OrthoPass: Long-term Outcomes following Implementation of an Orthopaedic Patient Handoff Template.

Standardized handoff tools improve communication and patient care; however, their widespread use in surgical fields is lacking. OrthoPass, an orthopaedic adaptation of I-PASS, was developed in 2019 to address handoff concerns and demonstrated sustained improvements across multiple handoff domains over an 18-month period. We sought to characterize the longitudinal effect and sustainability of OrthoPass within a single large residency program 3.5 years after its implementation. This mixed methods study involved electronic handoff review for quality domains in addition to survey distribution and evaluation. We conducted comparative analyses of handoff adherence and survey questions as well as a thematic analysis of provider-free responses. We evaluated 146 electronic handoffs orthopaedic residents, fellows, and advanced practice providers 3.5 years after OrthoPass implementation. Compared with 18-month levels, adherence was sustained across five of nine handoff domains and was markedly improved in two domains. Furthermore, provider valuations of OrthoPass improved regarding promoting communication and patient safety (83% versus 70%) and avoiding patient errors and near misses (72% versus 60%). These improvements were further substantiated by positive trends in Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Surveys on Patient Safety Culture hospital survey data. Thematic analysis of free responses shared by 37 providers (42%) generated favorable, unfavorable, and balanced themes further contextualized by subthemes. At 3.5 years after its introduction, OrthoPass continues to improve patient handoff quality and to support provider notions of patient safety. Although providers acknowledged the benefits of this electronic handoff tool, they also shared unique insights into several drawbacks. This feedback will inform ongoing efforts to improve OrthoPass.

Person-Centered Models for Cardiovascular Care: A Review of the Evidence: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death and disability in the United States and globally. Disease burden continues to escalate despite technological advances associated with improved life expectancy and quality of life. As a result, longer life is associated with multiple chronic cardiovascular conditions. Clinical guidelines provide recommendations without considering prevalent scenarios of multimorbidity and health system complexities that affect practical adoption. The diversity of personal preferences, cultures, and lifestyles that make up one's social and environmental context is often overlooked in ongoing care planning for symptom management and health behavior support, hindering adoption and compromising patient outcomes, particularly in groups at high risk. The purpose of this scientific statement was to describe the characteristics and reported outcomes in existing person-centered care delivery models for selected cardiovascular conditions. We conducted a scoping review using Ovid MEDLINE, Embase.com, Web of Science, CINAHL Complete, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through Ovid, and ClinicalTrials.gov from 2010 to 2022. A range of study designs with a defined aim to systematically evaluate care delivery models for selected cardiovascular conditions were included. Models were selected on the basis of their stated use of evidence-based guidelines, clinical decision support tools, systematic evaluation processes, and inclusion of the patient's perspective in defining the plan of care. Findings reflected variation in methodological approach, outcome measures, and care processes used across models. Evidence to support optimal care delivery models remains limited by inconsistencies in approach, variation in reimbursement, and inability of health systems to meet the needs of patients with chronic, complex cardiovascular conditions.

Impact of Health Literacy on Self-Reported Health Outcomes in Spine Patients.

STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey study. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to determine if health literacy level is associated with patient-reported outcomes and self-reported health status among patients presenting to an academic outpatient spine center. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Patient reports are critical to assessing symptom severity and treatment success in orthopedic spine patients. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are important instruments commonly used for this purpose. However, the influence of patient health literacy on PROMs has not yet been given much consideration in spine literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive English-speaking patients over the age of 18 years and new to our clinic verbally completed the Newest Vital Sign health literacy assessment tool and a sociodemographic survey, including self-reported health status. In addition, seven Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System scores were extracted from patient records. Regression modeling was performed with PROMs considered as dependent variables, health literacy level as the primary predictor, and all other factors (age, sex, race, ethnicity, native English speaker, highest educational degree, grade-level reading, marital status, employment status, annual household income, and type of insurance) as covariates. RESULTS: Among the 318 included patients, 33% had limited health literacy. Adjusted regression analysis demonstrated that patients with limited health literacy had worse PROM scores across all seven domains (Physical Function: P =0.028; Depression: P =0.035; Global Health-Physical: P =0.001; Global Health-Mental: P =0.007; Pain Interference: P =0.036; Pain Intensity: P =0.002; Anxiety: P =0.047). In addition, patients with limited health literacy reported worse self-reported health status ( P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Spine patients with limited health literacy have worse baseline PROM scores confounders and report worse general health. Further investigations are necessary to elucidate if limited health literacy is a marker or the root cause of these disparities. Findings from this study urge the consideration of patient health literacy when interpreting PROMs as well as the implications for patient assessment and discussion of treatment options.

Prevalence of and factors associated with limited health literacy in spine patients.

