The use of follow-up chest roentgenograms among hospitalized patients.

Follow-up chest roentgenograms are a commonly performed test. We prospectively evaluated their diagnostic and therapeutic influence at a tertiary care teaching hospital. When a follow-up chest roentgenogram was ordered, physicians indicated their reason for ordering the test, the likelihood that the roentgenogram would show changes, and expected alterations in therapy. After the roentgenogram was obtained, physicians described the help provided by the roentgenogram and what changes in therapy were performed. Using receiver operating characteristic curves, we have shown that physicians have difficulty in predicting which roentgenograms will show important changes. Unexpected findings are frequent (25.4%) and highly valued by the physician. Fifty-seven percent of these roentgenograms had a definite or possible influence on patient treatment. Further studies are indicated to define when follow-up chest roentgenograms are likely to be of benefit.

Evaluating pressure ulcer occurrence in long-term care: pitfalls in interpreting administrative data.

Administrative databases for long-term care frequently collect information on fixed dates of the calendar year, rather than for entire episodes of care. Patients discharged or dying prior to an evaluation date are lost to follow-up. We used one such database, the VA Patient Assessment File, to examine pressure ulcer occurrence in long-term care. Clinical studies have established that most pressure ulcers develop during the first several weeks following admission. In these data, however, pressure ulcer development was less common in patients assessed within 2 months following admission, as compared to those examined at 3 to 6 months. This finding appears to be related to the selective discharge of patients, which makes these patient populations noncomparable. These results highlight that care must be exercised when interpreting results obtained from such administrative data.

The short-term outcome of pressure sores.

Patients with pressure sores have been observed to have a poor prognosis. The short-term outcome of pressure sores at a long-term care hospital was therefore evaluated. Medical records on the 301 admissions to this hospital over a 13-month period were reviewed. One hundred patients (33%) had a pressure sore present on admission. Using ordinary therapies, 79% of these pressure sores improved and 40% completely healed during the 6-week follow-up period. Remaining bed- or chair-bound was the sole patient characteristic associated with a failure of the pressure sore to improve. Mortality rates were significantly increased in patients with a pressure sore present on admission (relative risk [RR] = 1.9), in patients who developed a new sore (RR = 3.1), and in patients in whom the pressure sore failed to improve (RR = 3.3). However, the pressure sores did not appear to be the direct cause of this increased mortality. These data suggest that the majority of pressure sores encountered at a long-term care hospital can be successfully managed in this setting. Although patients with pressure sores have an increased mortality rate, this is most likely due to coexisting medical conditions.

Risk factors for pressure sores. A comparison of cross-sectional and cohort-derived data.

The purpose of this study was to identify prospectively risk factors for pressure sores and to compare these results with a cross-sectional analysis in the same population. Medical records on all admissions to a chronic care hospital over a 13-month period were reviewed. Data on potential risk factors were abstracted from the initial history, physical examination, nursing assessment, and laboratory studies. Pressure sore status on admission and at three weeks was determined from a standardized from completed on all patients with a score. The cross-sectional analysis was performed by comparing patients with and without a pressure sore at the time of admission. The cohort analysis used patients initially without a pressure sore and monitored for a new sore at three weeks. Factors associated with pressure sores on univariate testing were entered into a stepwise logistic regression model. One hundred of the 301 admissions presented with a pressure sore. Factors significantly associated with the presence of a sore were altered level of consciousness (OR = 4.1), bed- or chair-bound (OR = 2.4), impaired nutritional intake (OR = 1.9), and hypoalbuminemia (OR = 1.8 for 10 mg/mL decrease). Of the 185 patients without a pressure sore, 20 (10.8%) developed a sore. Factors significantly associated with the development of a new pressure sore were a history of cerebrovascular accident (OR = 5.0), bed- or chair-bound (OR = 3.8), and impaired nutritional intake (OR = 2.8). Neither urinary nor fecal incontinence, nor the presence of hypoalbuminemia, was associated with sore development. We have prospectively identified risk factors for pressure sores.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Geriatric syndromes as outcome measures of hospital care: can administrative data be used?

