Evaluation of emergency department treat-and-release encounters after major gastrointestinal surgery.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Emergency department (ED) utilization after gastrointestinal cancer operations is poorly characterized. Our study objectives were to determine the incidence of, reasons for, and predictors of ED treat-and-release encounters after gastrointestinal cancer operations. METHODS: Patients who underwent elective esophageal, hepatobiliary, gastric, pancreatic, small intestinal, or colorectal operations for cancer were identified in the 2015-2017 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient and State Emergency Department Databases for New York, Maryland, and Florida. The primary outcomes were the incidence of ED treat-and-release encounters and readmissions within 30 days of discharge. RESULTS: Among 51 527 patients at 406 hospitals, 4047 (7.9%) had an ED treat-and-release encounter, and 5573 (10.8%) had an ED encounter with readmission. In total, 40.7% of ED encounters were treat-and-release encounters. ED treat-and-release encounters were most frequently for pain (12.0%), device/ostomy complaints (11.7%), or wound complaints (11.4%). ED treat-and-release encounters predictors included non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity (odds ratio [OR] 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-1.37) and Medicare (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.16-1.40) or Medicaid (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.62-2.40) coverage. CONCLUSIONS: ED treat-and-release encounters are common after major gastrointestinal operations, making up nearly half of postdischarge ED encounters. The reasons for ED treat-and-release encounters differ from those for ED encounters with readmissions.

Association of State Certificate of Need Regulation With Procedural Volume, Market Share, and Outcomes Among Medicare Beneficiaries.

Importance: Certificate of need laws provide state-level regulation of health system expenditure. These laws are intended to limit spending and control hospital expansion in order to prevent excess capacity and improve quality of care. Several states have recently introduced legislation to modify or repeal these regulations, as encouraged by executive order 13813, issued in October 2017 by the Trump administration. Objective: To evaluate the difference in markers of hospital activity and quality by state certificate of need status. These markers include hospital procedural volume, hospital market share, county-level procedures per 10 000 persons, and patient-level postoperative outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional study involving Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older who underwent 1 of the following 10 procedures from January 1, 2016, through November 30, 2018: total knee or hip arthroplasty, coronary artery bypass grafting, colectomy, ventral hernia repair, lower extremity vascular bypass, lung resection, pancreatic resection, cystectomy, or esophagectomy. Exposures: State certificate of need regulation status as determined by data from the National Conference of State Legislatures. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes of interest included hospital procedural volume; hospital market share (range, 0-1; reflecting 0%-100% of market share); county-level procedures per 10 000 persons; and patient-level postoperative 30-day mortality, surgical site infection, and readmission. Results: A total of 1 545 952 patients (58.0% women; median age 72 years; interquartile range, 68-77 years) at 3631 hospitals underwent 1 of the 10 operations. Of these patients, 468 236 (30.3%) underwent procedures in the 15 states without certificate of need regulations and 1 077 716 (69.7%) in the 35 states with certificate of need regulations. The total number of procedures ranged between 729 855 total knee arthroplasties (47.21%) and 4558 esophagectomies (0.29%). When comparing states without vs with certificate of need regulations, there were no significant differences in overall hospital procedural volume (median hospital procedure volume, 241 vs 272 operations per hospital for 3 years; absolute difference, 31; 95% CI, -27.64 to 89.64; P = .30). There were no statistically significant differences between states without vs with certificate of need regulations for median hospital market share (median, 28% vs 52%; absolute difference, 24%; 95% CI, -5% to 55%; P = .11); procedure rates per 10 000 Medicare-eligible population (median, 239.23 vs 205.41 operations per Medicare-eligible population in 3 years; absolute difference, 33.82; 95% CI, -84.08 to 16.43; P = .19); or 30-day mortality (1.17% vs 1.33%, odds ratio [OR], 1.04; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.16; P = .52), surgical site infection (1.24% vs 1.25%; OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.04; P = .21), or readmission rate (9.69% vs 8.40%; OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.12; P = .19). Conclusions and Relevance: Among Medicare beneficiaries who underwent a range of surgical procedures from 2016 through 2018, there were no significant differences in markers of hospital volume or quality between states without vs with certificate of need laws. Policy makers should consider reevaluating whether the current approach to certificate of need regulation is achieving the intended objectives and whether those objectives should be updated.

Evaluating the Impact of the Venous Thromboembolism Outcome Measure on the PSI 90 Composite Quality Metric.

