Refining Penile Trauma Management: Introduction of the Penile Trauma Score (PTS).

OBJECTIVES: To introduce the Penile Trauma Score (PTS), a new statistically driven classification system aimed at enhancing the management of penile trauma by providing clinically relevant treatment protocols. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of 34 men with penetrating penile injuries at the Elvis Presley Level 1 Trauma Center, Memphis, from January 2014 to December 2016. Variables assessed included injury mechanism, location, depth, and follow-up outcomes related to voiding and erectile function. Odds-ratios were calculated using superficial penile injury as the control group. RESULTS: Based on physical examination findings and odds ratios calculated, the PTS was developed. Results indicated that higher PTS scores necessitated surgical intervention, while lower scores could be managed nonoperatively. Follow-up showed no missed injuries or reported dysfunctions, validating the PTS's effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: The Penile Trauma Score (PTS) represents an important modification in the classification and management of penile trauma. By integrating practical, easily identifiable injury characteristics, the PTS facilitates more streamlined surgical decision-making and potentially reduces unnecessary diagnostic procedures. However, further prospective studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up are needed to fully validate the PTS's clinical utility.

Analysis of early perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted radical cystectomy and colonic diversion.

Studies of right colon pouch urinary diversion have widely varying estimates of the risk of perioperative complications, reoperation, and readmission. We sought to describe the association between specific risk factors and complication, readmission, and reoperation rates following right colon pouch urinary diversion. Patients undergoing robot-assisted right colon pouch urinary diversion from July 2013 to December 2022 were analyzed. Outcome measures include high-grade (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥ 3) complications within 90 days, readmission within 90 days, and reoperation at any time during follow-up. Specific risk factors such as age, gender, body mass index (BMI), diabetes, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), and prior radiation were analyzed to establish an association with these outcomes. During the study period, 77 patients underwent the procedure and were eligible to study. The average follow-up was 88.7 (SD 14) months. 90-day high-grade complications were 24.67%, and 90-day readmission was 33.76%. The cumulative rate of any reoperation was 40.2%, and major reoperation was 24.67%. Female gender (OR 3.3, p = 0.015), 1 kg/m2 increase in BMI (OR 3.77, p = 0.014), diabetes (OR 3.49, p = 0.021), higher CCI (OR 1.59, p = 0.034), prior radiation (OR 1.97, p = 0.026), lower eGFR (OR 0.99, p = 0.032) and BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2  (OR 3.9, p value 0.02) was associated with Clavien III-IV complications. Female gender (OR 3.3, p = 0.015), diabetes (OR 3.97, p = 0.029), higher Charlson Comorbidity Index (OR 1.73, p = 0.031), prior radiation (OR 1.45, p = 0.029), lower eGFR (OR 0.87, p = 0.037) and BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2 (OR 3.86, p = 0.031) were predictive of reoperation. Overall, the rate of postoperative complications, readmissions, and reoperation was high but consistent with other studies. This study helps further characterize surgical outcomes after right colon pouch urinary diversion and highlights patients who may benefit from enhanced preoperative management for minimising complications.

Accelerated Chest Pain Treatment With Artificial Intelligence-Informed, Risk-Driven Triage.

This quality improvement study evaluates the use of artificial intelligence to accelerate triage of patients presenting to the emergency department with chest pain.

Abbreviated MRI in the evaluation of dizziness: report turnaround times and impact on length of stay compared to CT, CTA, and conventional MRI.

