The effect of malpractice reform on emergency department care.

BACKGROUND: Many believe that fear of malpractice lawsuits drives physicians to order otherwise unnecessary care and that legal reforms could reduce such wasteful spending. Emergency physicians practice in an information-poor, resource-rich environment that may lend itself to costly defensive practice. Three states, Texas (in 2003), Georgia (in 2005), and South Carolina (in 2005), enacted legislation that changed the malpractice standard for emergency care to gross negligence. We investigated whether these substantial reforms changed practice. METHODS: Using a 5% random sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, we identified all emergency department visits to hospitals in the three reform states and in neighboring (control) states from 1997 through 2011. Using a quasi-experimental design, we compared patient-level outcomes, before and after legislation, in reform states and control states. We controlled for characteristics of the patients, time-invariant hospital characteristics, and temporal trends. Outcomes were policy-attributable changes in the use of computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), per-visit emergency department charges, and the rate of hospital admissions. RESULTS: For eight of the nine state-outcome combinations tested, no policy-attributable reduction in the intensity of care was detected. We found no reduction in the rates of CT or MRI utilization or hospital admission in any of the three reform states and no reduction in charges in Texas or South Carolina. In Georgia, reform was associated with a 3.6% reduction (95% confidence interval, 0.9 to 6.2) in per-visit emergency department charges. CONCLUSIONS: Legislation that substantially changed the malpractice standard for emergency physicians in three states had little effect on the intensity of practice, as measured by imaging rates, average charges, or hospital admission rates. (Funded by the Veterans Affairs Office of Academic Affiliations and others.).

Systematic review of strategies to manage and allocate scarce resources during mass casualty events.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Efficient management and allocation of scarce medical resources can improve outcomes for victims of mass casualty events. However, the effectiveness of specific strategies has never been systematically reviewed. We analyze published evidence on strategies to optimize the management and allocation of scarce resources across a wide range of mass casualty event contexts and study designs. METHODS: Our literature search included MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Global Health, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, from 1990 through late 2011. We also searched the gray literature, using the New York Academy of Medicine's Grey Literature Report and key Web sites. We included both English- and foreign-language articles. We included studies that evaluated strategies used in actual mass casualty events or tested through drills, exercises, or computer simulations. We excluded studies that lacked a comparison group or did not report quantitative outcomes. Data extraction, quality assessment, and strength of evidence ratings were conducted by a single researcher and reviewed by a second; discrepancies were reconciled by the 2 reviewers. Because of heterogeneity in outcome measures, we qualitatively synthesized findings within categories of strategies. RESULTS: From 5,716 potentially relevant citations, 74 studies met inclusion criteria. Strategies included reducing demand for health care services (18 studies), optimizing use of existing resources (50), augmenting existing resources (5), implementing crisis standards of care (5), and multiple categories (4). The evidence was sufficient to form conclusions on 2 strategies, although the strength of evidence was rated as low. First, as a strategy to reduce demand for health care services, points of dispensing can be used to efficiently distribute biological countermeasures after a bioterrorism attack or influenza pandemic, and their organization influences speed of distribution. Second, as a strategy to optimize use of existing resources, commonly used field triage systems do not perform consistently during actual mass casualty events. The number of high-quality studies addressing other strategies was insufficient to support conclusions about their effectiveness because of differences in study context, comparison groups, and outcome measures. Our literature search may have missed key resource management and allocation strategies because of their extreme heterogeneity. Interrater reliability was not assessed for quality assessments or strength of evidence ratings. Publication bias is likely, given the large number of studies reporting positive findings. CONCLUSION: The current evidence base is inadequate to inform providers and policymakers about the most effective strategies for managing or allocating scarce resources during mass casualty events. Consensus on methodological standards that encompass a range of study designs is needed to guide future research and strengthen the evidence base. Evidentiary standards should be developed to promote consensus interpretations of the evidence supporting individual strategies.

Utilization of anesthesia services during outpatient endoscopies and colonoscopies and associated spending in 2003-2009.

CONTEXT: The frequency with which anesthesiologists or nurse anesthetists provide sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopies, especially for low-risk patients, is poorly understood and controversial. OBJECTIVE: To quantify temporal comparisons and regional variation in the use of and payment for gastroenterology anesthesia services. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A retrospective analysis of claims data for a 5% representative sample of Medicare fee-for-service patients (1.1 million adults) and a sample of 5.5 million commercially insured patients between 2003 and 2009. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total number of upper gastrointestinal endoscopies and colonoscopies, proportion of gastroenterology procedures with associated anesthesia claims, payments for gastroenterology anesthesia services, and proportion of services and spending for gastroenterology anesthesia delivered to low-risk patients (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status class 1 or 2). RESULTS: The number of gastroenterology procedures per million enrollees remained largely unchanged in Medicare patients (mean, 136,718 procedures), but increased more than 50% in commercially insured patients (from 33,599 in 2003 to 50,816 in 2009). In both populations, the proportion of procedures using anesthesia services increased from approximately 14% in 2003 to more than 30% in 2009, and more than two-thirds of anesthesia services were delivered to low-risk patients. There was substantial regional variation in the proportion of procedures using anesthesia services in both populations (ranging from 13% in the West to 59% in the Northeast). Payments for gastroenterology anesthesia services doubled in Medicare patients and quadrupled in commercially insured patients. CONCLUSIONS: Between 2003 and 2009, utilization of anesthesia services during gastroenterology procedures increased substantially. Anesthesia services are predominantly used in low-risk patients and show considerable regional variation.