OBJECTIVE: To determine how often hospital administrative databases capture the occurrence of two common geriatric syndromes, pressure ulcers and incontinence. DESIGN: Retrospective comparison of a nursing home and hospital database. SETTING: Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: All patients between 1992 and 1996 discharged from VA acute medical care and admitted to a VA nursing home. MEASUREMENTS: The presence of incontinence or a pressure ulcer (stage 2 or larger) on admission to the nursing home was determined. Hospital discharge diagnoses were then reviewed to determine whether these conditions were recorded. The effect of ulcer stage, total number of discharge diagnoses, and temporal trends on the recording of these conditions in discharge diagnoses was also noted. RESULTS: There were 17,004 admissions to nursing homes from acute care in 1996; 12.7% had a pressure ulcer and 43.4% were incontinent. Among these patients with a pressure ulcer, the hospital discharge diagnosis listed an ulcer in 30.8% of cases, and incontinence was included correctly as a discharge diagnosis in 3.4%. While deeper pressure ulcers were more likely to be recorded than superficial ulcers (P < .01), nearly 50% of stage 4 ulcers were not listed among hospital discharge diagnoses. Patients with more discharge diagnoses were more likely to record both conditions correctly. From 1992 to 1996, small but significant (P = .001) improvements were noted in the correct recording of these geriatric syndromes as discharge diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: The occurrence of pressure ulcers and incontinence cannot be determined from hospital administrative databases and should not be used as outcomes when measuring quality of care among hospitalized patients.

Do-not-resuscitate orders at a chronic care hospital.

Do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders have become an accepted part of medical practice. While these orders have been extensively evaluated in acute care hospitals, little is known about their use in the long-term care setting. We reviewed the medical records of all admissions to a chronic care hospital over a 13-month period, collecting data on selected patient characteristics, use of DNR orders, and patient outcomes during the 6-week period following admission. Fifty-eight of the 301 patients (19.3%) had a DNR order written. Patients' families were involved predominantly in the DNR decision in 73% of the cases while patients themselves were involved in only 18%. Physicians made the decision unilaterally in 6% of the cases. Patients' functional status rather than specific diagnoses predicted the use of DNR orders. Patients with DNR orders were twice as likely to receive new intravenous therapies than patients without those orders (71% vs 33%, P less than 0.01) and four times as likely to die (38% vs 9%, P less than 0.01). They were no more likely to be transferred emergently to an acute care hospital (5% vs 9%, P greater than 0.2). We conclude that DNR orders are not infrequently used, and physicians rarely make the decision unilaterally. Patients with DNR orders have a high likelihood of dying and are infrequently transferred to acute care facilities.

Predictors of pressure ulcer healing among long-term care residents.

OBJECTIVES: To identify predictors of pressure ulcer healing among long-term care residents. DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) long-term care facilities. PARTICIPANTS: All long-term care residents with a pressure ulcer on April 1, 1993, who remained institutionalized as of October 1, 1993. Patients and pressure ulcer status were identified from the Patient Assessment File, a VA administrative database. MEASUREMENTS: Pressure ulcers were considered healed if patients were without an ulcer on October 1, 1993. Predictors of pressure ulcer healing were selected from among patient characteristics in the Patient Assessment File. RESULTS: Pressure ulcers were present in 7.7% of the long-term care residents institutionalized as of April 1, 1993. Among the 819 pressure ulcer patients remaining institutionalized as of October 1, 1993, ulcers had healed in 442 (54.0%). Seventy-two percent of patients with Stage 2 ulcers were ulcer-free at 6 months, compared with 45.2% of patients with Stage 3 ulcers and 30.6% of those with Stage 4 ulcers (P < .001). Significant (P < .05) independent predictors of healing included pressure ulcer size (Odds ratio (OR) = 5.2 for Stage 2 ulcers, OR = 1.5 for Stage 3 ulcers), older age (OR = 1.5), and receiving rehabilitation services (OR = 1.3 for each additional type of therapy). Both immobility (OR = .3) and incontinence (OR = .7) were associated with ulcers not healing. CONCLUSIONS: Most Stage 2 pressure ulcers, and many larger ulcers encountered in long-term care settings will heal. Baseline patient characteristics are important predictors of healing. Interventions may then be targeted at patients whose ulcers are unlikely to heal, and observed facility performance may be compared with expected outcomes.

Are we improving the quality of nursing home care: the case of pressure ulcers.

BACKGROUND: There are widespread concerns regarding the quality of nursing home care and whether care is improving. We evaluated a large provider of nursing home care to determine whether risk-adjusted rates of pressure ulcer development have changed. METHODS: We used the Minimum Data Set to study National HealthCare Corporation nursing homes from 1991 through 1995. Rates of pressure ulcer development were calculated for successive 6-month periods by determining the proportion of residents initially ulcer-free having a stage 2 or larger pressure ulcer on subsequent assessments. Rates were risk-adjusted for patient characteristics. The proportion of new ulcers that were deep (stages 3 or 4) were also calculated. RESULTS: We examined risk-adjusted rates of pressure ulcer development based on 144,379 observations of 30,510 residents at 107 nursing homes. The number of observations per 6-month period ranged from 11,041 to 15,805. Between 1991 and 1995, there was a significant (P<.05) rate decline of more than 25%. Additionally, the proportion of new ulcers that were stages 3 or 4 declined from 30 to 22% (P<.01). CONCLUSIONS: Nursing homes showed significant improvement in the quality of pressure ulcer preventive care from 1991 to 1995.