PURPOSE: Neuroimaging is often used in the emergency department (ED) to evaluate for posterior circulation strokes in patients with dizziness, commonly with CT/CTA due to speed and availability. Although MRI offers more sensitive evaluation, it is less commonly used, in part due to slower turnaround times. We assess the potential for abbreviated MRI to improve reporting times and impact on length of stay (LOS) compared to conventional MRI (as well as CT/CTA) in the evaluation of acute dizziness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of length of stay via LASSO regression for patients presenting to the ED with dizziness and discharged directly from the ED over 4 years (1/1/2018-12/31/2021), controlling for numerous patient-level and logistical factors. We additionally assessed turnaround time between order and final report for various imaging modalities. RESULTS: 14,204 patients were included in our analysis. Turnaround time for abbreviated MRI was significantly lower than for conventional MRI (4.40 h vs. 6.14 h, p < 0.001) with decreased impact on LOS (0.58 h vs. 2.02 h). Abbreviated MRI studies had longer turnaround time (4.40 h vs. 1.41 h, p < 0.001) and was associated with greater impact on ED LOS than non-contrast CT head (0.58 h vs. 0.00 h), however there was no significant difference in turnaround time compared to CTA head and neck (4.40 h vs. 3.86 h, p = 0.06) with similar effect on LOS (0.58 h vs. 0.53 h). Ordering both CTA and conventional MRI was associated with a greater-than-linear increase in LOS (additional 0.37 h); the same trend was not seen combining CTA and abbreviated MRI (additional 0.00 h). CONCLUSIONS: In the acute settings where MRI is available, abbreviated MRI protocols may improve turnaround times and LOS compared to conventional MRI protocols. Since recent guidelines recommend MRI over CT in the evaluation of dizziness, implementation of abbreviated MRI protocols has the potential to facilitate rapid access to preferred imaging, while minimizing impact on ED workflows.

Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome After SARS-CoV-2 Infection.

Importance: Chronic symptoms reported following an infection with SARS-CoV-2, such as cognitive problems, overlap with symptoms included in the definition of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). Objective: To evaluate the prevalence of ME/CFS-like illness subsequent to acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, changes in ME/CFS symptoms through 12 months of follow-up, and the association of ME/CFS symptoms with SARS-CoV-2 test results at the acute infection-like index illness. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective, multisite, longitudinal cohort study (Innovative Support for Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infections Registry [INSPIRE]) enrolled participants from December 11, 2020, to August 29, 2022. Participants were adults aged 18 to 64 years with acute symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infection who received a US Food and Drug Administration-approved SARS-CoV-2 test at the time of illness and did not die or withdraw from the study by 3 months. Follow-up surveys were collected through February 28, 2023. Exposure: COVID-19 status (positive vs negative) at enrollment. Main Outcome and Measures: The main outcome was the weighted proportion of participants with ME/CFS-like illness based on the 2015 Institute of Medicine clinical case definition using self-reported symptoms. Results: A total of 4378 participants were included in the study. Most were female (3226 [68.1%]). Mean (SD) age was 37.8 (11.8) years. The survey completion rates ranged from 38.7% (3613 of 4738 participants) to 76.3% (1835 of 4738) and decreased over time. The weighted proportion of participants identified with ME/CFS-like illness did not change significantly at 3 through 12 months of follow-up and was similar in the COVID-19-positive (range, 2.8%-3.7%) and COVID-19-negative (range, 3.1%-4.5%) groups. Adjusted analyses revealed no significant difference in the odds of ME/CFS-like illness at any time point between COVID-19-positive and COVID-19-negative individuals (marginal odds ratio range, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.42-1.67] to 1.18 [95% CI, 0.55-2.51]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this prospective cohort study, there was no evidence that the proportion of participants with ME/CFS-like illness differed between those infected with SARS-CoV-2 vs those without SARS-CoV-2 infection up to 12 months after infection. A 3% to 4% prevalence of ME/CFS-like illness after an acute infection-like index illness would impose a high societal burden given the millions of persons infected with SARS-CoV-2.

The association between prolonged SARS-CoV-2 symptoms and work outcomes.

