Creation of a Pediatric Sedation Risk Assessment Scoring System: A Novel Method to Stratify Risk.

This study aimed to create a pediatric sedation scoring system independent of the American Society of Anesthesiology Physical Status (ASA-PS) classification that is predictive of adverse events, facilitates objective stratification, and resource allocation. Multivariable regression and machine learning algorithm analysis of 134,973 sedation encounters logged in to the Pediatric Sedation Research Consortium (PSRC) database between July 2007 and June 2011. Patient and procedure variables were correlated with adverse events with resultant ß -regression coefficients used to assign point values to each variable. Point values were then summed to create a risk assessment score. Validation of the model was performed with the 2011 to 2013 PSRC database followed by calculation of ROC curves and positive predictive values. Factors identified and resultant point values are as follows: 1 point: age ≤ 6 months, cardiac diagnosis, asthma, weight less than 5th percentile or greater than 95 th , and computed tomography (CT) scan; 2 points: magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) and weight greater than 99th percentile; 4 points: magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); 5 points: trisomy 21 and esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD); 7 points: cough at the time of examination; and 18 points: bronchoscopy. Sum of patient and procedural values produced total risk assessment scores. Total risk assessment score of 5 had a sensitivity of 82.69% and a specificity of 26.22%, while risk assessment score of 11 had a sensitivity of 12.70% but a specificity of 95.29%. Inclusion of ASA-PS value did not improve model sensitivity or specificity and was thus excluded. Higher risk assessment scores predicted increased likelihood of adverse events during sedation. The score can be used to triage patients independent of ASA-PS with site-specific cut-off values used to determine appropriate sedation resource allocation.

Effects of Home-Based Primary Care on Hospital Use for High-Need Medicare Patients: an Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: High-need, high-cost Medicare patients can have difficulties accessing office-based primary care. Home-based primary care (HBPC) can reduce access barriers and allow a clinician to obtain valuable information not obtained during office visit, possibly leading to reductions in hospital use. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether HBPC for high-need, high-cost patients reduces hospitalizations and Medicare inpatient expenditures. DESIGN: We conducted a matched retrospective cohort study using a difference-in-differences analysis to examine patients 2 years before and 2 years after their first home visit (HBPC group). PARTICIPANTS: The study included high-need, high-cost fee-for-service Medicare patients without prior HBPC use, of which 55,303 were new HBPC recipients and 156,142 were matched comparison patients. INTERVENTION: Receipt of at least two HBPC visits and, within 6 months of the index HBPC visit, a majority of a patient's primary care visits in the home. MAIN MEASURES: Total and potentially avoidable hospitalizations and Medicare inpatient expenditures. KEY RESULTS: HBPC reduced total hospitalization rates, but the marginal effects were not statistically significant: a reduction of 11 total hospitalizations per 1000 patients in the first year (- 0.6%, p = 0.19) and 14 in the second year (- 0.7%, p = 0.16). However, HBPC reduced potentially avoidable hospitalization rates in the second year. The estimated marginal effect was a reduction of 6 potentially avoidable hospitalizations per 1000 patients in the first year (- 1.6%, p = 0.16) and 11 in the second (- 3.1%, p = 0.01). The estimated effect of HBPC was a small decrease in inpatient expenditures of $24 per patient per month (- 1.1%, p = 0.10) in the first year and $0 (0.0%, p = 0.99) in the second. CONCLUSIONS: After high-need, high-cost patients started receiving HBPC, they did not experience fewer total hospitalizations or lower inpatient spending but may have had lower rates of potentially avoidable hospitalizations after 2 years.

Analysis of a Needs Assessment Survey to Develop an Online Resource Repository Supporting Nurse Anesthesia Educators.

BACKGROUND: Without highly qualified nurse anesthesia educators and administrators, the health care system will be threatened by the inadequate supply of certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs). PURPOSE: American Association of Nurse Anesthesiologists' Faculty Stabilization Task Force (FSTF) analyzed reasons for high faculty turnover and developed recommendations to support nurse anesthesia faculty and administrators. METHODS: A survey evaluated participants' current role, leadership development opportunities, mentorship experiences, and resource needs. RESULTS: Of 109 respondents, 87 (80%) were program administrators or assistant administrators with less than 5 years of experience in their role. Despite academic experience, 51% felt adequately prepared for their role. CONCLUSIONS: The FSTF provided 2 recommendations: to create a robust faculty development program for all faculty at all levels of CRNA education and a repository of information needed for program administrators and faculty to oversee and educate students in a high-quality CRNA program.

Evaluation of the NHS England evidence-based interventions programme: a difference-in-difference analysis.

