COVID-19 Admission Rates and Changes in Care Quality in US Hospitals.

Importance: Unprecedented increases in hospital occupancy rates during COVID-19 surges in 2020 caused concern over hospital care quality for patients without COVID-19. Objective: To examine changes in hospital nonsurgical care quality for patients without COVID-19 during periods of high and low COVID-19 admissions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from the 2019 and 2020 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Databases. Data were obtained for all nonfederal, acute care hospitals in 36 states with admissions in 2019 and 2020, and patients without a diagnosis of COVID-19 or pneumonia who were at risk for selected quality indicators were included. The data analysis was performed between January 1, 2023, and March 15, 2024. Exposure: Each hospital and week in 2020 was categorized based on the number of COVID-19 admissions per 100 beds: less than 1.0, 1.0 to 4.9, 5.0 to 9.9, 10.0 to 14.9, and 15.0 or greater. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were rates of adverse outcomes for selected quality indicators, including pressure ulcers and in-hospital mortality for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, acute stroke, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, hip fracture, and percutaneous coronary intervention. Changes in 2020 compared with 2019 were calculated for each level of the weekly COVID-19 admission rate, adjusting for case-mix and hospital-month fixed effects. Changes during weeks with high COVID-19 admissions (≥15 per 100 beds) were compared with changes during weeks with low COVID-19 admissions (<1 per 100 beds). Results: The analysis included 19 111 629 discharges (50.3% female; mean [SD] age, 63.0 [18.0] years) from 3283 hospitals in 36 states. In weeks 18 to 48 of 2020, 35 851 hospital-weeks (36.7%) had low COVID-19 admission rates, and 8094 (8.3%) had high rates. Quality indicators for patients without COVID-19 significantly worsened in 2020 during weeks with high vs low COVID-19 admissions. Pressure ulcer rates increased by 0.09 per 1000 admissions (95% CI, 0.01-0.17 per 1000 admissions; relative change, 24.3%), heart failure mortality increased by 0.40 per 100 admissions (95% CI, 0.18-0.63 per 100 admissions; relative change, 21.1%), hip fracture mortality increased by 0.40 per 100 admissions (95% CI, 0.04-0.77 per 100 admissions; relative change, 29.4%), and a weighted mean of mortality for the selected indicators increased by 0.30 per 100 admissions (95% CI, 0.14-0.45 per 100 admissions; relative change, 10.6%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, COVID-19 surges were associated with declines in hospital quality, highlighting the importance of identifying and implementing strategies to maintain care quality during periods of high hospital use.

Supplementing Systematic Review Findings with Healthcare System Data: Pilot Projects from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center Program.

OBJECTIVES: The US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), through the Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) Program, aims to provide health system decision makers with the highest-quality evidence to inform clinical decisions. However, limitations in the literature may lead to inconclusive findings in EPC systematic reviews (SRs). The EPC Program conducted pilot projects to understand the feasibility, benefits, and challenges of utilizing health system data to augment SR findings to support confidence in healthcare decision-making based on real-world experiences. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Three contractors (each an EPC located at a different health system) selected a recently completed systematic review conducted by their center and identified an evidence gap that electronic health record (EHR) data might address. All pilot project topics addressed clinical questions as opposed to care delivery, care organization, or care disparities topics that are common in EPC reports. Topic areas addressed by each EPC included infantile epilepsy, migraine, and hip fracture. EPCs also tracked additional resources needed to conduct supplemental analyses. The workgroup met monthly in 2022-2023 to discuss challenges and lessons learned from the pilot projects. RESULTS: Two supplemental data analyses filled an evidence gap identified in the systematic reviews (raised certainty of evidence, improved applicability) and the third filled a health system knowledge gap. Project challenges fell under three themes: regulatory and logistical issues, data collection and analysis, and interpretation and presentation of findings. Limited ability to capture key clinical variables given inconsistent or missing data within the EHR was a major limitation. The workgroup found that conducting supplemental data analysis alongside an SR was feasible but adds considerable time and resources to the review process (estimated total hours to complete pilot projects ranged from 283-595 across EPCs), and that the increased effort and resources added limited incremental value. CONCLUSION: Supplementing existing systematic reviews with analyses of EHR data is resource intensive and requires specialized skillsets throughout the process. While using EHR data for research has immense potential to generate real-world evidence and fill knowledge gaps, these data may not yet be ready for routine use alongside systematic reviews.