While the early effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the United States labor market are well-established, less is known about the long-term impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection and Long COVID on employment. To address this gap, we analyzed self-reported data from a prospective, national cohort study to estimate the effects of SARS-CoV-2 symptoms at three months post-infection on missed workdays and return to work. The analysis included 2,939 adults in the Innovative Support for Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infections Registry (INSPIRE) study who tested positive for their initial SARS-CoV-2 infection at the time of enrollment, were employed before the pandemic, and completed a baseline and three-month electronic survey. At three months post-infection, 40.8% of participants reported at least one SARS-CoV-2 symptom and 9.6% of participants reported five or more SARS-CoV-2 symptoms. When asked about missed work due to their SARS-CoV-2 infection at three months, 7.2% of participants reported missing ≥10 workdays and 13.9% of participants reported not returning to work since their infection. At three months, participants with ≥5 symptoms had a higher adjusted odds ratio of missing ≥10 workdays (2.96, 95% CI 1.81-4.83) and not returning to work (2.44, 95% CI 1.58-3.76) compared to those with no symptoms. Prolonged SARS-CoV-2 symptoms were common, affecting 4-in-10 participants at three-months post-infection, and were associated with increased odds of work loss, most pronounced among adults with ≥5 symptoms at three months. Despite the end of the federal Public Health Emergency for COVID-19 and efforts to "return to normal", policymakers must consider the clinical and economic implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on people's employment status and work absenteeism, particularly as data characterizing the numerous health and well-being impacts of Long COVID continue to emerge. Improved understanding of risk factors for lost work time may guide efforts to support people in returning to work.

Total and Out-of-Pocket Costs Surrounding Emergency Department Care Among Older Adults Enrolled in Traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We sought to quantify differences in total and out-of-pocket health care costs associated with treat-and-release emergency department (ED) visits among older adults with traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage. METHODS: We conducted a repeated cross-sectional analysis of treat-and-release ED visits using 2015 to 2020 data from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey. We measured total and out-of-pocket health care spending during 3 time periods: the 30 days prior to the ED visit, the treat-and-release ED visit itself, and the 30 days after the ED visit. Stratified by traditional Medicare or Medicare Advantage status, we determined median total costs and the proportion of costs that were out-of-pocket. RESULTS: Among the 5,011 ED visits by those enrolled in traditional Medicare, the weighted median total (and % out-of-pocket) costs were $881.95 (13.3%) for the 30 days prior to the ED visit, $419.70 (10.1%) for the ED visit, and $809.00 (13.8%) for the 30 days after the ED visit. For the 2,595 ED visits by those enrolled in Medicare Advantage, the weighted median total (and % out-of-pocket) costs were $484.92 (24.0%) for the 30 days prior to the ED visit, $216.66 (21.9%) for the ED visit, and $439.13 (22.4%) for the 30 days after the ED visit. CONCLUSION: Older adults insured by Medicare Advantage incur lower total health care costs and face similar overall out-of-pocket expenses in the time period surrounding emergency care. However, a higher proportion of expenses are out-of-pocket compared with those insured by traditional Medicare, providing evidence of greater cost sharing for Medicare Advantage plan enrollees.

Estimating the size and scope of the academic emergency physician workforce.

BACKGROUND: Academic emergency medicine (EM) is foundational to the EM specialty through the development of new knowledge and clinical training of resident physicians. Despite recent increased attention to the future of the EM workforce, no evaluations have specifically characterized the U.S. academic EM workforce. We sought to estimate the national proportion of emergency physicians (EPs) identified as academic and the proportion of emergency department (ED) visits that take place at academic sites. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of EPs and EDs using data from the American Hospital Association, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, and Doximity's Residency Navigator. EPs were identified as "academic" if they were affiliated with at least one facility determined to be academic, defined as EDs officially designated by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) as clinical training sites at accredited EM residency programs. Our primary outcomes were to estimate the national proportion of EPs identified as academic and the proportion of ED visits performed at academic sites. RESULTS: Our analytic sample included 26,937 EPs practicing clinically across 4920 EDs and providing care during 130,471,386 ED visits. Among EPs, 11,720 (43.5%) were identified as academic, and among EDs, 635 (12.9%) were identified as academic sites, including 585 adult/general sites, 45 pediatric-specific sites, and 10 sites affiliated with the Department of Veterans Affairs. In 2021, academic EDs provided care for 42,794,106 ED visits or 32.8% of all ED visits nationally. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately four in 10 EPs practice in at least one clinical training site affiliated with an ACGME-accredited EM residency program, and approximately one in three ED visits nationally occur in these academic EDs. We encourage further work using alternative definitions of an academic EPs and EDs, along with longitudinal research to identify trends in the workforce's composition.

Calculation of Overall Hospital Quality Star Ratings With and Without Inclusion of the Peer Grouping Step.

