Generative artificial intelligence as a source of breast cancer information for patients: Proceed with caution.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the accuracy, clinical concordance, and readability of the chatbot interface generative pretrained transformer (ChatGPT) 3.5 as a source of breast cancer information for patients. METHODS: Twenty questions that patients are likely to ask ChatGPT were identified by breast cancer advocates. These were posed to ChatGPT 3.5 in July 2023 and were repeated three times. Responses were graded in two domains: accuracy (4-point Likert scale, 4 = worst) and clinical concordance (information is clinically similar to physician response; 5-point Likert scale, 5 = not similar at all). The concordance of responses with repetition was estimated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of word counts. Response readability was calculated using the Flesch Kincaid readability scale. References were requested and verified. RESULTS: The overall average accuracy was 1.88 (range 1.0-3.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.42-1.94), and clinical concordance was 2.79 (range 1.0-5.0; 95% CI, 1.94-3.64). The average word count was 310 words per response (range, 146-441 words per response) with high concordance (ICC, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59-0.91; p < .001). The average readability was poor at 37.9 (range, 18.0-60.5) with high concordance (ICC, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57-0.90; p < .001). There was a weak correlation between ease of readability and better clinical concordance (-0.15; p = .025). Accuracy did not correlate with readability (0.05; p = .079). The average number of references was 1.97 (range, 1-4; total, 119). ChatGPT cited peer-reviewed articles only once and often referenced nonexistent websites (41%). CONCLUSIONS: Because ChatGPT 3.5 responses were incorrect 24% of the time and did not provide real references 41% of the time, patients should be cautioned about using ChatGPT for medical information.

Distinguishing Clinical From Statistical Significances in Contemporary Comparative Effectiveness Research.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of clinical significance reporting in contemporary comparative effectiveness research (CER). BACKGROUND: In CER, a statistically significant difference between study groups may or may not be clinically significant. Misinterpreting statistically significant results could lead to inappropriate recommendations that increase health care costs and treatment toxicity. METHODS: CER studies from 2022 issues of the Annals of Surgery , Journal of the American Medical Association , Journal of Clinical Oncology , Journal of Surgical Research , and Journal of the American College of Surgeons were systematically reviewed by 2 different investigators. The primary outcome of interest was whether the authors specified what they considered to be a clinically significant difference in the "Methods." RESULTS: Of 307 reviewed studies, 162 were clinical trials and 145 were observational studies. Authors specified what they considered to be a clinically significant difference in 26 studies (8.5%). Clinical significance was defined using clinically validated standards in 25 studies and subjectively in 1 study. Seven studies (2.3%) recommended a change in clinical decision-making, all with primary outcomes achieving statistical significance. Five (71.4%) of these studies did not have clinical significance defined in their methods. In randomized controlled trials with statistically significant results, sample size was inversely correlated with effect size ( r = -0.30, P = 0.038). CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary CER, most authors do not specify what they consider to be a clinically significant difference in study outcome. Most studies recommending a change in clinical decision-making did so based on statistical significance alone, and clinical significance was usually defined with clinically validated standards.

