Abdominal fellowship-trained versus generalist radiologist accuracy when interpreting MR and CT for the diagnosis of appendicitis.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of generalist radiologists working in a community setting against abdominal radiologists working in an academic setting for the interpretation of MR when diagnosing acute appendicitis among emergency department patients. METHODS: This observational study examined MR image interpretation (non-contrast MR with diffusion-weighted imaging and intravenous contrast-enhanced MR) from a prospectively enrolled cohort at an academic hospital over 18 months. Eligible patients had an abdominopelvic CT ordered to evaluate for appendicitis and were > 11 years old. The reference standard was a combination of surgery and pathology results, phone follow-up, and chart review. Six radiologists blinded to clinical information, three each from community and academic practices, independently interpreted MR and CT images in random order. We calculated test characteristics for both individual and group (consensus) diagnostic accuracy then performed Chi-square tests to identify any differences between the subgroups. RESULTS: Analysis included 198 patients (114 women) with a mean age of 31.6 years and an appendicitis prevalence of 32.3%. For generalist radiologists, the sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval) were 93.8% (84.6-98.0%) and 88.8% (82.2-93.2%) for MR and 96.9% (88.7-99.8%) and 91.8% (85.8-95.5%) for CT. For fellowship-trained radiologists, the sensitivity and specificity were 96.9% (88.2-99.5%) and 89.6% (82.8-94%) for MR and 98.4% (90.5-99.9%) and 93.3% (87.3-96.7%) for CT. No statistically significant differences were detected between radiologist groups (p = 1.0, p = 0.53, respectively) or when comparing MR to CT (p = 0.21, p = 0.17, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: MR is a reliable, radiation-free imaging alternative to CT for the evaluation of appendicitis in community-based generalist radiology practices. KEY POINTS: • There was no significant difference in MR image interpretation accuracy between generalist and abdominal fellowship-trained radiologists when evaluating sensitivity (p = 1.0) and specificity (p = 0.53). • There was no significant difference in accuracy comparing MR to CT imaging for diagnosing appendicitis for either sensitivity (p = 0.21) or specificity (p = 0.17). • With experience, generalist radiologists enhanced their MR interpretation accuracy as demonstrated by improved interpretation sensitivity (OR 2.89 CI 1.44-5.77, p = 0.003) and decreased mean interpretation time (5 to 3.89 min).

Thirty-Day Re-observation, Chronic Re-observation, and Neighborhood Disadvantage.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage, as determined by the Area Deprivation Index, increases 30-day hospital re-observation risk. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: This retrospective study of 20% Medicare fee-for-service beneficiary observation stays from January 1, 2014, to November 30, 2014, included 319,980 stays among 273,308 beneficiaries. We evaluated risk for a 30-day re-observation following an index observation stay for those living in the 15% most disadvantaged compared with the 85% least disadvantaged neighborhoods. RESULTS: Overall, 4.5% (270,600 of 6,080,664) of beneficiaries had index observation stays, which varied by disadvantage (4.3% [232,568 of 5,398,311] in the least disadvantaged 85% compared with 5.6% [38,032 of 682,353] in the most disadvantaged 15%). Patients in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods had a higher 30-day re-observation rate (2857 of 41,975; 6.8%) compared with least disadvantaged neighborhoods (13,543 of 278,005; 4.9%); a 43% increased risk (unadjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.43; 95% CI, 1.31 to 1.55). After adjustment, this risk remained (adjusted OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.22). Discharge to a skilled nursing facility reduced 30-day re-observation risk (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.57 to 0.69), whereas index observation length of stay of 4 or more days (3 midnights) conferred increased risk (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.52); those living in disadvantaged neighborhoods were less likely to discharge to skilled nursing facilities and more likely to have long index stays. Beneficiaries with more than one 30-day re-observation (chronic re-observation) had progressively greater disadvantage by number of stays (adjusted incident rate ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.14). Observation prevalence varied nationally. CONCLUSION: Thirty-day re-observation, especially chronic re-observation, is highly associated with socioeconomic neighborhood disadvantage, even after accounting for factors such as race, disability, and Medicaid eligibility. Beneficiaries least able to pay are potentially most vulnerable to costs from serial re-observations and challenges of Medicare observation policy, which may discourage patients from seeking necessary care.

Neighborhood disadvantage and 30-day readmission risk following Clostridioides difficile infection hospitalization.