Importance: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Overall Star Rating is widely used by patients and consumers, and there is continued stakeholder curiosity surrounding the inclusion of a peer grouping step, implemented to the 2021 Overall Star Rating methods. Objective: To calculate hospital star rating scores with and without the peer grouping step, with the former approach stratifying hospitals into 3-, 4-, and 5-measure group peer groups based on the number of measure groups with at least 3 reported measures. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used Care Compare website data from January 2023 for 3076 hospitals that received a star rating in 2023. Data were analyzed from April 2023 to December 2023. Exposure: Peer grouping vs no peer grouping. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the distribution of star ratings, with 1 star being the lowest-performing hospitals and 5 stars, the highest. Analyses additionally identified the number of hospitals with a higher, lower, or identical star rating with the use of the peer grouping step compared with its nonuse, stratified by certain hospital characteristics. Results: Among 3076 hospitals that received a star rating in 2023, most were nonspecialty (1994 hospitals [64.8%]), nonteaching (1807 hospitals [58.7%]), non-safety net (2326 hospitals [75.6%]), non-critical access (2826 hospitals [91.9%]) hospitals with fewer than 200 beds (1822 hospitals [59.2%]) and located in an urban geographic designations (1935 hospitals [62.9%]). The presence of the peer grouping step resulted in 585 hospitals (19.0%) being assigned a different star rating than if the peer grouping step was absent, including considerably more hospitals receiving a higher star rating (517 hospitals) rather than a lower (68 hospitals) star rating. Hospital characteristics associated with a higher star rating included urbanicity (351 hospitals [67.9%]), non-safety net status (414 hospitals [80.1%]), and fewer than 200 beds (287 hospitals [55.6%]). Collectively, the presence of the peer grouping step supports a like-to-like comparison among hospitals and supports the ability of patients to assess overall hospital quality. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, inclusion of the peer grouping in the CMS star rating method resulted in modest changes in hospital star ratings compared with application of the method without peer grouping. Given improvement in face validity and the close association between the current peer grouping approach and stakeholder needs for peer-comparison, the current CMS Overall Star Rating method allows for durable comparisons in hospital performance.

Payment Innovation in Emergency Care: A Case for Global Clinician Budgets.

The fee-for-service funding model for US emergency department (ED) clinician groups is increasingly fragile. Traditional fee-for-service payment systems offer no financial incentives to improve quality, address population health, or make value-based clinical decisions. Fee-for-service also does not support maintaining ED capacity to handle peak demand periods. In fee-for-service, clinicians rely heavily on cross-subsidization, where high reimbursement from commercial payors offsets low reimbursement from government payors and the uninsured. Although fee-for-service survived decades of steady cuts in government reimbursement rates, it is increasingly strained because of visit volatility and the effects of the No Surprises Act, which is driving down commercial reimbursement. Financial pressures on ED clinician groups and higher hospital boarding and clinical workloads are increasing workforce attrition. Here, we propose an alternative model to address some of these fundamental issues: an all-payer-funded, voluntary global budget for ED clinician services. If designed and implemented effectively, the model could support robust clinician staffing over the long term, ensure stability in clinical workload, and potentially improve equity in payments. The model could also be combined with population health programs (eg, pre-ED and post-ED telehealth, frequent ED use programs, and other innovations), offering significant payer returns and addressing quality and value. A linked program could also change hospital incentives that contribute to boarding. Strategies exist to test and refine ED clinician global budgets through existing government programs in Maryland and potentially through state-level legislation as a precursor to broader adoption.