Evaluation of a risk-adjustment model for pressure ulcer development using the Minimum Data Set.

OBJECTIVE: To validate a previously derived risk-adjustment model for pressure ulcer development in a separate sample of nursing home residents and to determine the extent to which use of this model affects judgments of nursing home performance. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study using Minimum Data Set (MDS) data from 1998. SETTING: A large, for-profit, nursing home chain. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-nine thousand and forty observations were made on 13,457 nursing home residents who were without a pressure ulcer on an index assessment. MEASUREMENTS: We used logistic regression in our validation sample to calculate new coefficients for the 17 previously identified predictors of pressure ulcer development. Coefficients from this new sample were compared with those previously derived. Expected rates of pressure ulcer development were determined for 108 nursing homes. Unadjusted and risk-adjusted rates of pressure ulcer development from these homes were also calculated and outlier identification using these two approaches was compared. RESULTS: Predictors of pressure ulcer development in the derivation sample generally showed similar effects in the validation sample. The model c-statistic was also unchanged at 0.73, but it was not calibrated as well in the validation sample. On applying the model to the nursing homes, expected rates of ulcer development ranged from 1.1% to 3.2% (P <.001). The observed rates ranged from 0% to 12.1% (P <.001). There were 12 outliers using unadjusted rates and 15 using adjusted performance. Ten nursing homes were identified as outliers using both approaches. CONCLUSIONS: Our MDS risk-adjustment model for pressure ulcer development performed well in this new sample. Nursing homes differ significantly in their expected rates of pressure ulcer development. Outlier identification also differs depending on whether unadjusted or risk-adjusted performance is evaluated.

Deriving a risk-adjustment model for pressure ulcer development using the Minimum Data Set.

OBJECTIVE: To use the Minimum Data Set (MDS) to derive a risk-adjustment model for pressure ulcer development that may be used in assessing the quality of nursing home care. DESIGN: Perspective observational study using MDS data from 1997. SETTING: A large, for-profit, nursing home chain. PARTICIPANTS: Our unit of analysis was 39,649 observations made on 14,607 nursing home residents who were without a stage 2 or larger pressure ulcer on an index assessment. MEASUREMENTS: Pressure ulcer status was determined at an outcome assessment approximately 90 days after an index assessment. Potential predictors of pressure ulcer development were examined for bivariate associations, contributing to the development of a multivariate logistic regression model. RESULTS: A stage 2 or larger pressure ulcer developed in 2.3% of the observations. Seventeen resident characteristics were found to be associated with pressure ulcer development. These included dependence in mobility and transferring, diabetes mellitus, peripheral vascular disease, urinary incontinence, lower body mass index, and end-stage disease. A risk-adjustment model based on these characteristics was well calibrated and able to discriminate among residents with different levels of risk for ulcer development (model c-statistic = 0.73). CONCLUSION: A clinically credible risk-adjustment model with good performance properties can be developed using the MDS. This model may be useful in profiling nursing homes on their rate of pressure ulcer development.

Effect of pressure ulcers on the survival of long-term care residents.

BACKGROUND: Past studies have emphasized that patients with pressure ulcers are at high risk of dying. However, it remains unclear whether this increased risk is related to the ulcer or to coexisting conditions. In this study we examined the independent effect of pressure ulcers on the survival of long-term care residents. METHODS: We evaluated all 19,981 long-term care residents institutionalized in Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) long-term care facilities as of April 1, 1993. Baseline resident characteristics and survival status were obtained by merging data from five existing VA data bases. Survival experience over a 6-month period was described using a proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Pressure ulcers were present in 1,539 (7.7%) long-term care residents. Residents with pressure ulcers had a relative risk of 2.37 (95% CI = 2.13, 2.64) for dying as compared to those without ulcers. After adjusting for 16 other measures of clinical and functional status, the relative risk associated with pressure ulcers decreased to 1.45 (95% CI = 1.30, 1.65). No increased risk of death was noted for residents with deeper ulcers. CONCLUSIONS: Pressure ulcers are a significant marker for long-term care residents at risk of dying. After adjusting for clinical and functional status, however, the independent risk associated with pressure ulcers declines considerably. The fact that larger ulcers are not associated with greater risk suggests that other unmeasured clinical conditions may also be contributing to the increased mortality associated with pressure ulcers.