BACKGROUND: The NHS England evidence-based interventions programme (EBI), launched in April 2019, is a novel nationally led initiative to encourage disinvestment in low value care. METHOD: We sought to evaluate the effectiveness of this policy by using a difference-in-difference approach to compare changes in volume between January 2016 and February 2020 in a treatment group of low value procedures against a control group unaffected by the EBI programme during our period of analysis but subsequently identified as candidates for disinvestment. RESULTS: We found only small differences between the treatment and control group after implementation, with reductions in volumes in the treatment group 0.10% (95% CI 0.09% to 0.11%) smaller than in the control group (equivalent to 16 low value procedures per month). During the month of implementation, reductions in volumes in the treatment group were 0.05% (95% CI 0.03% to 0.06%) smaller than in the control group (equivalent to 7 low value procedures). Using triple difference estimators, we found that reductions in volumes were 0.35% (95% CI 0.26% to 0.44%) larger in NHS hospitals than independent sector providers (equivalent to 47 low value procedures per month). We found no significant differences between clinical commissioning groups that did or did not volunteer to be part of a demonstrator community to trial EBI guidance, but found reductions in volume were 0.06% (95% CI 0.04% to 0.08%) larger in clinical commissioning groups that posted a deficit in the financial year 2018/19 before implementation (equivalent to 4 low value procedures per month). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis shows that the EBI programme did not accelerate disinvestment for procedures under its remit during our period of analysis. However, we find that financial and organisational factors may have had some influence on the degree of responsiveness to the EBI programme.

Promoting innovation while controlling cost: The UK's approach to health technology assessment.

New technologies, including pharmaceuticals and medical devices, can improve treatment options in healthcare but also bring concerns about rising healthcare costs. We undertake a narrative review of the United Kingdom's (UK) approach to appraising new health technologies. We find that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Scottish Medicines Consortium (SMC) and All Wales Medicines Strategy Group (AWMSG) have contributed to the UK's robust and transparent approach towards the evaluation of new health technologies using the cost per QALY approach. However, there are limitations to this approach including several external benefits not captured, bias against less treatable diseases, and deciding the appropriate level of the threshold. NICE, SMC, and AWMSG have attempted to overcome some of these limitations by considering additional factors such as end-of-life criteria, highly specialised treatments, and populations that experience unmet need. Looking to the future, the advent of 'personalised' and 'genomic' medicine, will likely mean the UK has to accommodate an increasing number of 'step-change' and 'highly specialised' technologies as well as respond to changes in pharmaceutical licensing and increasing use of real-world evidence.

Digital Health Paradox: International Policy Perspectives to Address Increased Health Inequalities for People Living With Disabilities.

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the uptake of digital health worldwide and highlighted many benefits of these innovations. However, it also stressed the magnitude of inequalities regarding accessing digital health. Using a scoping review, this article explores the potential benefits of digital technologies for the global population, with particular reference to people living with disabilities, using the autism community as a case study. We ultimately explore policies in Sweden, Australia, Canada, Estonia, the United Kingdom, and the United States to learn how policies can lay an inclusive foundation for digital health systems. We conclude that digital health ecosystems should be designed with health equity at the forefront to avoid deepening existing health inequalities. We call for a more sophisticated understanding of digital health literacy to better assess the readiness to adopt digital health innovations. Finally, people living with disabilities should be positioned at the center of digital health policy and innovations to ensure they are not left behind.

Implementation of SARS-CoV-2 Monoclonal Antibody Infusion Sites at Three Medical Centers in the United States: Strengths and Challenges Assessment to Inform COVID-19 Pandemic and Future Public Health Emergency Use.

Monoclonal antibody therapeutics to treat coronavirus disease (COVID-19) have been authorized by the US Food and Drug Administration under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). Many barriers exist when deploying a novel therapeutic during an ongoing pandemic, and it is critical to assess the needs of incorporating monoclonal antibody infusions into pandemic response activities. We examined the monoclonal antibody infusion site process during the COVID-19 pandemic and conducted a descriptive analysis using data from 3 sites at medical centers in the United States supported by the National Disaster Medical System. Monoclonal antibody implementation success factors included engagement with local medical providers, therapy batch preparation, placing the infusion center in proximity to emergency services, and creating procedures resilient to EUA changes. Infusion process challenges included confirming patient severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) positivity, strained staff, scheduling, and pharmacy coordination. Infusion sites are effective when integrated into pre-existing pandemic response ecosystems and can be implemented with limited staff and physical resources.

Economic Aspects of Delivering Primary Care Services: An Evidence Synthesis to Inform Policy and Research Priorities.

