Early inpatient calculation of laboratory-based 30-day readmission risk scores empowers clinical risk modification during index hospitalization.

Improving 30-day readmission continues to be problematic for most hospitals. This study reports the creation and validation of sex-specific inpatient (i) heart failure (HF) risk scores using electronic data from the beginning of inpatient care for effective and efficient prediction of 30-day readmission risk. METHODS: HF patients hospitalized at Intermountain Healthcare from 2005 to 2012 (derivation: n=6079; validation: n=2663) and Baylor Scott & White Health (North Region) from 2005 to 2013 (validation: n=5162) were studied. Sex-specific iHF scores were derived to predict post-hospitalization 30-day readmission using common HF laboratory measures and age. Risk scores adding social, morbidity, and treatment factors were also evaluated. RESULTS: The iHF model for females utilized potassium, bicarbonate, blood urea nitrogen, red blood cell count, white blood cell count, and mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration; for males, components were B-type natriuretic peptide, sodium, creatinine, hematocrit, red cell distribution width, and mean platelet volume. Among females, odds ratios (OR) were OR=1.99 for iHF tertile 3 vs. 1 (95% confidence interval [CI]=1.28, 3.08) for Intermountain validation (P-trend across tertiles=0.002) and OR=1.29 (CI=1.01, 1.66) for Baylor patients (P-trend=0.049). Among males, iHF had OR=1.95 (CI=1.33, 2.85) for tertile 3 vs. 1 in Intermountain (P-trend <0.001) and OR=2.03 (CI=1.52, 2.71) in Baylor (P-trend < 0.001). Expanded models using 182-183 variables had predictive abilities similar to iHF. CONCLUSIONS: Sex-specific laboratory-based electronic health record-delivered iHF risk scores effectively predicted 30-day readmission among HF patients. Efficient to calculate and deliver to clinicians, recent clinical implementation of iHF scores suggest they are useful and useable for more precise clinical HF treatment.

Episode-of-Care Characteristics and Costs for Hip and Knee Replacement Surgery in Hospitals Belonging to the High Value Healthcare Collaborative Compared With Similar Hospitals in the Same Health Care Markets.

BACKGROUND: To inform consumers and restrain health care cost growth, efforts to promote transparency and to reimburse for care episodes are accelerating in the United States. OBJECTIVE: To compare characteristics and costs of 30-day episode of care for hip and knee replacement occurring in High Value Healthcare Collaborative (HVHC)-member hospitals to those occurring in like non-HVHC-member hospitals in the same 15 health care markets before interventions by HVHC members to improve health care value for those interventions. RESEARCH DESIGN: This is a retrospective analysis of fee-for-service Medicare data from 2012 and 2013. SUBJECTS: For hip arthroplasty, 4030 HVHC-member and 7572 non-HVHC-member, and for knee arthroplasty, 6542 HVHC-member and 13,900 non-HVHC-member fee-for-service Medicare patients aged 65 and older. MEASURES: Volumes, patient demographics, hospital stay characteristics, and acute and postacute care standardized costs for a 30-day episode of care. RESULTS: HVHC-member hospitals differed from similar non-HVHC-member hospitals in the same health care markets when considering volumes of surgeries, patient demographics, Charlson scores, and patient distance to care during the index admission. There was little variation in acute care costs of hip or knee replacement surgery across health care markets; however, there was substantial variation in postacute care costs across those same markets. We saw less variation in postacute care costs within markets than across markets. Regression analyses showed that HVHC-member status was not associated with shorter lengths of stay, different complication rates, or lower total or postacute care costs for hip or knee replacement. CONCLUSIONS: Health care regions appear to be a more important predictor of episode costs of care than HVHC status.

Association of Integrated Team-Based Care With Health Care Quality, Utilization, and Cost.

