Organization and Performance of US Health Systems.

Importance: Health systems play a central role in the delivery of health care, but relatively little is known about these organizations and their performance. Objective: To (1) identify and describe health systems in the United States; (2) assess differences between physicians and hospitals in and outside of health systems; and (3) compare quality and cost of care delivered by physicians and hospitals in and outside of health systems. Evidence Review: Health systems were defined as groups of commonly owned or managed entities that included at least 1 general acute care hospital, 10 primary care physicians, and 50 total physicians located within a single hospital referral region. They were identified using Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services administrative data, Internal Revenue Service filings, Medicare and commercial claims, and other data. Health systems were categorized as academic, public, large for-profit, large nonprofit, or other private systems. Quality of preventive care, chronic disease management, patient experience, low-value care, mortality, hospital readmissions, and spending were assessed for Medicare beneficiaries attributed to system and nonsystem physicians. Prices for physician and hospital services and total spending were assessed in 2018 commercial claims data. Outcomes were adjusted for patient characteristics and geographic area. Findings: A total of 580 health systems were identified and varied greatly in size. Systems accounted for 40% of physicians and 84% of general acute care hospital beds and delivered primary care to 41% of traditional Medicare beneficiaries. Academic and large nonprofit systems accounted for a majority of system physicians (80%) and system hospital beds (64%). System hospitals were larger than nonsystem hospitals (67% vs 23% with >100 beds), as were system physician practices (74% vs 12% with >100 physicians). Performance on measures of preventive care, clinical quality, and patient experience was modestly higher for health system physicians and hospitals than for nonsystem physicians and hospitals. Prices paid to health system physicians and hospitals were significantly higher than prices paid to nonsystem physicians and hospitals (12%-26% higher for physician services, 31% for hospital services). Adjusting for practice size attenuated health systems differences on quality measures, but price differences for small and medium practices remained large. Conclusions and Relevance: In 2018, health system physicians and hospitals delivered a large portion of medical services. Performance on clinical quality and patient experience measures was marginally better in systems but spending and prices were substantially higher. This was especially true for small practices. Small quality differentials combined with large price differentials suggests that health systems have not, on average, realized their potential for better care at equal or lower cost.

Population-level management of type 1 diabetes via continuous glucose monitoring and algorithm-enabled patient prioritization: Precision health meets population health.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and scale algorithm-enabled patient prioritization to improve population-level management of type 1 diabetes (T1D) in a pediatric clinic with fixed resources, using telemedicine and remote monitoring of patients via continuous glucose monitor (CGM) data review. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We adapted consensus glucose targets for T1D patients using CGM to identify interpretable clinical criteria to prioritize patients for weekly provider review. The criteria were constructed to manage the number of patients reviewed weekly and identify patients who most needed provider contact. We developed an interactive dashboard to display CGM data relevant for the patients prioritized for review. RESULTS: The introduction of the new criteria and interactive dashboard was associated with a 60% reduction in the mean time spent by diabetes team members who remotely and asynchronously reviewed patient data and contacted patients, from 3.2 ± 0.20 to 1.3 ± 0.24 min per patient per week. Given fixed resources for review, this corresponded to an estimated 147% increase in weekly clinic capacity. Patients who qualified for and received remote review (n = 58) have associated 8.8 percentage points (pp) (95% CI = 0.6-16.9 pp) greater time-in-range (70-180 mg/dl) glucoses compared to 25 control patients who did not qualify at 12 months after T1D onset. CONCLUSIONS: An algorithm-enabled prioritization of T1D patients with CGM for asynchronous remote review reduced provider time spent per patient and was associated with improved time-in-range.

Automatic Detection of Perilunate and Lunate Dislocations on Wrist Radiographs Using Deep Learning.

SUMMARY: Delayed or missed diagnosis of perilunate or lunate dislocations can lead to significant morbidity. Advances in computer vision provide an opportunity to improve diagnostic performance. In this study, a deep learning algorithm was utilized for detection of perilunate and lunate dislocations on lateral wrist radiographs. A total of 435 lateral wrist radiographs were labeled as normal or pathologic (perilunate or lunate dislocation). The lunate in each radiograph was segmented with a rectangular bounding box. Images were partitioned into training and test sets. Two neural networks, consisting of an object detector followed by an image classifier, were applied in series. First, the object detection module was used to localize the lunate. Next, the image classifier performed a binary classification for normal or pathologic. The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of the overall system were evaluated. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and the associated area under the curve (AUC) were used to demonstrate the overall performance of the computer vision algorithm. The lunate object detector was 97.0% accurate at identifying the lunate. Accuracy was 98.7% among the sub-group of normal wrist radiographs, and 91.3% among the sub-group of wrist radiographs with perilunate/lunate dislocations. The perilunate/lunate dislocation classifier had a sensitivity (recall) of 93.8%, specificity of 93.3%, and accuracy of 93.4%. The AUC was 0.986. We have developed a proof-of-concept computer vision system for diagnosis of perilunate/lunate dislocations on lateral wrist radiographs. This novel deep learning algorithm has potential to improve clinical sensitivity to ultimately prevent delayed or missed diagnosis of these injuries.