Policy Points The 2018 Declaration of Astana reemphasized the importance of primary health care and its role in achieving universal health coverage. While there is a large amount of literature on the economic aspects of delivering primary care services, there is a need for more comprehensive overviews of this evidence. In this article, we offer such an overview. Evidence suggests that there are several strategies involving coverage, financing, service delivery, and governance arrangements which can, if implemented, have positive economic impacts on the delivery of primary care services. These include arrangements such as worker task-shifting and telemedicine. The implementation of any such arrangements, based on positive economic evidence, should carefully account for potential impacts on overall health care access and quality. There are many opportunities for further research, with notable gaps in evidence on the impacts of increasing primary care funding or the overall supply of primary care services. CONTEXT: The 2018 Declaration of Astana reemphasized the importance of primary health care and its role in achieving universal health coverage. To strengthen primary health care, policymakers need guidance on how to allocate resources in a manner that maximizes its economic benefits. METHODS: We collated and synthesized published systematic reviews of evidence on the economic aspects of different models of delivering primary care services. Building on previous efforts, we adapted existing taxonomies of primary care components to classify our results according to four categories: coverage, financing, service delivery, and governance. FINDINGS: We identified and classified 109 reviews that met our inclusion criteria according to our taxonomy of primary care components: coverage, financing, service delivery, and governance arrangements. A significant body of evidence suggests that several specific primary care arrangements, such as health workers' task shifting and telemedicine, can have positive economic impacts (such as lower overall health care costs). Notably absent were reviews on the impact of increasing primary care funding or the overall supply of primary care services. CONCLUSIONS: There is a great opportunity for further research to systematically examine the broader economic impacts of investing in primary care services. Despite progress over the last decade, significant evidence gaps on the economic implications of different models of primary care services remain, which could help inform the basis of future research efforts.

The Markov blanket trick: On the scope of the free energy principle and active inference.

The free energy principle (FEP) has been presented as a unified brain theory, as a general principle for the self-organization of biological systems, and most recently as a principle for a theory of every thing. Additionally, active inference has been proposed as the process theory entailed by FEP that is able to model the full range of biological and cognitive events. In this paper, we challenge these two claims. We argue that FEP is not the general principle it is claimed to be, and that active inference is not the all-encompassing process theory it is purported to be either. The core aspects of our argumentation are that (i) FEP is just a way to generalize Bayesian inference to all domains by the use of a Markov blanket formalism, a generalization we call the Markov blanket trick; and that (ii) active inference presupposes successful perception and action instead of explaining them.

Real-world Effect of Monoclonal Antibody Treatment in COVID-19 Patients in a Diverse Population in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are a promising treatment for limiting the progression of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and decreasing strain on hospitals. Their use, however, remains limited, particularly in disadvantaged populations. METHODS: Electronic health records were reviewed from SARS-CoV-2 patients at a single medical center in the United States that initiated mAb infusions in January 2021 with the support of the US Department of Health and Human Services' National Disaster Medical System. Patients who received mAbs were compared with untreated patients from the time period before mAb availability who met eligibility criteria for mAb treatment. We used logistic regression to measure the effect of mAb treatment on the risk of hospitalization or emergency department (ED) visit within 30 days of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19. RESULTS: Of 598 COVID-19 patients, 270 (45%) received bamlanivimab and 328 (55%) were untreated. Two hundred thirty-one patients (39%) were Hispanic. Among treated patients, 5/270 (1.9%) presented to the ED or required hospitalization within 30 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test, compared with 39/328 (12%) untreated patients (P < .001). After adjusting for age, gender, and comorbidities, the risk of ED visit or hospitalization was 82% lower in mAb-treated patients compared with untreated patients (95% CI, 56%-94%). CONCLUSIONS: In this diverse, real-world COVID-19 patient population, mAb treatment significantly decreased the risk of subsequent ED visit or hospitalization. Broader treatment with mAbs, including in disadvantaged patient populations, can decrease the burden on hospitals and should be facilitated in all populations in the United States to ensure health equity.

Association between author conflicts of interest and industry-sponsorship with the favorability of outcomes of systematic reviews focusing on treatments of erectile dysfunction.

BACKGROUND: Authors' conflicts of interest and industry sponsorship have been shown to influence study outcomes. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine whether author conflicts of interest and industry sponsorship influenced the nature of results and conclusions of systematic reviews focusing on treatment interventions for erectile dysfunction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed and Embase for systematic reviews and meta-analyses focusing on erectile dysfunction treatments published between September 1, 2016, and June 2, 2020. Authors' conflicts of interest were collected from the systematic reviews' disclosure statements. These disclosures were verified using the information provided by the Open Payments, Dollars for Profs, Google Patents, and US Patent and Trademark Office databases and from previously published disclosure statements. RESULTS: Our study included 24 systematic reviews authored by 138 authors. Nineteen authors (13.8%) were found to have conflicts of interest (disclosed, undisclosed, or both). No authors completely disclosed all conflicts. Nine reviews (37.5%) contained at least one author with conflicts of interest; of which eight reported narrative results favoring the treatment group, and seven reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. Of the 15 (62.5%) reviews without a conflicted author, 11 reported results favoring the treatment group, and 12 reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. DISCUSSION: The results and conclusions of systematic reviews for erectile dysfunction treatments did not appear to be influenced by authors who reported conflicts of interest. However, our search algorithm relied on the US-based Open Payments database and a large percentage of reviews in our study were produced by authors with international affiliations. Our study results underscore the difficulties in conducting such analyses. CONCLUSION: Although we found that undisclosed conflicts of interest (COI) were problematic among systematic reviews of erectile dysfunction treatment, only 14% of authors in our sample possessed them and these COI did not appear to influence the favorability of systematic review outcomes.