IMPORTANCE: The value of integrated team delivery models is not firmly established. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association of receiving primary care in integrated team-based care (TBC) practices vs traditional practice management (TPM) practices (usual care) with patient outcomes, health care utilization, and costs. DESIGN: A retrospective, longitudinal, cohort study to assess the association of integrating physical and mental health over time in TBC practices with patient outcomes and costs. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) who received primary care at 113 unique Intermountain Healthcare Medical Group primary care practices from 2003 through 2005 and had yearly encounters with Intermountain Healthcare through 2013, including some patients who received care in both TBC and TPM practices. EXPOSURES: Receipt of primary care in TBC practices compared with TPM practices for patients treated in internal medicine, family practice, and geriatrics practices. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Outcomes included 7 quality measures, 6 health care utilization measures, payments to the delivery system, and program investment costs. RESULTS: During the study period (January 2010-December 2013), 113,452 unique patients (mean age, 56.1 years; women, 58.9%) accounted for 163,226 person-years of exposure in 27 TBC practices and 171,915 person-years in 75 TPM practices. Patients treated in TBC practices compared with those treated in TPM practices had higher rates of active depression screening (46.1% for TBC vs 24.1% for TPM; odds ratio [OR], 1.91 [95% CI, 1.75 to 2.08), adherence to a diabetes care bundle (24.6% for TBC vs 19.5% for TPM; OR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.11 to 1.42]), and documentation of self-care plans (48.4% for TBC vs 8.7% for TPM; OR, 5.59 [95% CI, 4.27 to 7.33]), lower proportion of patients with controlled hypertension (<140/90 mm Hg) (85.0% for TBC vs 97.7% for TPM; OR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.80 to 0.95]), and no significant differences in documentation of advanced directives (9.6% for TBC vs 9.9% for TPM; OR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.91 to 1.03]). Per 100 person-years, rates of health care utilization were lower for TBC patients compared with TPM patients for emergency department visits (18.1 for TBC vs 23.5 for TPM; incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.77 [95% CI, 0.74 to 0.80]), hospital admissions (9.5 for TBC vs 10.6 for TPM; IRR, 0.89 [95% CI, 0.85 to 0.94]), ambulatory care sensitive visits and admissions (3.3 for TBC vs 4.3 for TPM; IRR, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.70 to 0.85]), and primary care physician encounters (232.8 for TBC vs 250.4 for TPM; IRR, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.92 to 0.94]), with no significant difference in visits to urgent care facilities (55.7 for TBC vs 56.2 for TPM; IRR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.97 to 1.02]) and visits to specialty care physicians (213.5 for TBC vs 217.9 for TPM; IRR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.97 to 0.99], P > .008). Payments to the delivery system were lower in the TBC group vs the TPM group ($3400.62 for TBC vs $3515.71 for TPM; ß, -$115.09 [95% CI, -$199.64 to -$30.54]) and were less than investment costs of the TBC program. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among adults enrolled in an integrated health care system, receipt of primary care at TBC practices compared with TPM practices was associated with higher rates of some measures of quality of care, lower rates for some measures of acute care utilization, and lower actual payments received by the delivery system.

The Case for Capitation.

Recent studies suggest that at least 35%--and maybe over 5o%--of all health care spending in the U.S. is wasted on inadequate, unnecessary, and inefficient care and suboptimal business processes. But efforts to get rid of that waste face a huge challenge: Under current payment methods, the providers who develop more-cost-effective approaches don't receive any of the savings. Instead, the money goes mainly to insurers. The providers, who are paid for the volume of services delivered, end up actually losing money, which undermines their finances and their ability to invest in more cost-saving innovations. To address this quandary, say two top execs from the nonprofit Intermountain Healthcare system, we need a different way to pay for health care: population-based payment. PBP gives care delivery groups a fixed per-person payment that covers all of an individual's health care services in a given year. Under it, providers benefit from the savings of all efforts to attack waste, encouraging them to do it more. And though PBP may sound similar to the HMOs of the 1990s, there are significant twists: Payments go directly to care delivery groups, and patients' physicians--not insurance companies--assume responsibility for overseeing and managing the cost of treatment. Provider groups are also required to meet quality standards that further protect patients. By applying PBP in just part of its system, Intermountain, which serves 2 million people, has been able to chop $688 million in annual waste and bring total costs down 13%.

U.S.-European partnerships improve care on both sides of the Atlantic.

The U.S. healthcare system is often compared to European systems in unflattering terms, yet European systems are under growing pressure to increase their care quality and efficiency. Many are looking to the U.S. for innovative, proven solutions. There is much that we can learn from each other, and newly formed collaborations are providing one vehicle for that learning.

Volume-related differences in emergency department performance.

BACKGROUND: Emergency departments (EDs) are an important source of care for a large segment of the population of the United States. In 2009 there were more than 136 million visits to the ED each year, and more than half of hospital admissions begin in the ED. Measurement and monitoring of emergency department performance has been prompted by The Joint Commission's patient flow standards. A study was conducted to attempt to correlate ED volume and other operating characteristics with performance on metrics. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the Emergency Department Benchmarking Alliance annual ED survey data for the most recent year for which data were available (2009) was performed to explore observed patterns in ED performance relative to size and operating characteristics. The survey was based on 14.6 million ED visits in 358 hospitals across the United States, with an ED size representation (sampling) approximating that of the Emergency Medicine Network (EM Net). RESULTS: Larger EDs (with higher annual volumes) had longer lengths of stay (p < .0001), higher left without being seen rates (p < .0001), and longer door-to-physician times (p < .0001), all suggesting poorer operational performance. Operating characteristics indicative of higher acuity were associated with worsened performance on metrics and lower acuity characteristics with improved performance. CONCLUSION: ED volume, which also correlates with many operating characteristics, is the strongest predictor of operational performance on metrics and can be used to categorize EDs for comparative analysis. Operating characteristics indicative of acuity also influence performance. The findings suggest that ED performance measures should take ED volume, acuity, and other characteristics into account and that these features have important implications for ED design, operations, and policy decisions.

The ethics of using quality improvement methods in health care.