Unrecognized Cardiovascular Emergencies Among Medicare Patients.

Importance: The Institute of Medicine described diagnostic error as the next frontier in patient safety and highlighted a critical need for better measurement tools. Objectives: To estimate the proportions of emergency department (ED) visits attributable to symptoms of imminent ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke, aortic dissection, and subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) that end in discharge without diagnosis; to evaluate longitudinal trends; and to identify patient characteristics independently associated with missed diagnostic opportunities. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a retrospective cohort study of all Medicare claims for 2006 to 2014. The setting was hospital EDs in the United States. Participants included all fee-for-service Medicare patients admitted to the hospital during 2007 to 2014 for the conditions of interest. Hospice enrollees and patients with recent skilled nursing facility stays were excluded. Main Outcomes and Measures: The proportion of potential diagnostic opportunities missed in the ED was estimated using the difference between observed and expected ED discharges within 45 days of the index hospital admissions as the numerator, basing expected discharges on ED use by the same patients in earlier months. The denominator was estimated as the number of recognized emergencies (index hospital admissions) plus unrecognized emergencies (excess discharges). Results: There were 1 561 940 patients, including 17 963 hospitalized for ruptured AAA, 304 980 for AMI, 1 181 648 for stroke, 19 675 for aortic dissection, and 37 674 for SAH. The mean (SD) age was 77.9 (10.3) years; 8.9% were younger than 65 years, and 54.1% were female. The proportions of diagnostic opportunities missed in the ED were as follows: ruptured AAA (3.4%; 95% CI, 2.9%-4.0%), AMI (2.3%; 95% CI, 2.1%-2.4%), stroke (4.1%; 95% CI, 4.0%-4.2%), aortic dissection (4.5%; 95% CI, 3.9%-5.1%), and SAH (3.5%; 95% CI, 3.1%-3.9%). Longitudinal trends were either nonsignificant (AMI and aortic dissection) or increasing (ruptured AAA, stroke, and SAH). Patient characteristics associated with unrecognized emergencies included age younger than 65 years, dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid coverage, female sex, and each of the following chronic conditions: end-stage renal disease, dementia, depression, diabetes, cerebrovascular disease, hypertension, coronary artery disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Conclusions and Relevance: Among Medicare patients, opportunities to diagnose ruptured AAA, AMI, stroke, aortic dissection, and SAH are missed in less than 1 in 20 ED presentations. Further improvement may prove difficult.

Evaluation of the Present-on-Admission Indicator among Hospitalized Fee-for-Service Medicare Patients with a Pressure Ulcer Diagnosis: Coding Patterns and Impact on Hospital-Acquired Pressure Ulcer Rates.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate national present-on-admission (POA) reporting for hospital-acquired pressure ulcers (HAPUs) and examine the impact of quality measure exclusion criteria on HAPU rates. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Medicare inpatient, outpatient, and nursing facility data as well as independent provider claims (2010-2011). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We evaluated acute inpatient hospital admissions among Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries in 2011. Admissions were categorized as follows: (1) no pressure ulcer diagnosis, (2) new pressure ulcer diagnosis, and (3) previously documented pressure ulcer diagnosis. HAPU rates were calculated by varying patient exclusion criteria. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Among admissions with a pressure ulcer diagnosis, we observed a large discrepancy in the proportion of admissions with a HAPU based on hospital-reported POA data (5.2 percent) and the proportion with a new pressure ulcer diagnosis based on patient history in billing claims (49.7 percent). Applying quality measure exclusion criteria resulted in removal of 91.2 percent of admissions with a pressure injury diagnosis from HAPU rate calculations. CONCLUSIONS: As payers and health care organizations expand the use of quality measures, it is important to consider how the measures are implemented, coding revisions to improve measure validity, and the impact of patient exclusion criteria on provider performance evaluation.