Geriatric Emergency Medication Safety Recommendations (GEMS-Rx): Modified Delphi Development of a High-Risk Prescription List for Older Emergency Department Patients.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Half of emergency department (ED) patients aged 65 years and older are discharged with new prescriptions. Potentially inappropriate prescriptions contribute to adverse drug events. Our objective was to develop an evidence- and consensus-based list of high-risk prescriptions to avoid among older ED patients. METHODS: We performed a modified, 3-round Delphi process that included 10 ED physician experts in geriatrics or quality measurement and 1 pharmacist. Consensus members reviewed all 35 medication categories from the 2019 American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria and ranked each on a 5-point Likert scale (5=highest) for overall priority for avoidance (Round 1), risk of short-term adverse events and avoidability (Round 2), and reasonable medical indications for high-risk medication use (Round 3). RESULTS: For each round, questionnaire response rates were 91%, 82%, and 64%, respectively. After Round 1, benzodiazepines (mean, 4.60 [SD, 0.70]), skeletal muscle relaxants (4.60 [0.70]), barbiturates (4.30 [1.06]), first-generation antipsychotics (4.20 [0.63]) and first-generation antihistamines (3.70 [1.49]) were prioritized for avoidance. In Rounds 2 and 3, hypnotic "Z" drugs (4.29 [1.11]), metoclopramide (3.89 [0.93]), and sulfonylureas (4.14 [1.07]) were prioritized for avoidability, despite lower concern for short-term adverse events. All 8 medication classes were included in the final list. Reasonable indications for prescribing high-risk medications included seizure disorders, benzodiazepine/ethanol withdrawal, end of life, severe generalized anxiety, allergic reactions, gastroparesis, and prescription refill. CONCLUSION: We present the first expert consensus-based list of high-risk prescriptions for older ED patients (GEMS-Rx) to improve safety among older ED patients.

Reliability of a Measure of Admission Intensity for Emergency Physicians.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We assess the stability of a measure of emergency department (ED) admission intensity for value-based care programs designed to reduce variation in ED admission rates. Measure stability is important to accurately assess admission rates across sites and among physicians. METHODS: We sampled data from 358 EDs in 41 states (January 2018 to December 2021), separate from sites where the measure was derived. The measure is the ED admission rate per 100 ED visits for 16 clinical conditions and 535 included International Classification of Disease 10 diagnosis codes. We used descriptive plots and multilevel linear probability models to assess stability over time across EDs and among physicians. RESULTS: Across included 3,571 ED-quarters, the average admission rate was 27.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 26.0% to 28.2%). The between-facility standard deviation was 9.7% (95% CI 9.0% to 10.6%), and the within-facility standard deviation was 3.0% (95% CI 2.95% to 3.10%), with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.91. At the physician-quarter level, the average admission rate was 28.3% (95% CI 28.0% to 28.5%) among 7,002 physicians. Relative to their site's mean in each quarter, the between-physician standard deviation was 6.7% (95% CI 6.6% to 6.8%), and the within-physician standard deviation was 5.5% (95% CI 5.5% to 5.6%), with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.59. Moreover, 2.9% of physicians were high-admitting in 80%+ of their practice quarters relative to their peers in the same ED and in the same quarter, whereas 3.9% were low-admitting. CONCLUSION: The measure exhibits stability in characterizing ED-level admission rates and reliably identifies high- and low-admitting physicians.

Pre-COVID-19 hospital quality and hospital response to COVID-19: examining associations between risk-adjusted mortality for patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and pre-COVID-19 hospital quality.

OBJECTIVES: The extent to which care quality influenced outcomes for patients hospitalised with COVID-19 is unknown. Our objective was to determine if prepandemic hospital quality is associated with mortality among Medicare patients hospitalised with COVID-19. DESIGN: This is a retrospective observational study. We calculated hospital-level risk-standardised in-hospital and 30-day mortality rates (risk-standardised mortality rates, RSMRs) for patients hospitalised with COVID-19, and correlation coefficients between RSMRs and pre-COVID-19 hospital quality, overall and stratified by hospital characteristics. SETTING: Short-term acute care hospitals and critical access hospitals in the USA. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalised Medicare beneficiaries (Fee-For-Service and Medicare Advantage) age 65 and older hospitalised with COVID-19, discharged between 1 April 2020 and 30 September 2021. INTERVENTION/EXPOSURE: Pre-COVID-19 hospital quality. OUTCOMES: Risk-standardised COVID-19 in-hospital and 30-day mortality rates (RSMRs). RESULTS: In-hospital (n=4256) RSMRs for Medicare patients hospitalised with COVID-19 (April 2020-September 2021) ranged from 4.5% to 59.9% (median 18.2%; IQR 14.7%-23.7%); 30-day RSMRs ranged from 12.9% to 56.2% (IQR 24.6%-30.6%). COVID-19 RSMRs were negatively correlated with star rating summary scores (in-hospital correlation coefficient -0.41, p<0.0001; 30 days -0.38, p<0.0001). Correlations with in-hospital RSMRs were strongest for patient experience (-0.39, p<0.0001) and timely and effective care (-0.30, p<0.0001) group scores; 30-day RSMRs were strongest for patient experience (-0.34, p<0.0001) and mortality (-0.33, p<0.0001) groups. Patients admitted to 1-star hospitals had higher odds of mortality (in-hospital OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.83 to 1.91; 30-day OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.43 to 1.48) compared with 5-star hospitals. If all hospitals performed like an average 5-star hospital, we estimate 38 000 fewer COVID-19-related deaths would have occurred between April 2020 and September 2021. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals with better prepandemic quality may have care structures and processes that allowed for better care delivery and outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding the relationship between pre-COVID-19 hospital quality and COVID-19 outcomes will allow policy-makers and hospitals better prepare for future public health emergencies.

