Economic Analysis of Mandated Protocolized Sepsis Care in New York Hospitals.

OBJECTIVES: Initial evidence suggests that state-level regulatory mandates for sepsis quality improvement are associated with decreased sepsis mortality. However, sepsis mandates require financial investments on the part of hospitals and may lead to increased spending. We evaluated the effects of the 2013 New York State sepsis regulations on the costs of care for patients hospitalized with sepsis. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using state discharge data from the U.S. Healthcare Costs and Utilization Project and a comparative interrupted time series analytic approach. Costs were calculated from admission-level charge data using hospital-specific cost-to-charge ratios. SETTING: General, short stay, acute care hospitals in New York, and four control states: Florida, Massachusetts, Maryland, and New Jersey. PATIENTS: All patients hospitalized with sepsis between January 1, 2011, and September 30, 2015. INTERVENTIONS: The 2013 New York mandate that all hospitals develop and implement protocols for sepsis identification and treatment, educate staff, and report performance data to the state. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The analysis included 1,026,664 admissions in 520 hospitals. Mean unadjusted costs per hospitalization in New York State were $42,036 ± $60,940 in the pre-regulation period and $39,719 ± $59,063 in the post-regulation period, compared with $34,642 ± $52,403 pre-regulation and $31,414 ± $48,155 post-regulation in control states. In the comparative interrupted time series analysis, the regulations were not associated with a significant difference in risk-adjusted mean cost per hospitalization (p = 0.12) or risk-adjusted mean cost per hospital day (p = 0.44). For example, in the 10th quarter after implementation of the regulations, risk-adjusted mean cost per hospitalization was $3,627 (95% CI, -$681 to $7,934) more than expected in New York State relative to control states. CONCLUSIONS: Mandated protocolized sepsis care was not associated with significant changes in hospital costs in patients hospitalized with sepsis in New York State.

Health Care Coordination Theoretical Frameworks: a Systematic Scoping Review to Increase Their Understanding and Use in Practice.

BACKGROUND: Care coordination is crucial to avoid potential risks of care fragmentation in people with complex care needs. While there are many empirical and conceptual approaches to measuring and improving care coordination, use of theory is limited by its complexity and the wide variability of available frameworks. We systematically identified and categorized existing care coordination theoretical frameworks in new ways to make the theory-to-practice link more accessible. METHODS: To identify relevant frameworks, we searched MEDLINE®, Cochrane, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and SocINDEX from 2010 to May 2018, and various other nonbibliographic sources. We summarized framework characteristics and organized them using categories from the Sustainable intEgrated chronic care modeLs for multi-morbidity: delivery, FInancing, and performancE (SELFIE) framework. Based on expert input, we then categorized available frameworks on consideration of whether they addressed contextual factors, what locus they addressed, and their design elements. We used predefined criteria for study selection and data abstraction. RESULTS: Among 4389 citations, we identified 37 widely diverse frameworks, including 16 recent frameworks unidentified by previous reviews. Few led to development of measures (39%) or initiatives (6%). We identified 5 that are most relevant to primary care. The 2018 framework by Weaver et al., describing relationships between a wide range of primary care-specific domains, may be the most useful to those investigating the effectiveness of primary care coordination approaches. We also identified 3 frameworks focused on locus and design features of implementation that could prove especially useful to those responsible for implementing care coordination. DISCUSSION: This review identified the most comprehensive frameworks and their main emphases for several general practice-relevant applications. Greater application of these frameworks in the design and evaluation of coordination approaches may increase their consistent implementation and measurement. Future research should emphasize implementation-focused frameworks that better identify factors and mechanisms through which an initiative achieves impact.

Effectiveness of Intradialytic Parenteral Nutrition in Treating Protein-Energy Wasting in Hemodialysis: A Rapid Systematic Review.

Intradialytic parenteral nutrition (IDPN) is commonly requested before recommended therapies in malnourished patients on hemodialysis. This review provides updated critical synthesis of the evidence on the use of IDPN in patients on hemodialysis. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, and other sources to identify evidence. Two reviewers sequentially selected studies, abstracted data, rated study quality, and synthesized evidence using predefined criteria. IDPN did not improve clinically relevant outcomes compared with dietary counseling or oral supplementation and had varied results compared with usual care in 12 studies. Data are limited on adverse events or cost-effectiveness of IDPN. Important limitations of the evidence, including limited measurement of clinically important outcomes, methodological concerns, and heterogeneity between studies, weaken our confidence in these findings. IDPN may be a reasonable treatment option for patients who fail to respond or cannot receive recommended treatments, but the broad usage of IDPN before recommended treatment options does not appear warranted.