Algorithm-Enabled, Personalized Glucose Management for Type 1 Diabetes at the Population Scale: Prospective Evaluation in Clinical Practice.

BACKGROUND: The use of continuous glucose monitors (CGMs) is recommended as the standard of care by the American Diabetes Association for individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Few hardware-agnostic, open-source, whole-population tools are available to facilitate the use of CGM data by clinicians such as physicians and certified diabetes educators. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to develop a tool that identifies patients appropriate for contact using an asynchronous message through electronic medical records while minimizing the number of patients reviewed by a certified diabetes educator or physician using the tool. METHODS: We used consensus guidelines to develop timely interventions for diabetes excellence (TIDE), an open-source hardware-agnostic tool to analyze CGM data to identify patients with deteriorating glucose control by generating generic flags (eg, mean glucose [MG] >170 mg/dL) and personalized flags (eg, MG increased by >10 mg/dL). In a prospective 7-week study in a pediatric T1D clinic, we measured the sensitivity of TIDE in identifying patients appropriate for contact and the number of patients reviewed. We simulated measures of the workload generated by TIDE, including the average number of time in range (TIR) flags per patient per review period, on a convenience sample of eight external data sets, 6 from clinical trials and 2 donated by research foundations. RESULTS: Over the 7 weeks of evaluation, the clinical population increased from 56 to 64 patients. The mean sensitivity was 99% (242/245; SD 2.5%), and the mean reduction in the number of patients reviewed was 42.6% (182/427; SD 10.9%). The 8 external data sets contained 1365 patients with 30,017 weeks of data collected by 7 types of CGMs. The rates of generic and personalized TIR flags per patient per review period were, respectively, 0.15 and 0.12 in the data set with the lowest average MG (141 mg/dL) and 0.95 and 0.22 in the data set with the highest average MG (207 mg/dL). CONCLUSIONS: TIDE is an open-source hardware-agnostic tool for personalized analysis of CGM data at the clinical population scale. In a pediatric T1D clinic, TIDE identified 99% of patients appropriate for contact using an asynchronous message through electronic medical records while reducing the number of patients reviewed by certified diabetes care and education specialists by 43%. For each of the 8 external data sets, simulation of the use of TIDE produced fewer than 0.25 personalized TIR flags per patient per review period. The use of TIDE to support telemedicine-based T1D care may facilitate sensitive and efficient guideline-based population health management.

Clinically Serious Hypoglycemia Is Rare and Not Associated With Time-in-range in Youth With New-onset Type 1 Diabetes.

CONTEXT: Early initiation of continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is advocated for youth with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Data to guide CGM use on time-in-range (TIR), hypoglycemia, and the role of partial clinical remission (PCR) are limited. OBJECTIVE: Our aims were to assess whether 1) an association between increased TIR and hypoglycemia exists, and 2) how time in hypoglycemia varies by PCR status. METHODS: We analyzed 80 youth who were started on CGM shortly after T1D diagnosis and were followed for up to 1-year post diagnosis. TIR and hypoglycemia rates were determined by CGM data and retrospectively analyzed. PCR was defined as (visit glycated hemoglobin A1c) + (4*units/kg/day) less than 9. RESULTS: Youth were started on CGM 8.0 (interquartile range, 6.0-13.0) days post diagnosis. Time spent at less than 70 mg/dL remained low despite changes in TIR (highest TIR 74.6 ±â€…16.7%, 2.4 ±â€…2.4% hypoglycemia at 1 month post diagnosis; lowest TIR 61.3 ±â€…20.3%, 2.1 ±â€…2.7% hypoglycemia at 12 months post diagnosis). No events of severe hypoglycemia occurred. Hypoglycemia was rare and there was minimal difference for PCR vs non-PCR youth (54-70 mg/dL: 1.8% vs 1.2%, P = .04; < 54mg/dL: 0.3% vs 0.3%, P = .55). Approximately 50% of the time spent in hypoglycemia was in the 65 to 70 mg/dL range. CONCLUSION: As TIR gradually decreased over 12 months post diagnosis, hypoglycemia was limited with no episodes of severe hypoglycemia. Hypoglycemia rates did not vary in a clinically meaningful manner by PCR status. With CGM being started earlier, consideration needs to be given to modifying CGM hypoglycemia education, including alarm settings. These data support a trial in the year post diagnosis to determine alarm thresholds for youth who wear CGM.