Colorectal Cancer Safety Net: Is It Catching Patients Appropriately?

BACKGROUND: Disparities in access to colorectal cancer care are multifactorial and are affected by socioeconomic elements. Uninsured and Medicaid patients present with advanced stage disease and have worse outcomes compared with similar privately insured patients. Safety net hospitals are a major care provider to this vulnerable population. Few studies have evaluated outcomes for safety net hospitals compared with private institutions in colorectal cancer. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare demographics, screening rates, presentation stage, and survival rates between a safety net hospital and a tertiary care center. DESIGN: Comparative review of patients at 2 institutions in the same metropolitan area were conducted. SETTINGS: The study included colorectal cancer care delivered either at 1 safety net hospital or 1 private tertiary care center in the same city from 2010 to 2016. PATIENTS: A total of 350 patients with colorectal cancer from each hospital were evaluated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall survival across hospital systems was measured. RESULTS: The safety net hospital had significantly more uninsured and Medicaid patients (46% vs 13%; p < 0.001) and a significantly lower median household income than the tertiary care center ($39,299 vs $49,741; p < 0.0001). At initial presentation, a similar percentage of patients at each hospital presented with stage IV disease (26% vs 20%; p = 0.06). For those undergoing resection, final pathologic stage distribution was similar across groups (p = 0.10). After a comparable median follow-up period (26.6 mo for safety net hospital vs 29.2 mo for tertiary care center), log-rank test for overall survival favored the safety net hospital (p = 0.05); disease-free survival was similar between hospitals (p = 0.40). LIMITATIONS: This was a retrospective review, reporting from medical charts. CONCLUSIONS: Our results support the value of safety net hospitals for providing quality colorectal cancer care, with survival and recurrence outcomes equivalent or improved compared with a local tertiary care center. Because safety net hospitals can provide equivalent outcomes despite socioeconomic inequalities and financial constraints, emphasis should be focused on ensuring that adequate funding for these institutions continues. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A454.

Transfusion-related adverse reactions reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network Hemovigilance Module, United States, 2010 to 2012.

BACKGROUND: In 2010, health care facilities in the United States began voluntary enrollment in the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) Hemovigilance Module. Participants report transfusion practices; red blood cell, platelet (PLT), plasma, and cryoprecipitate units transfused; and transfusion-related adverse reactions and process errors to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention through a secure, Internet-accessible surveillance application available to transfusing facilities. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Facilities submitting at least 1 month of transfused components data and adverse reactions from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2012, were included in this analysis. Adverse reaction rates for transfused components, stratified by component type and collection and modification methods, were calculated. RESULTS: In 2010 to 2012, a total of 77 facilities reported 5136 adverse reactions among 2,144,723 components transfused (239.5/100,000). Allergic (46.8%) and febrile nonhemolytic (36.1%) reactions were most frequent; 7.2% of all reactions were severe or life-threatening and 0.1% were fatal. PLT transfusions (421.7/100,000) had the highest adverse reaction rate. CONCLUSION: Adverse transfusion reaction rates from the NHSN Hemovigilance Module in the United States are comparable to early hemovigilance reporting from other countries. Although severe reactions are infrequent, the numbers of transfusion reactions in US hospitals suggest that interventions to prevent these reactions are important for patient safety. Further investigation is needed to understand the apparent increased risk of reactions from apheresis-derived blood components. Comprehensive evaluation, including data validation, is important to continued refinement of the module.

Effects of Ohio's opioid prescribing limit for the geriatric minimally injured trauma patient.

BACKGROUND: Geriatric patients, age ≥65, frequently require no operation and only short observation after injury; yet many are prescribed opioids. We reviewed geriatric opioid prescriptions following a statewide outpatient prescribing limit. METHODS: Discharge and 30-day pain prescriptions were collected for geriatric patients managed without operation and with stays less than two midnights from May and June of 2015 through 2018. Patients were compared pre- and post-limit and with a non-geriatric cohort aged 18-64. Fall risk was also assessed. RESULTS: We included 218 geriatric patients, 57 post-limit. Patients received fewer discharge prescriptions and lower doses following the limit. However, this trend preceded the limit. Geriatric patients received fewer opioid prescriptions but higher doses than non-geriatric patients. Fall risk was not associated with reduced prescription frequency or doses. CONCLUSIONS: Opioid prescribing has decreased for geriatric patients with minor injuries. However, surgeons have not reduced dosage based on age or fall risk.

Opioid prescribing in minimally injured trauma patients: Effect of a state prescribing limit.

BACKGROUND: Opioid-prescribing practices for minimally injured trauma patients are unknown. We hypothesized that opioid-prescribing frequency and morphine-equivalent doses prescribed have decreased in recent years, specifically surrounding an acute prescribing limit implemented in August 2017 mandating opioid prescriptions not exceed 210 morphine-equivalent doses. METHODS: A single-center retrospective study was performed in the month of May during the years 2015 to 2018 on minimally injured trauma patients in a level I trauma center. Minimally injured trauma patients included patients discharged within 2 midnights of trauma evaluation without surgical intervention. Primary outcomes were discharge opioid-prescribing frequency and dosing in morphine-equivalent doses. Secondary outcomes were occurrence and timing of postdischarge follow-up. RESULTS: For 673 minimally injured trauma patients, opioid-prescribing frequency and morphine-equivalent doses prescribed decreased between 2015 and 2017 (49.3% to 31.5%, P = .006, mean 229 to 146 morphine-equivalent doses, P = .007). Decreases between 2017 and 2018 were not statistically significant. Acute prescribing limit compliance was 97% in 2018. After the acute prescribing limit was implemented, outpatient opioid prescribing did not increase and time to earliest follow-up did not decrease. CONCLUSION: Opioid-prescribing frequency and morphine-equivalent doses prescribed to minimally injured trauma patients decreased dramatically between 2015 and 2018. These changes occurred primarily before the implementation of an acute prescribing limit; however, incremental improvement and high compliance since implementation are demonstrated. Patients did not have significantly earlier follow-up encounters for pain or additional opioid prescriptions. Prospective research on pain control for minimally injured trauma patients is needed.

Travel history, hunting, and venison consumption related to prion disease exposure, 2006-2007 FoodNet Population Survey.

The transmission of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) to human beings and the spread of chronic wasting disease (CWD) among cervids have prompted concerns about zoonotic transmission of prion diseases. Travel to the United Kingdom and other European countries, hunting for deer or elk, and venison consumption could result in the exposure of US residents to the agents that cause BSE and CWD. The Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance Network 2006-2007 population survey was used to assess the prevalence of these behaviors among residents of 10 catchment areas across the United States. Of 17,372 survey respondents, 19.4% reported travel to the United Kingdom since 1980, and 29.5% reported travel to any of the nine European countries considered to be BSE-endemic since 1980. The proportion of respondents who had ever hunted deer or elk was 18.5%, and 1.2% had hunted deer or elk in a CWD-endemic area. More than two thirds (67.4%) reported having ever eaten deer or elk meat. Respondents who traveled spent more time in the United Kingdom (median 14 days) than in any other BSE-endemic country. Of the 11,635 respondents who had consumed venison, 59.8% ate venison at most one to two times during their year of highest consumption, and 88.6% had obtained all of their meat from the wild. The survey results were useful in determining the prevalence and frequency of behaviors that could be important factors for foodborne prion transmission.