BACKGROUND: Limited health literacy exacerbates health inequity and has serious implications for patient care. It hinders successful communication and comprehension of relevant health information, which can lead to suboptimal care. Despite the evidence regarding the significance of health literacy, the topic has received little consideration in orthopedic spine patients. PURPOSE: To investigate the prevalence of and factors associated with limited health literacy among outpatients presenting to a tertiary urban academic hospital-based orthopedic spine center. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectionals. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients 18 years of age or older seen at a tertiary urban academic hospital-based multi-surgeon outpatient spine center. OUTCOME MEASURES: The Newest Vital Sign (NVS) health literacy assessment. METHODS: Between December 2021 and March 2022, 447 consecutive English-speaking patients over the age of 18 years and new to the outpatient spine clinic were approached for participation in a cross-sectional survey study, of which 405 agreed to participate. Patients completed the Newest Vital Sign (NVS) health literacy assessment tool, the Rapid Estimation of Adult Literacy in Medicine Short Form (REALM-SF), and a sociodemographic survey (including race/ethnicity, level of education, employment status, income, and marital status). The NVS scores were divided into limited (0-3) and adequate (4-6) health literacy. REALM-SF scores were classified into reading levels below ninth grade (0-6) or at least ninth grade (7). Additional demographic data was extracted from patient records. Online mapping tools were used to collect the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) and the Area Deprivation Index (ADI) for each patient. Subsequently, multivariable regression modeling was performed to identify independent factors associated with limited health literacy. RESULTS: The prevalence of limited health literacy in patients presenting to an urban academic outpatient spine center was 33% (135/405). Unadjusted analysis found that patients who were socioeconomically disadvantaged (eg, unemployed, lower household income, publicly insured and higher SVI) and had more unfavorable social determinant of health features (eg, housing concerns, higher ADI, less years of education, below ninth grade reading level, unmarried) had high rates of limited health literacy. Adjusted regression analysis demonstrated that limited health literacy was independently associated with higher ADI state decile, living less than 10 years at current address, having housing concerns, not being employed, non-native English speaking, having less years of education and below ninth grade reading level. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that a substantial portion of the patients presenting to an outpatient spine center have limited health literacy, more so if they are socially disadvantaged. Future efforts should investigate the impact of limited health literacy on access to care, treatment outcomes and health care utilization in orthopedic patients. Neighborhood social vulnerability measures may be a feasible way to identify patients at risk of limited health literacy in clinical practice and offer opportunities for tailored patient care. This may contribute to prioritizing the mitigation of disparities and aid in the development of meaningful interventions to improve health equity in orthopedics.

Addressing Social Determinants of Health in the Care of Patients With Heart Failure: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Heart failure is a clinical syndrome that affects >6.5 million Americans, with an estimated 550 000 new cases diagnosed each year. The complexity of heart failure management is compounded by the number of patients who experience adverse downstream effects of the social determinants of health (SDOH). These patients are less able to access care and more likely to experience poor heart failure outcomes over time. Many patients face additional challenges associated with the cost of complex, chronic illness management and must make difficult decisions about their own health, particularly when the costs of medications and healthcare appointments are at odds with basic food and housing needs. This scientific statement summarizes the SDOH and the current state of knowledge important to understanding their impact on patients with heart failure. Specifically, this document includes a definition of SDOH, provider competencies, and SDOH assessment tools and addresses the following questions: (1) What models or frameworks guide healthcare providers to address SDOH? (2) What are the SDOH affecting the delivery of care and the interventions addressing them that affect the care and outcomes of patients with heart failure? (3) What are the opportunities for healthcare providers to address the SDOH affecting the care of patients with heart failure? We also include a case study (Data Supplement) that highlights an interprofessional team effort to address and mitigate the effects of SDOH in an underserved patient with heart failure.

Safety Culture and Mortality after Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Study of Medicare Beneficiaries at 171 Hospitals.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the association between hospital safety culture and 30-day risk-adjusted mortality for Medicare patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in a large, diverse hospital cohort. SUBJECTS: The final analytic cohort consisted of 19,357 Medicare AMI discharges (MedPAR data) linked to 257 AHRQ Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture surveys from 171 hospitals between 2008 and 2013. STUDY DESIGN: Observational, cross-sectional study using hierarchical logistic models to estimate the association between hospital safety scores and 30-day risk-adjusted patient mortality. Odds ratios of 30-day, all-cause mortality, adjusting for patient covariates, hospital characteristics (size and teaching status), and several different types of safety culture scores (composite, average, and overall) were determined. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: No significant association was found between any measure of hospital safety culture and adjusted AMI mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In a large cross-sectional study from a diverse hospital cohort, AHRQ safety culture scores were not associated with AMI mortality. Our study adds to a growing body of investigations that have failed to conclusively demonstrate a safety culture-outcome association in health care, at least with widely used national survey instruments.

Evidence for Therapeutic Patient Education Interventions to Promote Cardiovascular Patient Self-Management: A Scientific Statement for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association.

BACKGROUND: The burden of cardiovascular disease as a chronic illness increasingly requires patients to assume more responsibility for their self-management. Patient education is believed to be an essential component of cardiovascular care; however, there is limited evidence about specific therapeutic patient education approaches used and the impact on patient self-management outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: An integrative review of the literature was conducted to critically analyze published research studies of therapeutic patient education for self-management in selected cardiovascular conditions. There was variability in methodological approaches across settings and disease conditions. The most effective interventions were tailored to individual patient needs, used multiple components to improve self-management outcomes, and often used multidisciplinary approaches. CONCLUSIONS: This synthesis of evidence expands the base of knowledge related to the development of patient self-management skills and provides direction for more rigorous research. Recommendations are provided to guide the implementation of therapeutic patient education in clinical practice and the design of comprehensive self-management interventions to improve outcomes for cardiovascular patients.