BACKGROUND: Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) is commonly associated with outcomes like recurrence and readmission. The effect of social determinants of health, such as 'neighborhood' socioeconomic disadvantage, on a CDI patient's health outcomes is unclear. Living in a disadvantaged neighborhood could interfere with a CDI patient's ability to follow post-discharge care recommendations and the success probability of these recommendations, thereby increasing risk of readmission. We hypothesized that neighborhood disadvantage was associated with 30-day readmission risk in Medicare patients with CDI. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, odds of 30-day readmission for CDI patients are evaluated controlling for patient sociodemographics, comorbidities, and hospital and stay-level variables. The cohort was created from a random 20% national sample of Medicare patients during the first 11 months of 2014. RESULTS: From the cohort of 19,490 patients (39% male; 80% white; 83% 65 years or older), 22% were readmitted within 30 days of an index stay. Unadjusted analyses showed that patients from the most disadvantaged neighborhoods were readmitted at a higher rate than those from less disadvantaged neighborhoods (26% vs. 21% rate: unadjusted OR = 1.32 [1.20, 1.45]). This relationship held in adjusted analyses, in which residence in the most disadvantaged neighborhoods was associated with 16% increased odds of readmission (adjusted OR = 1.16 [1.04, 1.28]). CONCLUSIONS: Residence in disadvantaged neighborhoods poses a significantly increased risk of readmission in CDI patients. Further research should focus on in-depth assessments of this population to better understand the mechanisms underlying these risks and if these findings apply to other infectious diseases.

An assessment of parental knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs regarding influenza vaccination.

INTRODUCTION: Seasonal influenza imposes a significant clinical and economic burden. Despite the availability of an annual vaccine to prevent influenza infection and reduce disease severity, influenza vaccination rates remain suboptimal. Research suggests personal experience, perceived effectiveness, and concerns regarding vaccine safety and side effects are the most influential factors in predicting a parent's decision to vaccinate. However, current literature is primarily focused on the vaccine decision-making of healthcare workers and those at high risk for influenza complications. METHODS: To assess parental attitudes and beliefs regarding the influenza vaccine, a brief mixed-methods survey was developed and optimized for an electronic platform. The Health Belief Model informed survey design and data analysis. Questions were classified into five core concepts: knowledge, barriers, benefits, experience, and severity. Participants were solicited from a population of parents whose children had participated in a school-based influenza surveillance study (n = 244, 73% response rate). We tested associations between responses and children's influenza vaccination status the prior season. Categorical questions were tested using Pearson's chi-squared tests and numerical or ordered questions using Mann-Whitney tests. P-values were corrected using the Bonferroni method. RESULTS: Doubting effectiveness, concerns about side effects, inconvenience, and believing the vaccine is unnecessary were barriers negatively associated with parents' decision to vaccinate their children during the 2017-18 flu season (p < 0.001). Knowledge that the vaccine is effective in lowering risk, duration, and severity of influenza; receiving the influenza vaccine as an adult; and recognizing the importance of vaccination to prevent influenza transmission in high-risk populations were positively associated with parents' decision to vaccinate (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Understanding barriers and motivators behind parents' decision to vaccinate provides valuable insight that has the potential to shape vaccine messaging, recommendations, and policy. The motivation to vaccinate to prevent influenza transmission in high-risk populations is a novel finding that warrants further investigation.

Screening Pediatric Patients for Food Insecurity: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study of Comorbidities and Demographic Characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Food insecurity is a household-level economic and social condition of limited or uncertain access to adequate and nutritional food that is associated with diabetes, obesity, anxiety, depression, and behavioral disorders. The presence of these comorbidities motivated the UW Health Pediatrics Department to start screening for food insecurity. METHODS: Our study describes demographic characteristics of screened patients, comparing risk factors and health status between food insecure patients and food secure patients. We extracted variables on all screened patients: sex, age, race, ethnicity, insurance type, height, weight (to calculate body mass index [BMI] and BMI percentile), and any diagnosis of diabetes, hypertension, sleeping problems, restless leg syndrome, anemia, elevated blood lead levels, depression, anxiety, or attention deficit disorder/attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADD/ADHD). RESULTS: Over the 8-month screening period, 1,330 patients were screened for food insecurity, and 30 screened positive. Insurance type was a significant predictor for food insecurity; patients on public or with no insurance had 6.39 times greater odds of being food insecure than those on private insurance (CI 3.81, 13.29). Also, diagnoses of anemia and ADD/ADHD were both significantly higher in the food insecure group. The odds of having anemia was 8.47 times greater for food insecure patients (CI 3.03, 23.63), and the odds for having ADD/ADHD was 5.89 times greater for food insecure patients than food secure patients (CI 1.48, 23.55). DISCUSSION: These results provide useful information to clinicians as the screening process moves toward widespread adoption. These results also provide a baseline for expanded research once screening is implemented throughout all pediatric clinics within our health care organization.