INTRODUCTION: Patient Safety Indicator (PSI) 90 is a composite measure widely used in federal pay-for-performance and public reporting programs. A component metric of PSI 90, venous thromboembolism (VTE) rate, has been shown to be subject to surveillance bias and not a valid measure for hospital quality comparisons. A study was conducted to examine how hospital PSI 90 scores would change if the VTE measure were removed from calculation of this composite measure. METHODS: Using 2014 Medicare inpatient claims data, PSI 90 scores were calculated with and without the VTE measure for 3,203 hospitals. Hospital characteristics obtained from the American Hospital Association Annual Survey and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Payment Update Impact File were merged with PSI 90 scores. RESULTS: Removing the VTE outcome measure from the calculation of PSI 90 version 5 improved PSI 90 scores for 17.1% of hospitals but lowered scores for 20.8% of hospitals, while 62.1% had no change in scores. Hospitals were more likely to improve on PSI 90 when the VTE measure was removed if they were larger (odds ratio [OR] = 1.60; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.00-2.58), were major teaching hospitals (OR = 1.76; 95% CI = 1.10-2.79), had greater technological resources (OR = 2.03; 95% CI = 1.40-2.94), or cared for sicker patients (OR = 1.12; 95% CI = 1.01-1.25). CONCLUSION: Inclusion of the surveillance bias-prone VTE outcome measure in the PSI 90 composite disproportionately penalizes larger, academic hospitals and those that care for sicker patients. Removal of the VTE outcome measure from PSI 90 should be strongly considered.

Association Between State Medical Malpractice Environment and Surgical Quality and Cost in the United States.

CONTEXT: The US medical malpractice system is designed to deter negligence and encourage quality of care through threat of liability. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether state-level malpractice environment is associated with outcomes and costs of colorectal surgery. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Observational study of 116,977 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries who underwent colorectal surgery using administrative claims data. State-level malpractice risk was measured using mean general surgery malpractice insurance premiums; paid claims per surgeon; state tort reforms; and a composite measure. Associations between malpractice environment and postoperative outcomes and price-standardized Medicare payments were estimated using hierarchical logistic regression and generalized linear models. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: thirty-day postoperative mortality; complications (pneumonia, myocardial infarction, venous thromboembolism, acute renal failure, surgical site infection, postoperative sepsis, any complication); readmission; total price-standardized Medicare payments for index hospitalization and 30-day postdischarge episode-of-care. RESULTS: Few associations between measures of state malpractice risk environment and outcomes were identified. However, analyses using the composite measure showed that patients treated in states with greatest malpractice risk were more likely than those in lowest risk states to experience any complication (OR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.22-1.41), pneumonia (OR: 1.36; 95%: CI, 1.16-1.60), myocardial infarction (OR: 1.44; 95% CI: 1.22-1.70), venous thromboembolism (OR:2.11; 95% CI: 1.70-2.61), acute renal failure (OR: 1.34; 95% CI; 1.22-1.47), and sepsis (OR: 1.38; 95% CI: 1.24-1.53; all P < 0.001). There were no consistent associations between malpractice environment and Medicare payments. CONCLUSIONS: There were no consistent associations between state-level malpractice risk and higher quality of care or Medicare payments for colorectal surgery.

Association of the 2011 ACGME Resident Duty Hour Reform with Postoperative Patient Outcomes in Surgical Specialties.

BACKGROUND: The 2011 ACGME resident duty hour reform implemented additional restrictions to existing duty hour policies. Our objective was to determine the association between this reform and patient outcomes among several surgical specialties. STUDY DESIGN: Patients from 5 surgical specialties (neurosurgery, obstetrics/gynecology, orthopaedic surgery, urology, and vascular surgery) were identified from the American College of Surgeons NSQIP. Data from 1 year before and 2 years after the reform was implemented were obtained for teaching and nonteaching hospitals. Hospital teaching status was defined based on the percentage of operations with a resident present intraoperatively. Difference-in-differences models were developed separately for each specialty and adjusted for patient demographics, comorbidities, procedural case-mix, and time trends. The association between duty hour reform and a composite measure of death or serious morbidity within 30 days of surgery was estimated for each specialty. RESULTS: The unadjusted rate of death or serious morbidity decreased during the study period in both teaching and nonteaching hospitals for all surgical specialties. In multivariable analyses, there were no significant associations between duty hour reform and the composite outcomes of death or serious morbidity in the 2 years post-reform for any surgical specialty evaluated (neurosurgery: odds ratio [OR] = 0.90; 95% CI, 0.75-1.08; p = 0.26; obstetrics/gynecology: OR = 0.96; 95% CI, 0.71-1.30; p = 0.80; orthopaedic surgery: OR = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.74-1.22; p = 0.70; urology: OR = 1.16; 95% CI, 0.89-1.51; p = 0.26; vascular surgery: OR = 1.07; 95% CI, 0.93-1.22; p = 0.35). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the 2011 ACGME resident duty hour reform was not associated with a significant change in patient outcomes for several surgical specialties in the 2 years after reform.