Patient-reported outcome measure use among older adults after emergency department care: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are gaining favor in clinical and research settings given their ability to capture a patient's symptom burden, functional status, and quality of life. Our objective in this systematic review was to summarize studies including PROMs assessed among older adults (age ≥ 65 years) after seeking emergency care. METHODS: With the assistance of a medical librarian, we searched Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science-Core Collection, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception through June 2023 for studies in which older adult ED patients had PROMs assessed in the post-emergency care time period. Independent reviewers performed title/abstract review, full-text screening, data extraction, study characteristic summarization, and risk-of-bias (RoB) assessments. RESULTS: Our search strategy yielded 5153 studies of which 56 met study inclusion criteria. Within included studies, 304 unique PROM assessments were performed at varying time points after the ED visit, including 61 unique PROMs. The most commonly measured domain was physical function, assessed within the majority of studies (47/56; 84%), with measures including PROMs such as Katz activities of daily living (ADLs), instrumental ADLs, and the Barthel Index. PROMs were most frequently assessed at 1-3 months after an ED visit (113/304; 37%), greater than 6 months (91/304; 30%), and 4-6 months (88/304; 29%), with very few PROMs assessed within 1 month of the ED visit (12/304; 4%). Of the 16 interventional studies, two were determined to have a low RoB, four had moderate RoB, nine had high RoB, and one had insufficient information. Of the 40 observational studies, 10 were determined to be of good quality, 20 of moderate quality, and 10 of poor quality. CONCLUSIONS: PROM assessments among older adults following an ED visit frequently measured physical function, with very few assessments occurring within the first 1 month after an ED visit.

Measuring Equity in Readmission as a Distinct Assessment of Hospital Performance.

Importance: Equity is an essential domain of health care quality. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) developed 2 Disparity Methods that together assess equity in clinical outcomes. Objectives: To define a measure of equitable readmissions; identify hospitals with equitable readmissions by insurance (dual eligible vs non-dual eligible) or patient race (Black vs White); and compare hospitals with and without equitable readmissions by hospital characteristics and performance on accountability measures (quality, cost, and value). Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study of US hospitals eligible for the CMS Hospital-Wide Readmission measure using Medicare data from July 2018 through June 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: We created a definition of equitable readmissions using CMS Disparity Methods, which evaluate hospitals on 2 methods: outcomes for populations at risk for disparities (across-hospital method); and disparities in care within hospitals' patient populations (within-a-single-hospital method). Exposures: Hospital patient demographics; hospital characteristics; and 3 measures of hospital performance-quality, cost, and value (quality relative to cost). Results: Of 4638 hospitals, 74% served a sufficient number of dual-eligible patients, and 42% served a sufficient number of Black patients to apply CMS Disparity Methods by insurance and race. Of eligible hospitals, 17% had equitable readmission rates by insurance and 30% by race. Hospitals with equitable readmissions by insurance or race cared for a lower percentage of Black patients (insurance, 1.9% [IQR, 0.2%-8.8%] vs 3.3% [IQR, 0.7%-10.8%], P < .01; race, 7.6% [IQR, 3.2%-16.6%] vs 9.3% [IQR, 4.0%-19.0%], P = .01), and differed from nonequitable hospitals in multiple domains (teaching status, geography, size; P < .01). In examining equity by insurance, hospitals with low costs were more likely to have equitable readmissions (odds ratio, 1.57 [95% CI, 1.38-1.77), and there was no relationship between quality and value, and equity. In examining equity by race, hospitals with high overall quality were more likely to have equitable readmissions (odds ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.03-1.26]), and there was no relationship between cost and value, and equity. Conclusion and Relevance: A minority of hospitals achieved equitable readmissions. Notably, hospitals with equitable readmissions were characteristically different from those without. For example, hospitals with equitable readmissions served fewer Black patients, reinforcing the role of structural racism in hospital-level inequities. Implementation of an equitable readmission measure must consider unequal distribution of at-risk patients among hospitals.