Quality improvement (QI) activities can improve health care but must be conducted ethically. The Hastings Center convened leaders and scholars to address ethical requirements for QI and their relationship to regulations protecting human subjects of research. The group defined QI as systematic, data-guided activities designed to bring about immediate improvements in health care delivery in particular settings and concluded that QI is an intrinsic part of normal health care operations. Both clinicians and patients have an ethical responsibility to participate in QI, provided that it complies with specified ethical requirements. Most QI activities are not human subjects research and should not undergo review by an institutional review board; rather, appropriately calibrated supervision of QI activities should be part of professional supervision of clinical practice. The group formulated a framework that would use key characteristics of a project and its context to categorize it as QI, human subjects research, or both, with the potential of a customized institutional review board process for the overlap category. The group recommended a period of innovation and evaluation to refine the framework for ethical conduct of QI and to integrate that framework into clinical practice.

An Efficient, Clinically-Natural Electronic Medical Record System that Produces Computable Data.

Current commercially-available electronic medical record systems produce mainly text-based information focused on financial and regulatory performance. We combined an existing method for organizing complex computer systems-which we label activity-based design-with a proven approach for integrating clinical decision support into front-line care delivery-Care Process Models. The clinical decision support approach increased the structure of textual clinical documentation, to the point where established methods for converting text into computable data (natural language processing) worked efficiently. In a simple trial involving radiology reports for examinations performed to rule out pneumonia, more than 98 percent of all documentation generated was captured as computable data. Use cases across a broad range of other physician, nursing, and physical therapy clinical applications subjectively show similar effects. The resulting system is clinically natural, puts clinicians in direct, rapid control of clinical content without information technology intermediaries, and can generate complete clinical documentation. It supports embedded secondary functions such as the generation of granular activity-based costing data, and embedded generation of clinical coding (e.g., CPT, ICD-10 or SNOMED). Most important, widely-available computable data has the potential to greatly improve care delivery management and outcomes.

Mental health integration: rethinking practitioner roles in the treatment of depression: the specialist, primary care physicians, and the practice nurse.

Although primary care provides the majority of mental health care, lack of time and documented economic benefit make it difficult for healthcare delivery systems to proactively implement effective treatment strategies for the growing disability of depression. Current care delivery models are inadequate and inefficient, leading to provider and consumer exhaustion, as well as significant gaps in care and poor outcomes. This publication describes a quality improvement pilot demonstration called "mental health integration" (MHI) that has been successful in realigning resources, enhancing clinical decision making, measuring the impact and building a business case to determine what actually is the value added for quality. Mental health integration (MHI) promotes the rethinking and retraining of traditional solo practitioner roles to new practitioner roles that facilitate partnership and effective communication as a means to help patients and families achieve a state of successful performance. Results describe the improvements in depression detection at a neutral or lower cost to the health plan. Recommendations are identified for building the business case for MHI quality in order to sustain improved outcomes and promote diffusion of the model outside of Intermountain Health Care (IHC) setting.

Standardized Best Practices and Individual Craft-Based Medicine: A Conversation About Quality.

Standardization of medical care through protocols, order sets, and other tools is increasingly a part of efforts to improve quality. The authors, a physician beginning a new position as director of a community hospital quality program and the chief quality officer of a health care system and director of a course in health care delivery improvement, discuss the benefits and risks of standardization in health care. Recommendations for responsible standardization are presented.

Building a learning health system using clinical registers: a non-technical introduction.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to describe how clinical registers were designed and used to serve multiple purposes in three health systems, in order to contribute practical experience for building learning healthcare systems. Design/methodology/approach Case description and comparison of the development and use of clinical registries, drawing on participants' experience and published and unpublished research. Findings Clinical registers and new software systems enable fact-based decisions by patients, clinicians, and managers about better care, as well as new and more economical research. Designing systems to present the data for users' daily work appears to be the key to effective use of the potential afforded by digital data. Research limitations/implications The case descriptions draw on the experience of the authors who were involved in the development of the registers, as well as on published and unpublished research. There is limited data about outcomes for patients or cost-effectiveness. Practical implications The cases show the significant investments which are needed to make effective use of clinical register data. There are limited skills to design and apply the digital systems to make the best use of the systems and to reduce their disadvantages. More use can be made of digital data for quality improvement, patient empowerment and support, and for research. Social implications Patients can use their data combined with other data to self-manage their chronic conditions. There are challenges in designing and using systems so that those with lower health and computer literacy and incomes also benefit from these systems, otherwise the digital revolution may increase health inequalities. Originality/value The paper shows three real examples of clinical registers which have been developed as part of their host health systems' strategies to develop learning healthcare systems. The paper gives a simple non-technical introduction and overview for clinicians, managers, policy-advisors and improvers of what is possible and the challenges, and highlights the need to shape the design and implementation of digital infrastructures in healthcare services to serve users.

E-health: steps on the road to interoperability.

Interoperable electronic medical records (EMRs) have the potential to produce better health outcomes while improving the efficiency of care delivery and reducing its costs. Implementation will require massive changes at all levels. In many instances, the costs of implementation could fall on one group, while savings will accrue to some other group. A successful transition strategy identifies a series of steps, where each step pays its own way, at the level of the local groups directly affected, and lays the foundation for the next step. Such a strategy implies an era in which large groups will likely play a critical role.

At the crossroads of quality.

Health care has turned into a chaotic delivery system that bewilders patients and challenges health professionals. We can do better.