Patients with dementia or frailty undergoing major limb amputation have poor outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Major lower limb amputation is a disfiguring operation associated with impaired mobility and high near-term mortality. Informed decision-making regarding amputation requires outcomes data. Despite the co-occurrence of both chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) and Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD), there is sparse data on the outcomes of major limb amputation in this population and the impact of frailty. We sought to determine mortality, complications, readmissions, revisions, intensive interventions (eg, cardiopulmonary resuscitation), and other outcomes after amputation for CLTI in patients living with ADRD looking at the modifying effects of frailty. METHODS: We examined Medicare fee-for-service claims data from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2020. Patients with CLTI undergoing amputation at or proximal to the ankle were included. Along with demographic information, dementia status, and comorbid conditions, we measured frailty using a claims-based frailty index. We dichotomized dementia and frailty (pre-frail/robust = "non-frail" vs moderate/severe frailty = "frail") to create four groups: non-frail/non-ADRD, frail/non-ADRD, non-frail/ADRD, and frail/ADRD. We used linear and logistic regression via generalized estimating equations in addition to performing selected outcomes analyses with death as a competing risk to understand the association between dementia status, frailty status, and 1-year mortality as our primary outcome in addition to the postoperative outcomes outlined above. RESULTS: Among 46,930 patients undergoing major limb amputation, 11,465 (24.4%) had ADRD and 24,790 (52.8%) had frailty. Overall, 55.9% of amputations were below-knee. Selected outcomes among frail/ADRD patients undergoing amputation (n = 10,153) were: 55.3% 1-year mortality 29.6% readmissions at 30 days, and 32.3% amputation revision/reoperation within 1 year. Of all four groups, those in the frail/ADRD had the worst outcomes only for 1-year mortality. CONCLUSIONS: First, patients with ADRD or moderate/severe frailty suffer an array of very poor outcomes after major limb amputation for CLTI, including high mortality, readmissions, revision, and risks of discharge to higher levels of care. Second, there is a complex relationship between outcome severity and ADRD/frailty status. Specifically, frailty is more often than ADRD associated with the poorest results for any given outcome. These data provide important outcomes data to help align decision-making with health care values and goals.

Filling the gaps in the COVID-19 pandemic response: medical personnel in the US military health system.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic was an unprecedented public health emergency that heavily affected the healthcare workforce. Although the Military Health System (MHS) has robust capabilities and was able to deploy medical staff to support civilian hospitals during the crisis, it too was adversely impacted by personnel issues. We aimed to identify and address gaps in understanding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare personnel in the MHS. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured key informant interviews with 28 MHS stakeholders, including policymakers, program managers, and healthcare providers. We recruited respondents using purposive and snowball sampling until we reached thematic saturation. Interviews were conducted virtually from December 2022 to March 2023 and coded by deductive thematic analysis using NVivo. RESULTS: Burnout and mental health concerns across the workforce increased during the pandemic, although some felt military culture facilitated resilience. Reduction in personnel was noted and slow hiring processes and noncompetitive wages hindered hiring, contributing to staffing shortages. Initial disruptions occurred in training and skills readiness, although these issues were reduced over time. Concerns remain about newer trainees' preparedness and teaching staff's availability in the MHS. CONCLUSION: This study uniquely assessed the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic response on the MHS healthcare workforce through in-depth key informant interviews. Multi-pronged strategies are needed to promote personnel well-being in complex healthcare systems like the MHS.

The response of the Military Health System (MHS) to the COVID-19 pandemic: a summary of findings from MHS reviews.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused major disruptions to the US Military Health System (MHS). In this study, we evaluated the MHS response to the pandemic to understand the impact of the pandemic response in a large, national, integrated healthcare system providing care for ~ 9 million beneficiaries. METHODS: We performed a narrative literature review of 16 internal Department of Defense (DoD) reports, including reviews mandated by the US Congress in response to the pandemic. We categorized the findings using the Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership, Personnel, Facilities, and Policy (DOTMLPF-P) framework developed by the DoD to assess system efficiency and effectiveness. RESULTS: The majority of the findings were in the policy, organization, and personnel categories. Key findings showed that the MHS structure to address surge situations was beneficial during the pandemic response, and the rapid growth of telehealth created the potential impact for improved access to routine and specialized care. However, organizational transition contributed to miscommunication and uneven implementation of policies; disruptions affected clinical training, upskilling, and the supply chain; and staffing shortages contributed to burnout among healthcare workers. CONCLUSION: Given its highly integrated, vertical structure, the MHS was in a better position than many civilian healthcare networks to respond efficiently to the pandemic. However, similar to the US civilian sector, the MHS also experienced delays in care, staffing and materiel challenges, and a rapid switch to telehealth. Lessons regarding the importance of communication and preparation for future public health emergency responses are relevant to civilian healthcare systems responding to COVID-19 and other similar public health crises.

