Prescribing of Clozapine and Antipsychotic Polypharmacy for Schizophrenia in a Large Medicaid Program.

OBJECTIVE: Underuse of clozapine and overuse of antipsychotic polypharmacy are both indicators of poor quality of care. This study examined variation in prescribing clozapine and antipsychotic polypharmacy across providers, as well as factors associated with these practices. METHODS: Using 2010-2012 Pennsylvania Medicaid data, prescribers were identified if they wrote antipsychotic prescriptions for ten or more nonelderly adult patients with schizophrenia annually. Generalized linear mixed models with a binomial distribution and a logit link were used to examine prescriber-level annual percentages of patients with clozapine use and with long-term (≥90 days) antipsychotic polypharmacy and associated characteristics of prescribers' patient caseloads, prescriber characteristics, and Medicaid payer (fee-for-service versus managed care plans). RESULTS: The study cohort included 645 prescribers in 2010, 632 in 2011, and 650 in 2012. In 2012, the mean prescriber-level annual percentage of patients with any clozapine use was 7% (range 0%-89%), and the mean percentage of patients with any long-term antipsychotic polypharmacy was 7% (range 0%-45%) (similar rates were found during 2010-2012). Prescribers with high prescription volume, a smaller percentage of patients from racial or ethnic minority groups, and a larger percentage of patients eligible for Supplemental Security Income were more likely to use both clozapine and antipsychotic polypharmacy for treating schizophrenia. Prescriber specialty and Medicaid payer were also associated with prescribers' practices. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable variation was found in clozapine and antipsychotic polypharmacy practices across prescribers in their treatment of schizophrenia. Targeting efforts to selected prescribers holds promise as an approach to promote evidence-based antipsychotic prescribing.

A comparative assessment of adverse event classification in the out-of-hospital setting.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to test reliability of two approaches to classify adverse events (AEs) associated with helicopter EMS (HEMS) transport. METHODS: The first approach for AE classification involved flight nurses and paramedics (RN/Medics) and mid-career emergency physicians (MC-EMPs) independently reviewing 50 randomly selected HEMS medical records. The second approach involved RN/Medics and MC-EMPs meeting as a group to openly discuss 20 additional medical records and reach consensus-based AE decision. We compared all AE decisions to a reference criterion based on the decision of three senior emergency physicians (Sr-EMPs). We designed a study to detect an improvement in agreement (reliability) from fair (kappa = 0.2) to moderate (kappa = 0.5). We calculated sensitivity, specificity, percent agreement, and positive and negative predictive values (PPV/NPV). RESULTS: For the independent reviews, the Sr-EMP group identified 26 AEs while individual clinician reviewers identified between 19 and 50 AEs. Agreement on the presence/absence of an AE between Sr-EMPs and three MC-EMPs ranged from κ = 0.20 to κ = 0.25. Agreement between Sr-EMPs and three RN/Medics ranged from κ = 0.11 to κ = 0.19. For the consensus/open-discussion approach, the Sr-EMPs identified 13 AEs, the MC-EMP group identified 18 AEs, and RN/medic group identified 36 AEs. Agreement between Sr-EMPs and MC-EMP group was (κ = 0.30 95%CI -0.12, 0.72), whereas agreement between Sr-EMPs and RN/medic group was (κ = 0.40 95%CI 0.01, 0.79). Agreement between all three groups was fair (κ = 0.33, 95%CI 0.06, 0.66). Percent agreement (58-68%) and NPV (63-76%) was moderately dissimilar between clinicians, while sensitivity (25-80%), specificity (43-97%), and PPV (48-83%) varied. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a higher level of agreement/reliability in AE decisions utilizing a consensus-based approach for review rather than independent reviews.

Measuring adverse events in helicopter emergency medical services: establishing content validity.

INTRODUCTION: We sought to create a valid framework for detecting adverse events (AEs) in the high-risk setting of helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS). METHODS: We assembled a panel of 10 expert clinicians (n = 6 emergency medicine physicians and n = 4 prehospital nurses and flight paramedics) affiliated with a large multistate HEMS organization in the Northeast US. We used a modified Delphi technique to develop a framework for detecting AEs associated with the treatment of critically ill or injured patients. We used a widely applied measure, the content validity index (CVI), to quantify the validity of the framework's content. RESULTS: The expert panel of 10 clinicians reached consensus on a common AE definition and four-step protocol/process for AE detection in HEMS. The consensus-based framework is composed of three main components: (1) a trigger tool, (2) a method for rating proximal cause, and (3) a method for rating AE severity. The CVI findings isolate components of the framework considered content valid. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate a standardized process for the development of a content-valid framework for AE detection. The framework is a model for the development of a method for AE identification in other settings, including ground-based EMS.

NIH state-of-the-science conference statement: Enhancing use and quality of colorectal cancer screening.

