Risk Factors Associated With Health Care Utilization and Costs of Patients Undergoing Lower Extremity Joint Replacement.

BACKGROUND: The Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement program implemented by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services did not incorporate risk adjustment for lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR). Lack of adjustment places hospitals at financial risk and creates incentives for adverse patient selection. OBJECTIVE: To identify patient-level risk factors associated with health care utilization and costs of patients undergoing LEJR. METHODS: A comprehensive search of research databases from January 1, 1990, through January 31, 2016, was conducted. The databases included Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and SCOPUS and is reported according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement. The search identified 2020 studies. Eligible studies focused on primary unilateral and bilateral LEJR. Independent reviewers determined study eligibility and extracted utilization and cost data. RESULTS: Seventy-nine of 330 studies (24%) were included and were abstracted for analysis. Comorbidities, age, disease severity, and obesity were associated with increased costs. Increased number of comorbidities and age, presence of specific comorbidities, lower socioeconomic status, and female sex had evidence of increased length of stay. We found no significant association between indication for surgery and the likelihood of readmission. CONCLUSION: Developing a risk adjustment model for LEJR that incorporates clinical variables may serve to reduce the likelihood of adverse patient selection and enhance appropriate reimbursement aligned with procedural complexity.

Engaging patients in health care decisions in the emergency department through shared decision-making: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Many decisions in the emergency department (ED) may benefit from patient involvement, even though this setting has been considered least conducive to shared decision-making (SDM). OBJECTIVES: The objective was to conduct a systematic review to evaluate the approaches, methods, and tools used to engage patients or their surrogates in SDM in the ED. METHODS: Five electronic databases were searched in conjunction with contacting content experts, reviewing selected bibliographies, and conducting citation searches using the Web of Knowledge database. Two reviewers independently selected eligible studies that addressed patient involvement and engagement in decision-making in the ED setting via the use of decision support interventions (DSIs), defined as decision aids or decision support designed to communicate probabilistic information on the risks and benefits of treatment options to patients as part of an SDM process. Eligible studies described and assessed at least one of the following outcomes: patient knowledge, experiences and perspectives on participating in treatment or management decisions, clinician or patient satisfaction, preference for involvement and/or degree of engagement in decision-making and treatment preferences, and clinical outcomes (e.g., rates of hospital admission/readmission, rates of medical or surgical interventions). Two reviewers extracted data on study characteristics, methodologic quality, and outcomes. The authors also assessed the extent to which SDM interventions adhered to good practice for the presentation of information on outcome probabilities (eight probability items from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Instrument [IPDASi]) and had comprehensive development processes. RESULTS: Five studies met inclusion criteria and were synthesized using a narrative approach. Each study was of satisfactory methodologic quality and used a DSI to engage patients or their surrogates in decision-making in the ED across four domains: 1) management options for children with small lacerations; 2) options for rehydrating children presenting with vomiting or diarrhea or both; 3) risk of bacteremia (and associated complications), tests, and treatment options for febrile children; and 4) short-term risk of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in adults with low-risk nontraumatic chest pain. Three studies had poor IPDASi probabilities and development process scores and lacked development informed by theory or involvement of clinicians and patients in development and usability testing. Overall, DSIs were associated with improvements in patients' knowledge and satisfaction with the explanation of their care, preferences for involvement, and engagement in decision-making and demonstrated utility for eliciting patients' preferences and values about management and treatment options. Two computerized DSIs (designed to predict risk of ACS in adults presenting to the ED with chest pain) were shown to reduce health care use without evidence of harm. None of the studies reported lack of feasibility of SDM in the ED. CONCLUSIONS: Early investigation of SDM in the ED suggests that patients may benefit from involvement in decision-making and offers no empirical evidence to suggest that SDM is not feasible. Future work is needed to develop and test additional SDM interventions in the ED and to identify contextual barriers and facilitators to implementation in practice.

The chest pain choice decision aid: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac stress testing in patients at low risk for acute coronary syndrome is associated with increased false-positive test results, unnecessary downstream procedures, and increased cost. We judged it unlikely that patient preferences were driving the decision to obtain stress testing. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Chest Pain Choice trial was a prospective randomized evaluation involving 204 patients who were randomized to a decision aid or usual care and were followed for 30 days. The decision aid included a 100-person pictograph depicting the pretest probability of acute coronary syndrome and available management options (observation unit admission and stress testing or 24-72 hours outpatient follow-up). The primary outcome was patient knowledge measured by an immediate postvisit survey. Additional outcomes included patient engagement in decision making and the proportion of patients who decided to undergo observation unit admission and cardiac stress testing. Compared with usual care patients (n=103), decision aid patients (n=101) had significantly greater knowledge (3.6 versus 3.0 questions correct; mean difference, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.34-1.0), were more engaged in decision making as indicated by higher OPTION (observing patient involvement) scores (26.6 versus 7.0; mean difference, 19.6; 95% CI, 1.6-21.6), and decided less frequently to be admitted to the observation unit for stress testing (58% versus 77%; absolute difference, 19%; 95% CI, 6%-31%). There were no major adverse cardiac events after discharge in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a decision aid in patients with chest pain increased knowledge and engagement in decision making and decreased the rate of observation unit admission for stress testing.