Supporting the nation in crisis: the military health system's role in enhancing public health capacity through public-private partnerships.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused significant global disruptions to the healthcare system, which was forced to make rapid changes in healthcare delivery. The pandemic necessitated closer collaboration between the US civilian healthcare sector and the military health system (MHS), resulting in new and strengthened partnerships that can ultimately benefit public health and healthcare for the nation. In this study, we sought to understand the full range of partnerships in which the MHS engaged with the civilian sector during the COVID-19 pandemic and to elicit lessons for the future. METHODS: We conducted key informant interviews with MHS policymakers and advisers, program managers and providers who were affiliated with the MHS from March 2020 through December 2022. Key themes were derived using thematic analysis and open coding methods. RESULTS: We conducted 28 interviews between December 2022 and March 2023. During the pandemic, the MHS collaborated with federal and local healthcare authorities and private sector entities through endeavours such as Operation Warp Speed. Lessons and recommendations for future pandemics were also identified, including investment in biosurveillance systems and integration of behavioural and social sciences. CONCLUSIONS: The MHS rapidly established and fostered key partnerships with the public and private sectors during the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic experience showed that while the MHS is a useful resource for the nation, it also benefits from partnering with a variety of organizations, agencies and private companies. Continuing to develop these partnerships will be crucial for coordinated, effective responses to future pandemics.

Filling the Gaps in the Pandemic Response: Impact of COVID-19 on Telehealth in the Military Health System.

Introduction: As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, telehealth use became widespread, allowing for continued health care while minimizing COVID-19 transmission risk for patients and providers. This rapid scale-up highlighted shortcomings of the current telehealth infrastructure in many health systems. We aimed to identify and address gaps in the United States Military Health System (MHS) response to the COVID-19 pandemic related to the implementation and utilization of telehealth. Methods: We conducted semistructured key informant interviews of MHS stakeholders, including policymakers, program managers, and health care providers. We recruited respondents using purposive and snowball sampling until we reached thematic saturation. Interviews were conducted virtually from December 2022 to March 2023 and coded by deductive thematic analysis using NVivo. Results: We interviewed 28 key informants. Several themes emerged from the interviews and were categorized into four defined areas of obstacles to the effective utilization of telehealth: administrative, technical, organizational, and quality issues. While respondents had positive perceptions of telehealth, issues such as billing, licensure portability, network connectivity and technology, and ability to monitor health outcomes represent major barriers in the current system, preventing the potential for further expansion. Conclusions: While the shift to telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated robust potential within the MHS, it highlighted shortcomings that impair the utility and expansion of telehealth on a level comparable to that of other large health systems. Future focus should be directed toward generating and implementing actionable recommendations that target these identified challenges in the MHS.

Understanding the Roles, Responsibilities, and Factors for Success of Health Equity Officers in Health Care Settings: A Qualitative Study.

CONTEXT: Recent national guidelines aimed at addressing equity in health care settings have contributed to an increase in equity officer positions, yet little is known about their roles, responsibilities, or strategies for engaging in health equity work. OBJECTIVE: To understand the roles and responsibilities of equity officers, as well as facilitators and barriers to their success. DESIGN: In-depth semi-structured interviews with selected respondents from the Equity Officer National Study. SETTING: Hospitals and health care systems across the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-six equity officers who had responded to the Equity Officer National Study survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The interview guide explored strategies, facilitators, and barriers for engaging in health equity work in hospitals/health systems and communities. RESULTS: The job roles described by participants fell into 4 categories: community benefits/relations, population/community health, workforce, and health equity. Equity officers described key areas to support success at the individual equity officer level: knowledge and expertise, professional skills, and interpersonal skills; at the hospital level: leadership, workforce, infrastructure and resources, and policies and processes; at the community level: leadership and partnerships; and at the system level: requirements and regulations, investment and resources, and sociocultural and political characteristics of the community. These key areas have been organized to create a Framework for Equity Officer Success. CONCLUSIONS: The Framework for Equity Officer Success should be incorporated into hospital board, community stakeholder, and policymaker discussions about how to support health equity work in hospitals and health care systems.

Effect of type of definitive treatment on race-based differences in prostate cancer-specific survival.