Consistency of pressure injury documentation across interfacility transfers.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-acquired pressure injuries (HAPIs) are publicly reported in the USA and used to adjust Medicare payment to acute inpatient facilities. Current methods used to identify HAPIs in administrative claims rely on hospital-reported present-on-admission (POA) data instead of prior patient health information. OBJECTIVE: To study the reliability of claims data for HAPIs and pressure injury (PI) stage by evaluating diagnostic coding agreement across interfacility transfers. METHODS: Using the 2012 100% Medicare Provider and Analysis Review file, we identified all fee-for-service acute inpatient discharge records with a PI diagnosis among Medicare patients 65 years and older. We then identified additional facility claims (eg, acute inpatient, long-stay inpatient or skilled nursing facility) belonging to the same patient who had either (1) admission within 1day of hospital discharge or (2) discharge within 1day of hospital admission. Multivariable logistic regression and stratified kappa statistics were used to measure coding agreement between transferring and receiving facilities in the presence or absence of a PI diagnosis at the time of patient transfer and PI stage category (early vs advanced). RESULTS: In our comparison of claims data between transferring and receiving facilities, we observed poor agreement in the presence or absence of a PI diagnosis at the time of transfer (36.3%, kappa=0.03) and poor agreement in PI stage category (74.3%, kappa=0.17). Among transfers with a POA PI reported by the receiving hospital, only 34.0% had a PI documented at the prior transferring facility. CONCLUSIONS: The observed discordance in PI documentation and staging between transferring and receiving facilities may indicate inaccuracy of HAPI identification in claims data. Future research should evaluate the accuracy of hospital-reported POA data and its impact on PI quality measurement.

Assessing and Improving Hospital Mass-Casualty Preparedness: A No-Notice Exercise.

In recent years, mass-casualty incidents (MCIs) have become more frequent and deadly, while emergency department (ED) crowding has grown steadily worse and widespread. The ability of hospitals to implement an effective mass-casualty surge plan, immediately and expertly, has therefore never been more important. Yet, mass-casualty exercises tend to be highly choreographed, pre-scheduled events that provide limited insight into hospitals' true capacity to respond to a no-notice event under real-world conditions. To address this gap, the US Department of Health and Human Services (Washington, DC USA), Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR), sponsored development of a set of tools meant to allow any hospital to run a real-time, no-notice exercise, focusing on the first hour and 15 minutes of a hospital's response to a sudden MCI, with the goals of minimizing burden, maximizing realism, and providing meaningful, outcome-oriented metrics to facilitate self-assessment. The resulting exercise, which was iteratively developed, piloted at nine hospitals nationwide, and completed in 2015, is now freely available for anyone to use or adapt. This report demonstrates the feasibility of implementing a no-notice exercise in the hospital setting and describes insights gained during the development process that might be helpful to future exercise developers. It also introduces the use of ED "immediate bed availability (IBA)" as an objective, dynamic measure of an ED's physical capacity for new arrivals. Waxman DA , Chan EW , Pillemer F , Smith TWJ , Abir M , Nelson C . Assessing and improving hospital mass-casualty preparedness: a no-notice exercise. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017;32(6):662-666.

Does Medicare Advantage enrollment affect home healthcare use?

OBJECTIVES: To compare home health utilization and clinical outcomes between Medicare beneficiaries in the fee-for-service (FFS) and Medicare Advantage (MA) programs, and to compare regional variation. STUDY DESIGN: We used the 2010 and 2011 Outcome and Assessment Information Set to identify all home health episodes begun in 2010 and to measure 7 clinical home health outcomes that are defined by CMS for public reporting. METHODS: We modeled the probability of home health use, the duration of home health episodes, and each clinical outcome measure as a function of MA versus FFS enrollment and model-specific risk adjustors. Empirical Bayes predictions from generalized linear mixed models were aggregated by hospital referral region (HRR) to create standardized regional measures of home health utilization and mean episode duration. RESULTS: We identified 30,837,130 FFS and 10,594,658 MA beneficiaries (excluding those dually eligible for Medicaid). After adjusting for demographic and clinical patient characteristics, the odds of receiving home health among FFS enrollees were 1.83 times those of MA (95% CI, 1.82-1.84). Adjusted home health duration was 34% longer for FFS (95% CI, 32%-34%). Outcomes differences were small in magnitude and inconsistent across measures. Regional variations in use and duration were substantial for both FFS and MA enrollees. Within HRRs, correlations between FFS and MA utilization rates and between FFS and MA episode durations were 0.51 and 0.94, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: MA beneficiaries use less home health than their FFS counterparts, but regional factors affect utilization, independent of insurance status.

Using data from hospital information systems to improve emergency department care.

The ubiquity of computerized hospital information systems, and of inexpensive computing power, has led to an unprecedented opportunity to use electronic data for quality improvement projects and for research. Although hospitals and emergency departments vary widely in their degree of integration of information technology into clinical operations, most have computer systems that manage emergency department registration, admission-discharge-transfer information, billing, and laboratory and radiology data. These systems are designed for specific tasks, but contain a wealth of detail that can be used to educate staff and improve the quality of care emergency physicians offer their patients. In this article, the authors describe five such projects that they have performed and use these examples as a basis for discussion of some of the methods and logistical challenges of undertaking such projects.