Problems in assessing diabetes control in an ambulatory setting.

Problems in using medical records to assess outcomes of diabetes care have not been well defined. We reviewed the medical records of 288 patients with diabetes receiving ambulatory care over a 2-year period. We determined the availability of different tests of glycemic control and described site performance as the percentage of patients with a blood glucose exceeding either 180 or 240 mg/dl. Glycosylated hemoglobin determinations were performed in only 26.7% of patients. A blood glucose was available in 208 patients (72.2%) during a 6-month outcome period. For almost 50% of the sample, the glucose was greater than 180 mg/dl, whereas in 20% it exceeded 240 mg/dl. Judgments of whether sites differed in performance depended on how control was defined. Using a single glucose determination and a threshold of 180 mg/dl, similar fractions of patients were poorly controlled at each site (51.2 versus 45.0 versus 47.0%) (P = 0.75). At 240 mg/dl, although, one site performed much worse than the other two (14.6 versus 16.7 versus 31.8%) (P = 0.02). These results highlight difficulties in defining the outcome measure when using medical records to evaluate quality of care.

Clinical practice guidelines in the nursing home.

Clinical practice guidelines are an important tool for improving quality of care. This study determined whether and how guidelines are being used in nursing homes. We surveyed staff at 36 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) nursing homes. Employees were asked whether they were familiar with guidelines as well as whether 5 specific guidelines had been read, were available, and had been adopted. Among 1065 respondents (60% of those surveyed), 79% reported familiarity with guidelines. The proportion of staff at a facility reporting adoption was generally less than 50%. Those nursing homes in which a high percentage of the staff reported adoption of one guideline were more likely to have adopted other guidelines. However, staff were not more likely to report adoption of a specific guideline when the nurse manager stated that it was adopted. We conclude that staff at VA nursing homes are familiar with guidelines. Guideline adoption at individual nursing homes, however, is not a systematic process involving the entire staff.

Pressure ulcer development in the VA: characteristics of nursing homes providing best care.

This study identifies structural characteristics of VA nursing homes that are associated with the best patient outcomes. We evaluated risk-adjusted rates of pressure ulcer development in VA nursing homes and related these rates to facility size, staffing patterns, teaching nursing home status, and rural versus urban locale. Higher rates of pressure ulcer development were seen among urban teaching nursing homes and among nursing homes associated with both larger and smaller VA hospitals. Staffing patterns had a complex association with pressure ulcer development, and smaller nursing home staffs were not clearly associated with higher rates. For multivariate modeling, only hospital size and staffing remained significant independent predictors of pressure ulcer development. These results emphasize that while structural characteristics of VA nursing homes can provide insights about care, improving the quality of care in this setting will require a much greater understanding of how nursing homes are organized to meet patient needs.

INR targets and site-level anticoagulation control: results from the Veterans AffaiRs Study to Improve Anticoagulation (VARIA).

BACKGROUND: Not all clinicians target the same International Normalized Ratio (INR) for patients with a guideline-recommended target range of 2-3. A patient's mean INR value suggests the INR that was actually targeted. We hypothesized that sites would vary by mean INR, and that sites of care with mean values nearest to 2.5 would achieve better anticoagulation control, as measured by per cent time in therapeutic range (TTR). OBJECTIVES: To examine variations among sites in mean INR and the relationship with anticoagulation control in an integrated system of care. PATIENTS/METHODS: We studied 103,897 patients receiving oral anticoagulation with an expected INR target between 2 and 3 at 100 Veterans Health Administration (VA) sites from 1 October 2006 to 30 September 2008. Key site-level variables were: proportion near 2.5 (that is, percentage of patients with mean INR between 2.3 and 2.7) and mean risk-adjusted TTR. RESULTS: Site mean INR ranged from 2.22 to 2.89; proportion near 2.5, from 30 to 64%. Sites' proportions of patients near 2.5, below 2.3 and above 2.7 were consistent from year to year. A 10 percentage point increase in the proportion near 2.5 predicted a 3.8 percentage point increase in risk-adjusted TTR (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Proportion of patients with mean INR near 2.5 is a site-level 'signature' of care and an implicit measure of targeted INR. This proportion varies by site and is strongly associated with site-level TTR. Our study suggests that sites wishing to improve TTR, and thereby improve patient outcomes, should avoid the explicit or implicit pursuit of non-standard INR targets.

The epidemiology and management of severe hypertension.