Hospital Characteristics Associated With Penalties in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program.

IMPORTANCE: In fiscal year (FY) 2015, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) instituted the Hospital-Acquired Condition (HAC) Reduction Program, which reduces payments to the lowest-performing hospitals. However, it is uncertain whether this program accurately measures quality and fairly penalizes hospitals. OBJECTIVE: To examine the characteristics of hospitals penalized by the HAC Reduction Program and to evaluate the association of a summary score of hospital characteristics related to quality with penalization in the HAC program. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Data for hospitals participating in the FY2015 HAC Reduction Program were obtained from CMS' Hospital Compare and merged with the 2014 American Hospital Association Annual Survey and FY2015 Medicare Impact File. Logistic regression models were developed to examine the association between hospital characteristics and HAC program penalization. An 8-point hospital quality summary score was created using hospital characteristics related to volume, accreditations, and offering of advanced care services. The relationship between the hospital quality summary score and HAC program penalization was examined. Publicly reported process-of-care and outcome measures were examined from 4 clinical areas (surgery, acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, pneumonia), and their association with the hospital quality summary score was evaluated. EXPOSURES: Penalization in the HAC Reduction Program. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Hospital characteristics associated with penalization. RESULTS: Of the 3284 hospitals participating in the HAC program, 721 (22.0%) were penalized. Hospitals were more likely to be penalized if they were accredited by the Joint Commission (24.0% accredited, 14.4% not accredited; odds ratio [OR], 1.33; 95% CI, 1.04-1.70); they were major teaching hospitals (42.3%; OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.09-2.29) or very major teaching hospitals (62.2%; OR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.55-4.39; vs nonteaching hospitals, 17.0%); they cared for more complex patient populations based on case mix index (quartile 4 vs quartile 1: 32.8% vs 12.1%; OR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.44-2.71); or they were safety-net hospitals vs non-safety-net hospitals (28.3% vs 19.9%; OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.11-1.68). Hospitals with higher hospital quality summary scores had significantly better performance on 9 of 10 publicly reported process and outcomes measures compared with hospitals that had lower quality scores (all P ≤ .01 for trend). However, hospitals with the highest quality score of 8 were penalized significantly more frequently than hospitals with the lowest quality score of 0 (67.3% [37/55] vs 12.6% [53/422]; P < .001 for trend). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among hospitals participating in the HAC Reduction Program, hospitals that were penalized more frequently had more quality accreditations, offered advanced services, were major teaching institutions, and had better performance on other process and outcome measures. These paradoxical findings suggest that the approach for assessing hospital penalties in the HAC Reduction Program merits reconsideration to ensure it is achieving the intended goals.

Approaches to answering critical CER questions.

While randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for research, many research questions cannot be ethically and practically answered using an RCT. Comparative effectiveness research (CER) techniques are often better suited than RCTs to address the effects of an intervention under routine care conditions, an outcome otherwise known as effectiveness. CER research techniques covered in this section include: effectiveness-oriented experimental studies such as pragmatic trials and cluster randomized trials, treatment response heterogeneity, observational and database studies including adjustment techniques such as sensitivity analysis and propensity score analysis, systematic reviews and meta-analysis, decision analysis, and cost effectiveness analysis. Each section describes the technique and covers the strengths and weaknesses of the approach.

Evaluation of hospital factors associated with hospital postoperative venous thromboembolism imaging utilisation practices.

