Same-Day vs Different-Day Elective Upper and Lower Endoscopic Procedures by Setting.

Importance: Performing elective upper and lower endoscopic procedures on the same day is a patient-centered and less costly approach than a 2-stage approach performed on different days, when clinically appropriate. Whether this practice pattern varies based on practice setting has not been studied. Objectives: To estimate the rate of different-day upper and lower endoscopic procedures in 3 types of outpatient settings and investigate the factors associated with the performance of these procedures on different days. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective analysis was conducted of Medicare claims between January 1, 2011, and June 30, 2018, for Medicare beneficiaries who underwent a pair of upper and lower endoscopic procedures performed within 90 days of each other at hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs), freestanding ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), and physician offices. Main Outcomes and Measures: Undergoing an upper and a lower endoscopic procedure on different days, adjusted for patient characteristics (age, sex, race/ethnicity, residence location and region, comorbidity, and procedure indication) and physician characteristics (sex, years in practice, procedure volume, and primary specialty). Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% CIs were calculated. Results: A total of 4 028 587 procedure pairs were identified, of which 52.5% were performed in HOPDs, 43.3% in ASCs, and 4.2% in physician offices. The rate of different-day procedures was 13.6% in HOPDs, 22.2% in ASCs, and 47.7% in physician offices. For the 7564 physicians who practiced at both HOPDs and ASCs, their different-day procedure rate changed from 14.1% at HOPDs to 19.4% at ASCs. For the 993 physicians who practiced at both HOPDs and physician offices, their different-day procedure rate changed from 15.8% at HOPDs to 37.4% at physician offices. Patients were more likely to undergo different-day procedures at physician offices and ASCs compared with HOPDs, even after adjusting for patient and physician characteristics (physician office vs HOPD: aOR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.85-2.20; ASC vs HOPD: aOR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.23-1.32). Older age (85-94 years vs 65-74 years: aOR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.08-1.11; 95 years or older vs 65-74 years: aOR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.03-1.26), black and Hispanic race/ethnicity (black: aOR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.12-1.17; Hispanic: aOR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.10-1.14), and residing in the Northeast region (adjusted OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.28-1.36) were risk factors for undergoing different-day procedures. Micropolitan location (aOR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.92-0.96) and rural location (aOR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.89-0.93), more comorbidities (≥5: aOR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.74-0.76), physician's fewer years in practice (aOR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.81-0.87), physician's higher procedure volume (aOR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.62-0.68), and physician's specialty of general surgery (aOR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80-0.91) were protective factors. Conclusions and Relevance: Physician offices and ASCs had much higher different-day procedure rates compared with HOPDs. This disparity may represent an opportunity for quality improvement and financial savings for common endoscopic procedures.

Effect of additive selection on calculated aluminum content of parenteral nutrient solutions.

PURPOSE: The quantity of aluminum in common ingredients used to compound parenteral nutrient (PN) solutions was calculated to quantify the actual aluminum content, and opportunities to modify the aluminum content by changing the manufacturer of the ingredients were explored. METHODS: A retrospective evaluation of a random sample of 10 neonatal, 10 pediatric, and 10 adult patients who received PN solutions was performed to quantify the aluminum content in these solutions on the basis of the ingredients used at the authors' institution. A recalculation was performed using the lowest aluminumcontaining ingredients to determine the potential for aluminum minimization in each PN solution. RESULTS: Various manufacturers produce each ingredient required to make PN solutions. Significant variation exists among manufacturers, vial size, and concentrations. Statistically significant differences in the mean aluminum content of PN solutions before and after aluminum minimization were found to exist within each sample of patients. Among the neonatal PN solutions, aluminum content was significantly reduced from a mean +/- S.D. of 84.16 +/- 47.61 to 33.6 +/- 16.69 mug/kg/day. The pediatric PN solutions had a significant decline in aluminum content from a mean +/- S.D. of 16.24 +/- 3.66 to 6.84 +/- 2.66 mug/kg/day. Aluminum content in the high-risk adult PN solutions significantly decreased from a mean +/- S.D. of 4.58 +/- 2.06 to 2.31 +/- 0.63 mug/kg/day. CONCLUSION: There is wide variability in the aluminum concentration of injectable products used in the compounding of PN solutions. Selecting products with low aluminum concentration may substantially reduce the amount of the element administered to patients.