BACKGROUND: Racial and ethnic disparities in prostate cancer (PCa) mortality are partially mediated by inequities in quality of care. Intermediate- and high-risk PCa can be treated with either surgery or radiation, therefore we designed a study to assess the magnitude of race-based differences in cancer-specific survival between these two treatment modalities. METHODS: Non-Hispanic Black (NHB) and non-Hispanic White (NHW) men with localized intermediate- and high-risk PCa, treated with surgery or radiation between 2004 and 2015 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results database were included in the study and followed until December 2018. Unadjusted and adjusted survival analyses were employed to compare cancer-specific survival by race and treatment modality. A model with an interaction term between race and treatment was used to assess whether the type of treatment amplified or attenuated the effect of race/ethnicity on prostate cancer-specific mortality (PCSM). RESULTS: 15,178 (20.1%) NHB and 60,225 (79.9%) NHW men were included in the study. NHB men had a higher cumulative incidence of PCSM (p = 0.005) and were significantly more likely to be treated with radiation than NHW men (aOR: 1.89, 95% CI: 1.81-1.97, p < 0.001). In the adjusted models, NHB men were significantly more likely to die from PCa compared with NHW men (aHR: 1.18, 95% CI: 1.03-1.35, p = 0.014), and radiation was associated with a significantly higher odds of PCSM (aHR: 2.10, 95% CI: 1.85-2.38, p < 0.001) compared with surgery. Finally, the interaction between race and treatment on PCSM was not significant, meaning that no race-based differences in PCSM were found within each treatment modality. CONCLUSIONS: NHB men with intermediate- and high-risk PCa had a higher rate of PCSM than NWH men in a large national cancer registry, though NHB and NHW men managed with the same treatment achieved similar PCa survival outcomes. The higher tendency for NHB men to receive radiation was similar in magnitude to the difference in cancer survival between racial and ethnic groups.

Long-term Mental Health Trajectories of Injured Military Servicemembers: Comparing Combat to Noncombat Related Injuries.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to quantify the impact of injury characteristics and setting on the development of mental health conditions, comparing combat to noncombat injury mechanisms. BACKGROUND: Due to advances in combat casualty care, military service-members are surviving traumatic injuries at substantial rates. The nature and setting of traumatic injury may influence the development of subsequent mental health disorders more than clinical injury characteristics. METHODS: TRICARE claims data was used to identify servicemembers injured in combat between 2007 and 2011. Controls were servicemembers injured in a noncombat setting matched by age, sex, and injury severity. The rate of development, and time to diagnosis [in days (d)], of 3 common mental health conditions (post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and anxiety) among combat-injured servicemembers were compared to controls. Risk factors for developing a new mental health condition after traumatic injury were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression that controlled for confounders. RESULTS: There were 3979 combat-injured servicemember and 3979 matched controls. The majority of combat injured servicemembers (n = 2524, 63%) were diagnosed with a new mental health condition during the course of follow-up, compared to 36% (n = 1415) of controls ( P < 0.001). In the adjusted model, those with combat-related injury were significantly more likely to be diagnosed with a new mental health condition [odds ratio (OR): 3.18, [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.88-3.50]]. Junior (OR: 3.33, 95%CI: 2.66-4.17) and senior enlisted (OR: 2.56, 95%CI: 2.07-3.17) servicemem-bers were also at significantly greater risk. CONCLUSIONS: We found significantly higher rates of new mental health conditions among servicemembers injured in combat compared to service-members sustaining injuries in noncombat settings. This indicates that injury mechanism and environment are important drivers of mental health sequelae after trauma.

The Hidden Costs of War: Healthcare Utilization Among Individuals Sustaining Combat-related Trauma (2007-2018).

OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate long-term healthcare requirements of American military servicemembers with combat-related injuries. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: US military conflicts since 2001 have produced the most combat casualties since Vietnam. Long-term consequences on healthcare utilization and associated costs remain unknown. METHODS: We identified servicemembers who were treated for combat-related injuries between 2007 and 2011. Controls consisted of active-duty servicemembers injured in the civilian sector, without any history of combat-related trauma, matched (1:1) on year of injury, biologic sex injury severity, and age at time of injury. Surveillance was performed through 2018. Total annual healthcare expenditures were evaluated overall and then as expenditures in the first year after injury and for subsequent years. Negative binomial regression was used to identify the adjusted influence of combat injury on healthcare costs. RESULTS: The combat-injured cohort consisted of 3981 individuals and we identified 3979 controls. Total healthcare utilization during the follow-up period resulted in median costs of $142,214 (IQR $61,428, $323,060) per combat-injured servicemember as compared to $50,741 (IQR $26,669, $104,134) among controls. Median expenditures, adjusted for duration of follow-up, for the combat-injured were $45,211 (IQR $18,698, $105,437). In adjusted analysis, overall costs were 30% higher (1.30; 95% confidence interval: 1.23, 1.37) for combat-injured personnel. CONCLUSION: This investigation represents the longest continuous observation of healthcare utilization among individuals after combat injury and the first to assess costs. Expenditures were 30% higher for individuals injured as a result of combat-related trauma when compared to those injured in the civilian sector.