The Clinical Emergency Data Registry: Structure, Use, and Limitations for Research.

The Clinical Emergency Data Registry (CEDR) is a qualified clinical data registry that collects data from participating emergency departments (EDs) in the United States for quality measurement, improvement, and reporting purposes. This article aims to provide an overview of the data collection and validation process, describe the existing data structure and elements, and explain the potential opportunities and limitations for ongoing and future research use. CEDR data are primarily collected for quality reporting purposes and are obtained from diverse sources, including electronic health records and billing data that are de-identified and stored in a secure, centralized database. The CEDR data structure is organized around clinical episodes, which contain multiple data elements that are standardized using common data elements and are mapped to established terminologies to enable interoperability and data sharing. The data elements include patient demographics, clinical characteristics, diagnostic and treatment procedures, and outcomes. Key limitations include the limited generalizability due to the selective nature of participating EDs and the limited validation and completeness of data elements not currently used for quality reporting purposes, including demographic data. Nonetheless, CEDR holds great potential for ongoing and future research in emergency medicine due to its large-volume, longitudinal, near real-time, clinical data. In 2021, the American College of Emergency Physicians authorized the transition from CEDR to the Emergency Medicine Data Institute, which will catalyze investments in improved data quality and completeness for research to advance emergency care.

Cost-Effectiveness of CT, CTA, MRI, and Specialized MRI for Evaluation of Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department With Dizziness.

BACKGROUND. Underlying stroke is often misdiagnosed in patients presenting with dizziness. Although such patients are usually ineligible for acute stroke treatment, accurate diagnosis may still improve outcomes through selection of patients for secondary prevention measures. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to investigate the cost-effectiveness of differing neuroimaging approaches in the evaluation of patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with dizziness who are not candidates for acute intervention. METHODS. A Markov decision-analytic model was constructed from a health care system perspective for the evaluation of a patient presenting to the ED with dizziness. Four diagnostic strategies were compared: noncontrast head CT, head and neck CTA, conventional brain MRI, and specialized brain MRI (including multiplanar high-resolution DWI). Differing long-term costs and outcomes related to stroke detection and secondary prevention measures were compared. Cost-effectiveness was calculated in terms of lifetime expenditures in 2022 U.S. dollars for each quality-adjusted life year (QALY); deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS. Specialized MRI resulted in the highest QALYs and was the most cost-effective strategy with US$13,477 greater cost and 0.48 greater QALYs compared with noncontrast head CT. Conventional MRI had the next-highest health benefit, although was dominated by extension with incremental cost of US$6757 and 0.25 QALY; CTA was also dominated by extension, with incremental cost of US$3952 for 0.13 QALY. Non-contrast CT alone had the lowest utility among the four imaging choices. In the deterministic sensitivity analyses, specialized MRI remained the most cost-effective strategy. Conventional MRI was more cost-effective than CTA across a wide range of model parameters, with incremental cost-effectiveness remaining less than US$30,000/QALY. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis yielded similar results as found in the base-case analysis, with specialized MRI being more cost-effective than conventional MRI, which in turn was more cost-effective than CTA. CONCLUSION. The use of MRI in patients presenting to the ED with dizziness improves stroke detection and selection for subsequent preventive measures. MRI-based evaluation leads to lower long-term costs and higher cumulative QALYs. CLINICAL IMPACT. MRI, incorporating specialized protocols when available, is the preferred approach for evaluation of patients presenting to the ED with dizziness, to establish a stroke diagnosis and to select patients for secondary prevention measures.