Allocation of scarce resources during mass casualty events.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review sought to identify the best available evidence regarding strategies for allocating scarce resources during mass casualty events (MCEs). Specifically, the review addresses the following questions: (1) What strategies are available to policymakers to optimize the allocation of scarce resources during MCEs? (2) What strategies are available to providers to optimize the allocation of scarce resources during MCEs? (3) What are the public's key perceptions and concerns regarding the implementation of strategies to allocate scarce resources during MCEs? (4) What methods are available to engage providers in discussions regarding the development and implementation of strategies to allocate scarce resources during MCEs? DATA SOURCES: We searched Medline, Scopus, Embase, CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Global Health, Web of Science®, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1990 through 2011. To identify relevant non-peer-reviewed reports, we searched the New York Academy of Medicine's Grey Literature Report. We also reviewed relevant State and Federal plans, peer-reviewed reports and papers by nongovernmental organizations, and consensus statements published by professional societies. We included both English- and foreign-language studies. REVIEW METHODS: Our review included studies that evaluated tested strategies in real-world MCEs as well as strategies tested in drills, exercises, or computer simulations, all of which included a comparison group. We reviewed separately studies that lacked a comparison group but nonetheless evaluated promising strategies. We also identified consensus recommendations developed by professional societies or government panels. We reviewed existing State plans to examine the current state of planning for scarce resource allocation during MCEs. Two investigators independently reviewed each article, abstracted data, and assessed study quality. RESULTS: We considered 5,716 reports for this comparative effectiveness review (CER); we ultimately included 170 in the review. Twenty-seven studies focus on strategies for policymakers. Among this group were studies that examined various ways to distribute biological countermeasures more efficiently during a bioterror attack or influenza pandemic. They provided modest evidence that the way these systems are organized influences the speed of distribution. The review includes 119 studies that address strategies for providers. A number of these studies provided evidence suggesting that commonly used triage systems do not perform consistently in actual MCEs. The number of high-quality studies addressing other specific strategies was insufficient to support firm conclusions about their effectiveness. Only 10 studies included strategies that consider the public's perspective. However, these studies were consistent in their findings. In particular, the public believes that resource allocation guidelines should be simple and consistent across health care facilities but should allow facilities some flexibility to make allocation decisions based on the specific demand and supply situation. The public also believes that a successful allocation system should balance the goals of ensuring the functioning of society, saving the greatest number of people, protecting the most vulnerable people, reducing deaths and hospitalizations, and treating people fairly and equitably. The remaining 14 studies provided strategies for engaging providers in discussions about allocating and managing scarce medical resources. These studies did not identify one engagement approach as clearly superior; however, they consistently noted the importance of a broad, inclusive, and systematic engagement process. CONCLUSIONS: Scientific research to identify the most effective adaptive strategies to implement during MCEs is an emerging area. While it remains unclear which of the many options available to policymakers and providers will be most effective, ongoing efforts to develop a focused, well-organized program of applied research should help to identify the optimal methods, techniques, and technologies to strengthen our nation's capacity to respond to MCEs.

A model for troponin I as a quantitative predictor of in-hospital mortality.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated log-transformed troponin I as a predictor of mortality in 2 independent populations. BACKGROUND: The troponin I result is typically dichotomized by a single diagnostic cutoff. Its performance as a continuous prognostic variable has not previously been well-characterized. METHODS: We studied the first troponin I sent from the emergency department (ED) as a predictor of all-cause inpatient mortality, with retrospectively gathered data. We performed our study in 2 stages, deriving our model with data from a single medical center and validating it with data from another. Subjects included every patient who had a troponin I sent from the ED during the period from November 2002 to January 2005. We assessed prognostic independence by including other potential confounders in nested logistic regression models. The troponin assay was identical at both sites (Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics, Rochester, New York). RESULTS: There were a total of 34,227 patients (12,135 derivation and 22,092 validation). Odds ratio for mortality as a function of log10-troponin was 2.08 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.85 to 2.32) in the derivation set and 2.07 (95% CI 1.92 to 2.24) for the validation set. Troponin I remained a strong predictor after inclusion of age, electrocardiogram normality, renal insufficiency, arrival mode, chief complaint, admission diagnosis, and abnormal vital signs into bivariate and nested multivariate models. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of any detectible troponin I at ED presentation is associated with increased inpatient mortality. In 2 distinct clinical populations, the odds of death approximately doubled with any 10-fold increase in troponin result. This held true at levels below current diagnostic cutoffs. The placement and utility of dichotomous cutoffs might merit reconsideration.