The changing health needs of the UK population.

The demographics of the UK population are changing and so is the need for health care. In this Health Policy, we explore the current health of the population, the changing health needs, and future threats to health. Relative to other high-income countries, the UK is lagging on many health outcomes, such as life expectancy and infant mortality, and there is a growing burden of mental illness. Successes exist, such as the striking improvements in oral health, but inequalities in health persist as well. The growth of the ageing population relative to the working-age population, the rise of multimorbidity, and persistent health inequalities, particularly for preventable illness, are all issues that the National Health Service (NHS) will face in the years to come. Meeting the challenges of the future will require an increased focus on health promotion and disease prevention, involving a more concerted effort to understand and tackle the multiple social, environmental, and economic factors that lie at the heart of health inequalities. The immediate priority of the NHS will be to mitigate the wider and long-term health consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, but it must also strengthen its resilience to reduce the impact of other threats to health, such as the UK leaving the EU, climate change, and antimicrobial resistance.

Securing a sustainable and fit-for-purpose UK health and care workforce.

Approximately 13% of the total UK workforce is employed in the health and care sector. Despite substantial workforce planning efforts, the effectiveness of this planning has been criticised. Education, training, and workforce plans have typically considered each health-care profession in isolation and have not adequately responded to changing health and care needs. The results are persistent vacancies, poor morale, and low retention. Areas of particular concern highlighted in this Health Policy paper include primary care, mental health, nursing, clinical and non-clinical support, and social care. Responses to workforce shortfalls have included a high reliance on foreign and temporary staff, small-scale changes in skill mix, and enhanced recruitment drives. Impending challenges for the UK health and care workforce include growing multimorbidity, an increasing shortfall in the supply of unpaid carers, and the relative decline of the attractiveness of the National Health Service (NHS) as an employer internationally. We argue that to secure a sustainable and fit-for-purpose health and care workforce, integrated workforce approaches need to be developed alongside reforms to education and training that reflect changes in roles and skill mix, as well as the trend towards multidisciplinary working. Enhancing career development opportunities, promoting staff wellbeing, and tackling discrimination in the NHS are all needed to improve recruitment, retention, and morale of staff. An urgent priority is to offer sufficient aftercare and support to staff who have been exposed to high-risk situations and traumatic experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to growing calls to recognise and reward health and care staff, growth in pay must at least keep pace with projected rises in average earnings, which in turn will require linking future NHS funding allocations to rises in pay. Through illustrative projections, we show that, to sustain annual growth in the workforce at approximately 2·4%, increases in NHS expenditure of 4% annually in real terms will be required. Above all, a radical long-term strategic vision is needed to ensure that the future NHS workforce is fit for purpose.

What is the right level of spending needed for health and care in the UK?

The health and care sector plays a valuable role in improving population health and societal wellbeing, protecting people from the financial consequences of illness, reducing health and income inequalities, and supporting economic growth. However, there is much debate regarding the appropriate level of funding for health and care in the UK. In this Health Policy paper, we look at the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and historical spending in the UK and comparable countries, assess the role of private spending, and review spending projections to estimate future needs. Public spending on health has increased by 3·7% a year on average since the National Health Service (NHS) was founded in 1948 and, since then, has continued to assume a larger share of both the economy and government expenditure. In the decade before the ongoing pandemic started, the rate of growth of government spending for the health and care sector slowed. We argue that without average growth in public spending on health of at least 4% per year in real terms, there is a real risk of degradation of the NHS, reductions in coverage of benefits, increased inequalities, and increased reliance on private financing. A similar, if not higher, level of growth in public spending on social care is needed to provide high standards of care and decent terms and conditions for social care staff, alongside an immediate uplift in public spending to implement long-overdue reforms recommended by the Dilnot Commission to improve financial protection. COVID-19 has highlighted major issues in the capacity and resilience of the health and care system. We recommend an independent review to examine the precise amount of additional funds that are required to better equip the UK to withstand further acute shocks and major threats to health.