Association Between Social and Economic Needs With Future Healthcare Utilization.

INTRODUCTION: Unmet social and economic needs are associated with poor health outcomes, but little is known about how these needs are predictive of future healthcare utilization. This study examined the association of social and economic needs identified during medical visits with future hospitalizations and emergency department visits. METHODS: Individuals with electronic health record-coded social and economic needs during a primary care, emergency department, or urgent care visit at Kaiser Permanente Northwest from October 1, 2016 to November 31, 2017 (case patients) were identified, as well as individuals who had visits during that time period but had no electronic health record-coded needs (control patients). The 2 groups were compared on sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities, and healthcare utilization in the prior year. Finally, logistic regression assessed the relationship between documented needs and hospitalizations and emergency department visits in the 12 months following the index visit, controlling for sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities, and prior healthcare utilization. Statistical analysis was completed in April 2019. RESULTS: Case patients differed significantly from control patients on sociodemographic characteristics and had higher rates of comorbidities and prior healthcare utilization. Social and economic needs documented during the index visit were associated with significantly higher rates of hospitalization and emergency department visits in the 12 months following the visit, controlling for sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities, and prior utilization. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that documented social and economic needs are a powerful predictor of future hospitalization and emergency department use and suggest the need for research into whether interventions to address these needs can influence healthcare utilization.

Electronic medical records and prevention quality: the prevention index.

BACKGROUND: The Prevention Index is a methodology for using electronic medical records to identify and evaluate practice variations in the delivery of preventive care. METHODS: The Prevention Index was used to evaluate the provision of 10 recommended adult preventive services using electronic medical record data for the years 1999 through 2002 among the 450,000 members of a large Northwest integrated care system. The analyses were conducted in 2005. The Prevention Index determines the proportion of person-time that is covered using consensus guidelines as a standard of care. It is analyzed at the population level and produces quality measures at the individual, practice, clinic, and system levels. The Prevention Index also removes diagnostic services in evaluating preventive care. RESULTS: Overall, about 47% of recommended person-time was actually covered by the services in 2002. For nine services with care guidelines, the percent of covered person-time ranged from 19% for chlamydia screening to 80% for blood pressure screening. The percent of recommended person-time covered by these preventive services varied widely across clinical practices. From 17% to 53% of preventive screening tests were delivered for non-screening purposes. CONCLUSIONS: There are wide variations across clinical practices in the adherence to standard prevention guidelines, and also wide variations across different recommended clinical services. The Prevention Index methodology may allow the identification of the source of these variations, allowing system corrections and other remedial actions to be applied precisely and efficiently.

Mammography screening rates decline: a person-time approach to evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: Early detection through mammography can reduce breast cancer mortality. This cohort study evaluated trends in mammography screening, demonstrating a person-time approach. METHODS: Included were women HMO members aged 50-69 from 1999 to 2002 who had not had breast cancer, dysplasia, fibrocystic disease, or implant. The amount of person-time covered by mammography as a percent of the time eligible for mammography screening (the prevention index (PI)) was calculated using electronic data. The denominator was the time during which the guidelines recommended that each participant should have been covered by a mammogram (every 24 months), excluding times when breast mass, abnormal mammogram, galactorrhea, or other breast disorders were under evaluation. The numerator was the time during which she was covered by a mammogram. RESULTS: The number of women who contributed person-time increased from 43,283 to 49,512 and the number of screening mammograms declined from 23,586 to 22,719. The overall PI for screening mammography declined from 67.0 (67% of eligible person-time was appropriately covered by a mammogram) to 62.5, and the proportion of women with no coverage during a given year increased 16%. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows a declining pattern of mammography screening using a person-time approach, a decline greater than that shown by methods that include diagnostic mammograms. The study highlights opportunities for use of the PI and quality improvement initiatives to improve breast cancer outcomes.