for Antibody Deficiency. Immunol Allergy Clin North Am 2019 Feb;39(1):95-111. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Rubin LG, Levin MJ, Ljungman P, Davies EG, Avery R, Tomblyn M, Infectious Diseases Society of America. 2013 IDSA clinical practice guideline for vaccination of the immunocompromised host. Clin Infect Dis 2014 Feb;58(3):309-318. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Chilson E, Scott DA, Schmoele-Thoma B, Watson W, Moran MM, Isturiz R. Immunogenicity and safety of the 13-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine in patients with immunocompromising conditions: a review of available evidence. Hum Vaccin Immunother 2020 Nov 01;16(11):2758-2772 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Sobh A, Bonilla FA. Vaccination in Primary Immunodeficiency Disorders. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2016;4(6):1066-1075. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Kebudi R, Kiykim A, Sahin MK. Primary Immunodeficiency and Cancer in Children; A Review of the Literature. Curr Pediatr Rev 2019;15(4):245-250 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Filipovich AH, Mathur A, Kamat D, Shapiro RS. Primary immunodeficiencies: genetic risk factors for lymphoma. Cancer Res 1992 Oct 01;52(19 Suppl):5465s-5467s [FREE Full text] [Medline]
- Jones TPW, Buckland M, Breuer J, Lowe DM. Viral infection in primary antibody deficiency syndromes. Rev Med Virol 2019 Jul;29(4):e2049. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Medicare shared savings program quality measure benchmarks for the 2016 and 2017 reporting years. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services; 2017. URL: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare-Fee-for-Service-Payment/sharedsavingsprogram/Downloads/MSSP-QM-Benchmarks-2016.pdf [accessed 2021-11-09]
- Farmer JR, Mahajan VS. Molecular Diagnosis of Inherited Immune Disorders. Clin Lab Med 2019 Dec;39(4):685-697. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Orange JS, Seeborg FO, Boyle M, Scalchunes C, Hernandez-Trujillo V. Family Physician Perspectives on Primary Immunodeficiency Diseases. Front Med (Lausanne) 2016 Mar 30;3:12 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Krishna MT, Hackett S, Bethune C, Fox AT. Achieving equitable management of allergic disorders and primary immunodeficiency in a Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic population. Clin Exp Allergy 2020 Aug;50(8):880-883. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Chapel H, Prevot J, Gaspar HB, Español T, Bonilla FA, Solis L, Editorial Board for Working Party on Principles of Care at IPOPI. Primary immune deficiencies - principles of care. Front Immunol 2014;5:627 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Waltenburg R, Kobrynski L, Reyes M, Bowen S, Khoury MJ. Primary immunodeficiency diseases: practice among primary care providers and awareness among the general public, United States, 2008. Genet Med 2010 Dec;12(12):792-800. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Sheikhbahaei S, Sherkat R, Camacho-Ordonez N, Khoshnevisan R, Kalantari A, Salehi M, et al. Pregnancy, child bearing and prevention of giving birth to the affected children in patients with primary immunodeficiency disease; a case-series. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2018 Jul 11;18(1):299 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Jeffrey Modell Foundation. 10 Warning Signs of Primary Immunodeficiency. URL: http://www.info4pi.org/library/educational-materials/10-warning-signs [accessed 2020-03-07]
- Rider NL, Miao D, Dodds M, Modell V, Modell F, Quinn J, et al. Calculation of a Primary Immunodeficiency "Risk Vital Sign" via Population-Wide Analysis of Claims Data to Aid in Clinical Decision Support. Front Pediatr 2019;7:70 [FREE Full text] [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Baldolli A, Martin Silva N, Seguin A, Maigne G, Sultan A, Deshayes S, et al. Interest of immunodeficiency screening in adult after admission in medical intensive care unit for severe infection, a retrospective and a prospective study: the Intensive Care Unit and Primary and Secondary Immunodeficiency (ICUSPID) study. Infection 2019 Feb;47(1):87-93. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Carracedo-Martinez E, Gonzalez-Gonzalez C, Teixeira-Rodrigues A, Prego-Dominguez J, Takkouche B, Herdeiro MT, Galician Pharmacoepidemiology Research Group. Computerized Clinical Decision Support Systems and Antibiotic Prescribing: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Clin Ther 2019 Mar;41(3):552-581. [CrossRef] [Medline]
- Raja Sreedharan V, Raju R. A systematic literature review of Lean Six Sigma in different industries. IJLSS 2016 Oct 10;7(4):430-466. [CrossRef]
- Johnson JE, Smith A, Mastro K. From Toyota to the bedside. Nurs Adm Q 2012;36(3):234-242. [CrossRef]
- Liberatore MJ. Six Sigma in healthcare delivery. International J Health Care QA 2013 Aug 23;26(7):601-626. [CrossRef]
|ACIP: Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices|
|ACO: Accountable Care Organization|
|BIPOC: Black, Indigenous, and other people of color|
|CDS: clinical decision support|
|DMAIC: Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control|
|IDSA: Infectious Disease Society of America|
|PI: primary immunodeficiency|
|UIHC: University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics|
Edited by T Derrick; This paper was peer reviewed by the Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine - DxQI Seed Grant Program. See the Multimedia Appendices for the peer-review report; submitted 04.08.21; accepted 08.09.21; published 04.01.22Copyright
©Bharat Kumar, Samuel Zetumer, Melissa Swee, Ellen L Keyser Endelman, Manish Suneja, Benjamin Davis. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (https://www.researchprotocols.org), 04.01.2022.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Research Protocols, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://www.researchprotocols.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.