OBJECTIVE: To provide health care providers, patients, and the general public with a responsible assessment of currently available data on enhancing use and quality of colorectal cancer screening. PARTICIPANTS: A non-DHHS, nonadvocate 13-member panel representing the fields of cancer surveillance, health services research, community-based research, informed decision-making, access to care, health care policy, health communication, health economics, health disparities, epidemiology, statistics, thoracic radiology, internal medicine, gastroenterology, public health, end-of-life care, and a public representative. In addition, 20 experts from pertinent fields presented data to the panel and conference audience. EVIDENCE: Presentations by experts and a systematic review of the literature prepared by the RTI International-University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center, through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Scientific evidence was given precedence over anecdotal experience. CONFERENCE PROCESS: The panel drafted its statement based on scientific evidence presented in open forum and on published scientific literature. The draft statement was presented on the final day of the conference and circulated to the audience for comment. The panel released a revised statement later that day at http://consensus.nih.gov. This statement is an independent report of the panel and is not a policy statement of the NIH or the Federal Government. CONCLUSIONS: The panel found that despite substantial progress toward higher colorectal cancer screening rates nationally, screening rates fall short of desirable levels. Targeted initiatives to improve screening rates and reduce disparities in underscreened communities and population subgroups could further reduce colorectal cancer morbidity and mortality. This could be achieved by utilizing the full range of screening options and evidence-based interventions for increasing screening rates. With additional investments in quality monitoring, Americans could be assured that all screening achieves high rates of cancer prevention and early detection. To close the gap in screening, this report identifies the following priority areas for implementation and research to enhance the use and quality of colorectal cancer screening: • Eliminate financial barriers to colorectal cancer screening and appropriate follow up. • Widely implement interventions that have proven effective at increasing colorectal cancer screening, including patient reminder systems and one-on-one interactions with providers, educators, or navigators. • Conduct research to assess the effectiveness of tailoring programs to match the characteristics and preferences of target population groups to increase colorectal cancer screening. • Implement systems to ensure appropriate follow-up of positive colorectal cancer screening results. • Develop systems to assure high quality of colorectal cancer screening programs. • Conduct studies to determine the comparative effectiveness of the various colorectal cancer screening methods in usual practice settings.

Outcomes after out-of-hospital endotracheal intubation errors.

INTRODUCTION: We sought to evaluate the association between three key out-of-hospital endotracheal intubation (ETI) errors and patient outcomes. METHODS: We prospectively collected multicenter data on out-of-hospital ETI attempted by Emergency Medical Service (EMS) rescuers. We probabilistically linked these data to statewide EMS, death and hospital discharge data sets. The key ETI error events were (1) endotracheal tube misplacement or dislodgement, (2) multiple ETI attempts (> or =4 laryngoscopies) and (3) failed ETI. The primary outcomes were death (survival to hospital discharge) and secondary complications identified through ICD-9 discharge diagnoses. Using Cox regression with heavyside functions, we identified the associations between out-of-hospital ETI errors and early (in the field or emergency department) and later (on or after hospital admission) death. We censored non-linked cases, adjusted for important clinical covariates, and used a shared frailty regression model to account for clustering by EMS agency. We evaluated the associations between out-of-hospital ETI errors and secondary complications using univariable odds ratios with exact 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Of 1954 out-of-hospital ETI, 444 (22.7%) patients experienced one or more ETI errors, including tube misplacement or dislodgement in 61 (3%), multiple ETI attempts in 62 (3%) and failed ETI in 359 (15%). Of the 1196 (61%) cases linked to outcomes, 872 (73%) died and 323 (27%) survived to hospital discharge. ETI errors were not associated with early death (tube misplacement or dislodgement: Hazard Ratio 0.98, 95% CI 0.65-1.47; multiple ETI attempts: 1.22, 0.80-1.85; failed ETI: 1.10, 0.88-1.39) or later death (tube misplacement or dislodgement: 0.40, 0.10-1.62; multiple ETI attempts: 1.77, 0.23-13.30; failed ETI: 0.76, 0.47-1.25). Pneumonitis was associated with failed ETI (n=20, 19%; univariable OR 2.54; 95% CI 1.24-5.25). CONCLUSION: Out-of-hospital ETI errors are not associated with mortality. Failed out-of-hospital ETI increases the odds of pneumonitis.

Using simulation to isolate physician variation in intensive care unit admission decision making for critically ill elders with end-stage cancer: a pilot feasibility study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of high-fidelity simulation for studying variation in intensive care unit admission decision making for critically ill elders with end-stage cancer. DESIGN: Mixed qualitative and quantitative analysis of physician subjects participating in a simulation scenario using hospital set, actors, medical chart, and vital signs tracings. The simulation depicted a 78-yr-old man with metastatic gastric cancer, life-threatening hypoxia most likely attributable to cancer progression, and stable preferences to avoid intensive care unit admission and intubation. Two independent raters assessed the simulations and subjects completed a postsimulation web-based survey and debriefing interview. SETTING: Peter M. Winter Institute for Simulation Education and Research at the University of Pittsburgh. SUBJECTS: Twenty-seven hospital-based attending physicians, including 6 emergency physicians, 13 hospitalists, and 8 intensivists. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Outcomes included qualitative report of clinical verisimilitude during the debriefing interview, survey-reported diagnosis and prognosis, and observed treatment decisions. Independent variables included physician demographics, risk attitude, and reactions to uncertainty. All (100%) reported that the case and simulation were highly realistic, and their diagnostic and prognostic assessments were consistent with our intent. Eight physicians (29.6%) admitted the patient to the intensive care unit. Among the eight physicians who admitted the patient to the intensive care unit, three (37%) initiated palliation, two (25%) documented the patient's code status (do not intubate/do not resuscitate), and one intubated the patient. Among the 19 physicians who did not admit the patient to the intensive care unit, 13 (68%) initiated palliation and 5 (42%) documented code status. Intensivists and emergency physicians (p = 0.048) were more likely to admit the patient to the intensive care unit. Years since medical school graduation were inversely associated with the initiation of palliative care (p = 0.043). CONCLUSIONS: Simulation can reproduce the decision context of intensive care unit triage for a critically ill patient with terminal illness. When faced with an identical patient, hospital-based physicians from the same institution vary significantly in their treatment decisions.