BACKGROUND: Recent research suggests that hospital rates of postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) are subject to surveillance bias: the more hospitals 'look for' VTE, the more VTE they find. However, little is known about what drives variation in hospital VTE imaging rates. We conducted an observational study to examine hospital and market characteristics that were associated with hospital-level rates of postoperative VTE imaging, focusing on hospitals with particularly high rates. METHODS: For Medicare beneficiaries undergoing 11 major operations (2009-2010) at 2820 hospitals, hospital-level postoperative VTE imaging use rates were calculated. Hospital characteristics associated with hospital VTE imaging use rates were examined including case severity, size, ownership, VTE process measure adherence, accreditations, staffing, malpractice environment, and county market factors. Associations between explanatory variables and VTE imaging rates were assessed using quantile regressions at the 25th, median, 75th and 90th quantiles. RESULTS: Mean postoperative VTE imaging rates ranged from 85.26 (SD=67.38) per 1000 discharges in the lowest quartile of hospitals ranked by VTE imaging rates to 168.86 (SD=76.70) in the highest quartile. Drivers of high imaging rates at the 90th quantile were high resident-to-bed ratio (coefficient=51.35, p<0.01), Joint Commission accreditation (coefficient=19.05, p<0.01), presence of other hospitals in the same market with high imaging rates (coefficient=15.29, p<0.01), average case severity (coefficient=11.97, p<0.01), local malpractice costs (coefficient=11.29, p<0.01), and market competition (coefficient=11.03, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Hospital teaching status, resident-to-bed ratio, malpractice environment and local market factors drive hospital postoperative VTE imaging use, suggesting that non-clinical forces predominantly drive hospital VTE imaging practices.

Relationship between cancer center accreditation and performance on publicly reported quality measures.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate differences in hospital structural quality characteristics and assess the association between national publicly reported quality indicators and cancer center accreditation status. BACKGROUND: Cancer center accreditation and public reporting are 2 approaches available to help guide patients with cancer to high-quality hospitals. It is unknown whether hospital performance on these measures differs by cancer accreditation. METHODS: Data from Medicare's Hospital Compare and the American Hospital Association were merged. Hospitals were categorized into 3 mutually exclusive groups: National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Centers (NCI-CCs), Commission on Cancer (CoC) centers, and "nonaccredited" hospitals. Performance was assessed on the basis of structural, processes-of-care, patient-reported experiences, costs, and outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 3563 hospitals (56 NCI-CCs, 1112 CoC centers, and 2395 nonaccredited hospitals) were eligible for analysis. Cancer centers (NCI-CCs and CoC centers) were more likely larger, higher volume teaching hospitals with additional services and specialists than nonaccredited hospitals (P < 0.001). Cancer centers performed better on 3 of 4 process measures, 8 of 10 patient-reported experience measures, and Medicare spending per beneficiary than nonaccredited hospitals. NCI-CCs performed worse than both CoC centers and nonaccredited hospitals on 8 of 10 outcome measures. Similarly, CoC centers performed worse than nonaccredited hospitals on 5 measures. For example, 35% of NCI-CCs, 13.5% of CoC centers, and 3.5% of nonaccredited hospitals were poor performers for serious complications. CONCLUSIONS: Accredited cancer centers performed better on most process and patient experience measures but showed worse performance on most outcome measures. These discordant findings emphasize the need to focus on oncology-specific measurement strategies.

The population value of quality indicator reporting: a framework for prioritizing health care performance measures.

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) National Healthcare Quality and Disparities Reports contain more than 250 quality indicators, such as whether a patient with a suspected heart attack received an aspirin. The Department of Health and Human Services National Quality Measures Clearinghouse identifies more than 2,100 such indicators. Because resources for making quality improvements are limited, there is a need to prioritize among these indicators. We propose an approach to assess how reporting specific quality indicators would change care to improve the length and quality of life of the US population. Using thirteen AHRQ quality indicators with readily available data on the benefits of indicator reporting, we found that seven of them account for 93 percent of total benefits, while the remaining six account for only 7 percent of total benefits. Use of a framework such as this could focus resources on indicators having the greatest expected impact on population health.

Assessment of multimodality therapy use for extremity sarcoma in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Extremity sarcoma national guidelines offer several stage-specific treatment options; therefore, treatment approaches are not standardized. Our objectives were to examine multimodality treatment trends, practice patterns, and factors associated with neoadjuvant or postoperative adjuvant therapy utilization. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Data Base (2000-2009), treatment of non-metastatic extremity sarcoma was examined. Regression models were developed to identify factors associated with neoadjuvant or postoperative adjuvant therapy receipt and treatment sequence. RESULTS: Twenty-two thousand fifty-one patients underwent resection (stage I: 45.2%, stage II: 27.7%, stage III: 27.1%). Over 10 years, neoadjuvant radiation (6.4-11.6%, P < 0.001) and chemotherapy utilization (1.4-1.8%, P = 0.037) increased, while postoperative radiation (34.3-29.2%, P = 0.023) and trimodality therapy decreased (10.5-9.6%, P = 0.002). After adjusting for age, comorbidities, and histology, patients with large high-grade tumors treated at high-volume academic centers were more likely to receive neoadjuvant therapy (all P < 0.001). Postoperative chemotherapy utilization was associated with younger age, synovial histology, high grade, and surgical margins (all P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Utilization of neoadjuvant therapy for extremity sarcoma has increased over time. Practice patterns are not only related to tumor size, grade, histology, and margins but also hospital type. Opportunities remain to better define the most effective multimodality treatment for extremity sarcoma.