Practice Billing for Medicare Advance Care Planning Across the USA.

BACKGROUND: Medicare introduced billing codes in 2016 to encourage clinicians to engage in advance care planning (ACP) and promote goal-concordantend-of-life care, but uptake has been modest. While prior research examined individual-level factors in ACP billing, organization-level factors associated with physician practices billing for ACP remain unknown. OBJECTIVE: Examine the role of practices in ACP billing. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study analyzing 2016-2018 national Medicare data. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 53,926 practices with at least 10 attributed Medicare beneficiaries. MAIN MEASURES: Outcomes were practice-level ACP billing (any use by the practice) and ACP use rate by practice-attributed beneficiaries. Practice characteristics were number of beneficiaries attributed to the practice; percentage of beneficiaries by race, Medicare-Medicaid dual enrollment, sex, and age; practice size; and specialty mix. KEY RESULTS: Fifteen percent of practices billed for ACP. In adjusted models, we found higher odds of ACP billing and higher ACP use rates among practices with more primary care physicians (billing AOR: 10.01, 95%CI: 8.81-11.38 for practices with 75-100% (vs 0) primary care physicians), and those serving more Medicare beneficiaries (billing AOR: 4.55, 95%CI 4.08-5.08 for practices with highest (vs lowest) quintile of beneficiaries), and larger shares of female beneficiaries (billing AOR: 3.06, 95% CI 2.01-4.67 for 75-100% (vs <25%) female ). CONCLUSIONS: Several years after Medicare introduced ACP reimbursements for physicians, relatively few practices bill for ACP. ACP billing was more likely in large practices with a greater percentage of primary care physicians. To increase ACP billing uptake, policymakers and health system leaders might target interventions to larger practices where a small number of physicians already bill for ACP and to specialty practices that serve as the primary source of care for seriously ill patients.

Is This ACP? A Focus Group Study of Patient Experiences of Advance Care Planning.

BACKGROUND: To date, most research on patients' experiences with advance care planning (ACP) focuses on motivations to engage in discussions and how patients prepare. Gaps remain in understanding how non-critically ill Medicare patients perceive ACP encounters, including how they characterize positive and negative experiences with ACP. OBJECTIVES: Understanding these patients' perceptions is imperative as Medicare has sought to incentivize provision of ACP services via two billing codes in 2016. DESIGN: Qualitative focus group study. Thematic analysis was performed to assess participants ACP experience. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare beneficiaries who had engaged in or were billed for ACP. KEY RESULTS: Seven focus groups were conducted with 34 Medicare beneficiaries who had engaged in ACP across 5 US health systems. Participants described a spectrum of perceptions regarding ACP, and a range of delivery approaches, including group ACP, discussions with specialists during serious illness, and ACP in primary care settings during wellness visits. Despite being billed for ACP or having ACP services noted in their medical record, many did not recognize that they had engaged in ACP, expressed lack of clarity over the term "ACP," and were unaware of the Medicare billing codes. Among participants who described quality patient-centered ACP experiences, three additional themes were identified: trusted and established patient/clinician relationships, transparent communication and documentation, and an understanding that ACP is revisable. Participants offered recommendations for clinicians and health systems to improve the patient ACP experience. CONCLUSIONS: Findings include actionable steps to promote patient-centered ACP experiences, including clinician training to support improved communication and facilitating shared decision-making, allocating sufficient clinical time for discussions, and ensuring that documentation of preferences is clear and accessible. Other approaches such as group ACP and ACP navigators may help to support patient interests within clinical constraints and need to be further explored.