Relationship between staff perceptions of hospital norms and hospital-level end-of-life treatment intensity.

BACKGROUND: There are wide variations in hospital-level treatment intensity at the end of life that are not entirely explained by structural and market characteristics. Individual hospital microclimates must exist to perpetuate these practice variations. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether a closed-ended survey based upon staff perceptions of informal norms regarding life prolongation, palliation, collaborative decision-making, and patient-doctor familiarity can identify hospital microclimates and to assess whether these norms are related to variation in end-of-life treatment intensity. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS, AND MEASUREMENTS: Retrospective analysis of hospital discharge data at 11 purposively sampled Pennsylvania hospitals linked to a self-administered survey of 139 administrative and clinical staff fielded during site visits in 2004; measurements included year 2000 and 2004 rates of intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation (MV), and hemodialysis among terminal hospitalizations at each hospital; survey respondent demographics, role, experience, and perceptions of their hospital's context and norms of end-of-life decision-making and treatment. RESULTS: The purposively sampled hospitals exhibited wide variation in rates of ICU admission (38.2%-84.4%), MV (13.7%-41.4%), and hemodialysis (0%-9.2%) among terminal admissions. All 139 administered surveys were returned for a response rate of 100%. For each of 4 factors created from 19 survey items, staff responses varied more between hospitals than within hospitals (p < or = 0.03). One factor, patient-doctor familiarity, was inversely correlated with terminal ICU admission (p < 0.001) and MV (p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Discrimination of differences in microclimates related to norms of treatment intensity at the end of life is feasible, but greater specificity of measurement will be required to explain objective measures of terminal admission treatment intensity.

Factors associated with risk of surgical wound infections.

Surgical wound infections are the most common hospital-acquired infections among patients who undergo inpatient surgery. Risk of infection is a function of both patient susceptibility and exposure. The authors studied all discharges in Pennsylvania from October 1, 2004, through September 30, 2005, in which a circulatory (n= 65 940), neurological (n= 6706), or orthopedic (n = 107 825) procedure was performed using data from the Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council. They estimated the impact of patient-specific factors on risk of infection and compared the ability of these factors to predict infections relative to hospital effects. Results suggested that for all 3 types of procedures, patient-specific factors were a significant determinant of risk of surgical wound infection. However, prediction of infection was improved by 23% to 33% when hospital fixed effects were included. Although patient-specific factors had a statistically significant association with risk of infections, much of the risk of surgical wound infections is determined by hospital factors.

Paramedic intubation errors: isolated events or symptoms of larger problems?

Paramedics provide life-saving emergency medical care to patients in the out-of-hospital setting, but only selected emergency interventions have proved to be safe or effective. Endotracheal intubation (the insertion of an emergency breathing tube into the trachea) is an important and high-profile procedure performed by paramedics. In our study population, we found that errors occurred in 22 percent of intubation attempts, with a frequency of up to 40 percent in selected ambulance systems. These findings indicate frequent errors associated with this life-saving technique. These events might be emblematic of larger issues in the structure and delivery of out-of-hospital emergency care.

Diabetes in employer-sponsored health insurance.

OBJECTIVE: To examine medical and mental health care expenditures for large numbers of individuals with diabetes enrolled in employment-sponsored insurance plans. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Health insurance billing data for approximately 1.3 million individuals enrolled in health insurance plans sponsored by 862 large self-insured employers nationwide were used to examine employer expenditures and consumer out-of-pocket payments for 20,937 people identified with diabetes. These expenditures were compared with expenditures for individuals with other chronic illnesses. Main outcome measures were covered charges, insurance plan reimbursements, and estimated consumer out-of-pocket payments for both medical and mental health services. RESULTS: A total of 1.7% of enrollees were identified as having diabetes and approximately 11% of those used at least one mental health service during 1996. Health care expenditures were three times higher for those with diabetes compared with all health care consumers in these insurance plans, but when compared with individuals with other chronic illnesses such as heart disease, HIV/AIDS, cancer, and asthma, those with diabetes were not more expensive for employers' insurance plans. Diabetes accounts for 6.5% of total health plan expenditures. CONCLUSIONS: Diabetes is not more expensive for either consumers or their employer-sponsored insurance plans than other chronic illnesses.