Hypertension guidelines stress that patients with severe hypertension (systolic blood pressure (BP) > or = 180 or diastolic BP > or = 110 mm Hg) require multiple drugs to achieve control and should have close follow-up to prevent adverse outcomes. However, little is known about the epidemiology or actual management of these patients. We retrospectively studied 59 207 veterans with hypertension. Patients were categorized based on their highest average BP over an 18-month period (1 July 1999 to 31 December 2000) as controlled (<140/90 mm Hg), mild (140-159/90-99 mm Hg), moderate (160-179/100-109 mm Hg) and severe hypertension. We examined severe hypertension prevalence, pattern, duration, associated patient characteristics, time to subsequent visit, percentage of visits with a medication increase, and final BP control and antihypertensive medication adequacy. Twenty-three per cent had > or = 1 visit with severe hypertension, 42% of whom had at least two such visits; median day with severe hypertension was 80 (range 1-548). These subjects were significantly older, more likely black, and with more comorbidities than other hypertension subjects. Medication increases occurred at 20% of visits with mild hypertension compared to 40% with severe hypertension; P<0.05). At study end, 76% of patients with severe hypertension remained uncontrolled; severe hypertension subjects with uncontrolled BP were less likely to be on adequate therapy than those with controlled BP (43.7 vs 45.4%). Among hypertensive veterans, severe hypertension episodes are common. Many subjects had relatively prolonged elevations, with older, sicker subjects at highest risk. Although, follow-up times are shorter and antihypertensive medication use greater in severe hypertension subjects, they are still not being managed aggressively enough. Interventions to improve providers' management of these high-risk patients are needed.

Patient characteristics associated with oral anticoagulation control: results of the Veterans AffaiRs Study to Improve Anticoagulation (VARIA).

BACKGROUND: In patients receiving oral anticoagulation, improved control can reduce adverse outcomes such as stroke and major hemorrhage. However, little is known about patient-level predictors of anticoagulation control. OBJECTIVES: To identify patient-level predictors of oral anticoagulation control in the outpatient setting. PATIENTS/METHODS: We studied 124,619 patients who received oral anticoagulation from the Veterans Health Administration from October 2006 to September 2008. The outcome was anticoagulation control, summarized using percentage of time in therapeutic International Normalized Ratio range (TTR). Data were divided into inception (first 6 months of therapy; 39,447 patients) and experienced (any time thereafter; 104,505 patients). Patient-level predictors of TTR were examined by multivariable regression. RESULTS: Mean TTRs were 48% for inception management and 61% for experienced management. During inception, important predictors of TTR included hospitalizations (the expected TTR was 7.3% lower for those with two or more hospitalizations than for the non-hospitalized), receipt of more medications (16 or more medications predicted a 4.3% lower than for patients with 0-7 medications), alcohol abuse (-4.6%), cancer (-3.1%), and bipolar disorder (-2.9%). During the experienced period, important predictors of TTR included hospitalizations (four or more hospitalizations predicted 9.4% lower TTR), more medications (16 or more medications predicted 5.1% lower TTR), alcohol abuse (-5.4%), female sex (- 2.9%), cancer (-2.7%), dementia (-2.6%), non-alcohol substance abuse (-2.4%), and chronic liver disease (-2.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Some patients receiving oral anticoagulation therapy are more challenging to maintain within the therapeutic range than others. Our findings can be used to identify patients who require closer attention or innovative management strategies to maximize benefit and minimize harm from oral anticoagulation therapy.

Warfarin dose management affects INR control.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how patterns of warfarin dose management contribute to percentage time in the therapeutic International Normalized Ratio (INR) range (TTR). OBJECTIVES: To quantify the contribution of warfarin dose management to TTR and to define an optimal dose management strategy. PATIENTS/METHODS: We enrolled 3961 patients receiving warfarin from 94 community-based clinics. We derived and validated a model for the probability of a warfarin dose change under various conditions. For each patient, we computed an observed minus expected (O - E) score, comparing the number of dose changes predicted by our model to the number of changes observed. We examined the ability of O - E scores to predict TTR, and simulated various dose management strategies in the context of our model. RESULTS: Patients were observed for a mean of 15.2 months. Patients who deviated the least from the predicted number of dose changes achieved the best INR control (mean TTR 70.1% unadjusted); patients with greater deviations had lower TTR (65.8% and 62.0% for fewer and more dose changes respectively, Bonferroni-adjusted P < 0.05/3 for both comparisons). On average, clinicians in our study changed the dose when the INR was 1.8 or lower/3.2 or higher (mean TTR: 68%); optimal management would have been to change the dose when the INR was 1.7 or lower/3.3 or higher (predicted TTR: 74%). CONCLUSIONS: Our observational study suggests that INR control could be improved considerably by changing the warfarin dose only when the INR is 1.7 or lower/3.3 or higher. This should be confirmed in a randomized trial.