Where Is the Value in Ambulatory Versus Inpatient Surgery?

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to estimate the effect of index surgical care setting on perioperative costs and readmission rates across 4 common elective general surgery procedures. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Facility fees seem to be a driving force behind rising US healthcare costs, and inpatient-based fees are significantly higher than those associated with ambulatory services. Little is known about factors influencing where patients undergo elective surgery. METHODS: All-payer claims data from the 2014 New York and Florida Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project were used to identify 73,724 individuals undergoing an index hernia repair, primary total or partial thyroidectomy, laparoscopic cholecystectomy, or laparoscopic appendectomy in either the inpatient or ambulatory care setting. Inverse probability of treatment weighting-adjusted gamma generalized linear and logistic regression was employed to compare costs and 30-day readmission between inpatient and ambulatory-based surgery, respectively. RESULTS: Approximately 87% of index surgical cases were performed in the ambulatory setting. Adjusted mean index surgical costs were significantly lower among ambulatory versus inpatient cases for all 4 procedures (P < 0.001 for all). Adjusted odds of experiencing a 30-day readmission after thyroidectomy [odds ratio (OR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.53-0.93; P = 0.03], hernia repair (OR 0.28, 95% CI, 0.20-0.40; P < 0.001), and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (OR 0.37, 95% CI, 0.32-0.43; P < 0.001) were lower in the ambulatory versus inpatient setting. Readmission rates among ambulatory versus inpatient-based laparoscopic appendectomy were comparable (OR 0.63, 95% CI, 0.31-1.26; P = 0.19). CONCLUSIONS: Ambulatory surgery offers significant costs savings and generally superior 30-day outcomes relative to inpatient-based care for appropriately selected patients across 4 common elective general surgery procedures.

Association of balanced abdominal organ transplant center volumes with patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The volume-outcome relationship for organ-specific transplantation is well-described; it is unknown if the relative balance of kidney compared with liver volumes within an institution relates to organ-specific outcomes. We assessed the association between relative balance within a transplant center and outcomes. METHODS: National retrospective analysis of isolated kidney and liver transplants in United States 2005-2014 followed through 2019. Latent class analysis defined transplant center phenotypes. Multivariate Cox models estimated death-censored graft loss and mortality. RESULTS: Latent class analysis identified four phenotypes: kidney only (n = 117), kidney dominant (n = 36), mixed/balanced (n = 90), and liver dominant (n = 13). Compared to mixed centers, the risk of kidney graft loss was higher at kidney-dominant (HR 1.07, p < .001) and liver-dominant (HR 1.10, p < .001) centers, while kidney-only (HR 1.06, p = .01) centers had higher mortality. Liver graft loss was not associated with phenotype, but risk of patient death was lower (HR 0.93, p = .02) at liver dominant and higher (HR 1.06, p = .02) at kidney-dominant centers. CONCLUSIONS: A mixed phenotype was associated with improved kidney transplant outcomes, whereas liver transplant outcomes were best at liver-dominant centers. While these findings need to be verified with center-level resources, optimization of shared resources could improve patient and organ outcomes.

Patient perspectives on the need for implanted device information: Implications for a post-procedural communication framework.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making and patient-centred communication have become part of pre-procedural decisions and perioperative care across medical specialties. However, gaps exist in patient communication about the implanted device received and the benefits in sharing information about their procedure and device. OBJECTIVE: To understand the patients' knowledge of identifying information for their implanted devices and perspectives on sharing their implanted device information. METHODS: Four focus groups were conducted with patients who had received a cardiac or vascular implanted device from one of the study sites within the previous 6 months. Data were transcribed and thematically analysed. RESULTS: Five themes emerged: lack of awareness of identifying information on implanted devices; value of information on implanted devices; varying trust with sharing device information; perceived risk with sharing device information; and lack of consensus on a systematic process for tracking implanted devices. DISCUSSION: Patients desire post-procedural information on their implanted device and a designated plan for longitudinal follow-up, but lack trust and perceive risk with broadly sharing their implanted device information. CONCLUSION: After receiving an implanted device, post-procedural patient communication needs to be expanded to include identifying information on the device including the unique device identifier, how long-term tracking will be supported and the process for notification in case of a problem with the device. This communication should also include education on how sharing device information supports patients' long-term health care, post-market safety surveillance and research. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The research team included members who were also patients with implanted devices.