Adherence with postdischarge venous thromboembolism chemoprophylaxis recommendations after colorectal cancer surgery among elderly Medicare beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVES: To assess national adherence with extended venous thromboembolism (VTE) chemoprophylaxis guideline recommendations after colorectal cancer surgery. BACKGROUND: Postoperative VTE remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality after abdominal cancer surgery. On the basis of the results from randomized controlled trials, since 2007, national guidelines have suggested that these patients be discharged on VTE chemoprophylaxis. METHODS: Medicare beneficiaries undergoing open colorectal cancer resections in 2008-2009 were identified using the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review data and limited to those who were enrolled and used Part D for their postoperative prescriptions. Postdischarge use of low-molecular-weight-heparin and other anticoagulants was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 5078 patients underwent open colorectal cancer surgery and met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 77% underwent colectomy and 23% underwent proctectomy. A prescription for an anticoagulant was filled immediately after discharge for 77 (1.5%) patients, and a low-molecular-weight-heparin for 60 (1.2%) patients. On multivariable analysis, patients were more likely to receive postdischarge VTE chemoprophylaxis if undergoing rectal cancer surgery [incidence rate ratio (IRR), 1.83; 95% confidence interval, 1.07-3.12; vs colon], if higher educational status (IRR, 2.20; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-3.95; vs low education), or if they had a higher Elixhauser comorbidity index (IRR, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-1.25; vs lower index). CONCLUSIONS: Although VTE remains a major issue after abdominal cancer surgery, only 1.5% of Medicare beneficiaries undergoing colorectal cancer surgery received care consistent with established guidelines for postdischarge VTE chemoprophylaxis. Barriers to adherence must be elucidated to improve the quality of care for abdominal and pelvic cancer surgery patients.

Development of a composite measure of state-level malpractice environment.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a composite measure of state-level malpractice environment. DATA SOURCES: Public use data from the National Practitioner Data Bank, Medical Liability Monitor, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the American Bar Association. STUDY DESIGN: Principal component analysis of state-level indicators (paid claims rate, malpractice premiums, lawyers per capita, average award size, and malpractice laws), with indirect validation of the composite using receiver-operating characteristic curves to determine how accurately the composite could identify states with high-tort activity and costs. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: A single composite accounted for over 73 percent of total variance in the seven indicators and demonstrated reasonable criterion validity. CONCLUSION: An empirical composite measure of state-level malpractice risk may offer advantages over single indicators in measuring overall risk and may facilitate cross-state comparisons of malpractice environments.

Minimal modeling approaches to value of information analysis for health research.

Value of information (VOI) techniques can provide estimates of the expected benefits from clinical research studies that can inform decisions about the design and priority of those studies. Most VOI studies use decision-analytic models to characterize the uncertainty of the effects of interventions on health outcomes, but the complexity of constructing such models can pose barriers to some practical applications of VOI. However, because some clinical studies can directly characterize uncertainty in health outcomes, it may sometimes be possible to perform VOI analysis with only minimal modeling. This article 1) develops a framework to define and classify minimal modeling approaches to VOI, 2) reviews existing VOI studies that apply minimal modeling approaches, and 3) illustrates and discusses the application of the minimal modeling to 2 new clinical applications to which the approach appears well suited because clinical trials with comprehensive outcomes provide preliminary estimates of the uncertainty in outcomes. The authors conclude that minimal modeling approaches to VOI can be readily applied in some instances to estimate the expected benefits of clinical research.

Does competition under Medicare Prospective Payment selectively reduce expenditures on high-cost patients?

Competition and prospective payment have been widely used to control health care costs but may together provide incentives to selectively reduce expenditures on high-cost relative to low-cost patients. We use patient discharge and hospital financial data from California to examine the effects of competition on costs for high- and low-cost admissions in the 12 largest Diagnosis-Related Groups before and after the Medicare Prospective Payment System (PPS). We find that competition increased costs before PPS, but that this effect decreased afterward, especially inpatients with the highest costs. We conclude that competition and PPS selectively reduced spending among the most expensive patients and that careful assessment of these patients' outcomes is important.