From precision medicine to precision care: Choosing and using precision medicine in the context of multimorbidity.

Rapid advances in precision medicine promise dramatic reductions in morbidity and mortality for a growing array of conditions. To realize the benefits of precision medicine and minimize harm, it is necessary to address real-world challenges encountered in translating this research into practice. Foremost among these is how to choose and use precision medicine modalities in real-world practice by addressing issues related to caring for the sizable proportion of people living with multimorbidity. Precision medicine needs to be delivered in the broader context of precision care to account for factors that influence outcomes for specific therapeutics. Precision care integrates a person-centered approach with precision medicine to inform decision making and care planning by taking multimorbidity, functional status, values, goals, preferences, social and societal context into account. Designing dissemination and implementation of precision medicine around precision care would improve person-centered quality and outcomes of care, target interventions to those most likely to benefit thereby improving access to new therapeutics, minimize the risk of withdrawal from the market from unanticipated harms of therapy, and advance health equity by tailoring interventions and care to meet the needs of diverse individuals and populations. Precision medicine delivered in the context of precision care would foster respectful care aligned with preferences, values, and goals, engendering trust, and providing needed information to make informed decisions. Accelerating adoption requires attention to the full continuum of translational research: developing new approaches, demonstrating their usefulness, disseminating and implementing findings, while engaging patients throughout the process. This encompasses basic science, preclinical and clinical research and implementation into practice, ultimately improving health. This article examines challenges to the adoption of precision medicine in the context of multimorbidity. Although the potential of precision medicine is enormous, proactive efforts are needed to avoid unintended consequences and foster its equitable and effective adoption.

Guiding Principles to Address the Impact of Algorithm Bias on Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health and Health Care.

Importance: Health care algorithms are used for diagnosis, treatment, prognosis, risk stratification, and allocation of resources. Bias in the development and use of algorithms can lead to worse outcomes for racial and ethnic minoritized groups and other historically marginalized populations such as individuals with lower income. Objective: To provide a conceptual framework and guiding principles for mitigating and preventing bias in health care algorithms to promote health and health care equity. Evidence Review: The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the National Institute for Minority Health and Health Disparities convened a diverse panel of experts to review evidence, hear from stakeholders, and receive community feedback. Findings: The panel developed a conceptual framework to apply guiding principles across an algorithm's life cycle, centering health and health care equity for patients and communities as the goal, within the wider context of structural racism and discrimination. Multiple stakeholders can mitigate and prevent bias at each phase of the algorithm life cycle, including problem formulation (phase 1); data selection, assessment, and management (phase 2); algorithm development, training, and validation (phase 3); deployment and integration of algorithms in intended settings (phase 4); and algorithm monitoring, maintenance, updating, or deimplementation (phase 5). Five principles should guide these efforts: (1) promote health and health care equity during all phases of the health care algorithm life cycle; (2) ensure health care algorithms and their use are transparent and explainable; (3) authentically engage patients and communities during all phases of the health care algorithm life cycle and earn trustworthiness; (4) explicitly identify health care algorithmic fairness issues and trade-offs; and (5) establish accountability for equity and fairness in outcomes from health care algorithms. Conclusions and Relevance: Multiple stakeholders must partner to create systems, processes, regulations, incentives, standards, and policies to mitigate and prevent algorithmic bias. Reforms should implement guiding principles that support promotion of health and health care equity in all phases of the algorithm life cycle as well as transparency and explainability, authentic community engagement and ethical partnerships, explicit identification of fairness issues and trade-offs, and accountability for equity and fairness.