Strategies for spinal surgery reimbursement: bundling in the working-age population.

INTRODUCTION: Bundled payments for spine surgery, which is known for having high overall cost with wide variation, have been previously studied in older adults. However, there has been limited work examining bundled payments in working-age patients. We sought to identify the variation in the cost of spine surgery among working age adults in a large, national insurance claims database. METHODS: We queried the TRICARE claims database for all patients, aged 18-64, undergoing cervical and non-cervical spinal fusion surgery between 2012 and 2014. We calculated the case mix adjusted, price standardized payments for all aspects of care during the 60-, 90-, and 180-day periods post operation. Variation was assessed by stratifying Hospital Referral Regions into quintiles. RESULTS: After adjusting for case mix, there was significant variation in the cost of both cervical ($10,538.23, 60% of first quintile) and non-cervical ($20,155.59, 74%). Relative variation in total cost decreased from 60- to 180-days (63 to 55% and 76 to 69%). Index hospitalization was the primary driver of costs and variation for both cervical (1st-to-5th quintile range: $11,033-$19,960) and non-cervical ($18,565-$36,844) followed by readmissions for cervical ($0-$11,521) and non-cervical ($0-$13,932). Even at the highest quintile, post-acute care remained the lowest contribution to overall cost ($2070 & $2984). CONCLUSIONS: There is wide variation in the cost of spine surgery across the United States for working age adults, driven largely by index procedure and readmissions costs. Our findings suggest that implementing episodes longer than the current 90-day standard would do little to better control cost variation.

Dementia is associated with increased mortality and poor patient-centered outcomes after vascular surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Dementia has been associated with increased complications and mortality in orthopedics and other surgical specialties, but has received limited attention in vascular surgery. Therefore, we evaluated the association of dementia with surgical outcomes for elderly patients with Medicare who underwent a variety of open and percutaneous vascular surgery procedures. METHODS: We reviewed claims data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Part A fee-for-service insurance from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2011, who underwent inpatient vascular surgery. Only the first surgery during the first admission was considered for analysis. Traditional outcomes (30- and 90-day mortality, intensive care admission, complications, length of stay) and patient-centered outcomes (discharge to home, extended skilled nursing facility [SNF] stay, time at home) were adjusted for patient and procedure characteristics using multilevel linear or logistic regression as appropriate. All analyses were performed using SAS (v9.4, SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC). RESULTS: Our study included 210,918 patients undergoing vascular surgery, of whom 27,920 carried a diagnosis of dementia. The average age of the entire cohort was 75.74 years, and 55.43% were male. Patients with dementia were older and had higher rates of comorbidities compared with patients without a dementia diagnosis. The three most common defined classes of intervention excluding miscellaneous ones were cerebrovascular, peripheral arterial, and aortic cases, which jointly accounted for 53.15% of cases. Among all cases, 56.62% were open. Emergent/urgent cases were more frequent amongst those with dementia (60.66% vs 37.93%; P < .001). After adjustment, patients with dementia had increased odds of 30-day mortality (odds ratio [OR], 1.21; P < .0001) and 90-day mortality (OR, 1.63; P < .0001), extended SNF stay (OR, 3.47; P < .0001), and longer hospital length of stay (8.29 days vs 5.41 days; P < .001). They were less likely to be discharged home (OR, 0.31; P < .0001) and spent a lower fraction of time at home after discharge (63.29% vs 86.91%; P < .001). Intensive care admission and inpatient complications were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Dementia is associated with poor traditional outcomes, including increased 30- and 90-day mortality and longer hospital lengths of stay in this large national patient sample. It is also associated with worse patient-centered outcomes, including substantially lower discharge rates to home, less time spent at home after discharge, and higher rates of extended stay in a SNF. These data should be used to counsel patients facing vascular surgery to provide goal-concordant care, particularly to patients with dementia.