Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
: 20 | 50 | 100
1 - 20 de 108
1.
J Trauma Acute Care Surg ; 92(1): 38-43, 2022 01 01.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34670959

BACKGROUND: Regionalization of emergency general surgery (EGS) has primarily focused on expediting care of high acuity patients through interfacility transfers. In contrast, triaging low-risk patients to a nondesignated trauma facility has not been evaluated. This study evaluates a 16-month experience of a five-surgeon team triaging EGS patients at a tertiary care, Level I trauma center (TC) to an affiliated community hospital 1.3 miles away. METHODS: All EGS patients who presented to the Level I TC emergency department from January 2020 to April 2021 were analyzed. Patients were screened by EGS surgeons covering both facilities for transfer appropriateness including hemodynamics, resource need, and comorbidities. Patients were retrospectively evaluated for disposition, diagnosis, comorbidities, length of stay, surgical intervention, and 30-day mortality and readmission. RESULTS: Of 987 patients reviewed, 31.5% were transferred to the affiliated community hospital, 16.1% were discharged home from the emergency department, and 52.4% were admitted to the Level I TC. Common diagnoses were biliary disease (16.8%), bowel obstruction (15.7%), and appendicitis (14.3%). Compared with Level I TC admissions, Charlson Comorbidity Index was lower (1.89 vs. 4.45, p < 0.001) and length of stay was shorter (2.23 days vs. 5.49 days, p < 0.001) for transfers. Transfers had a higher rate of surgery (67.5% vs. 50.1%, p < 0.001) and lower readmission and mortality (8.4% vs. 15.3%, p = 0.004; 0.6% vs. 5.0%, p < 0.001). Reasons not to transfer were emergency evaluation, comorbidity burden, operating room availability, and established care. No transfers required transfer back to higher care (under-triage). Bed days saved at the Level I TC were 693 (591 inpatients). Total operating room minutes saved were 24,008 (16,919, between 7:00 am and 5:00 pm). CONCLUSION: Transfer of appropriate patients maintains high quality care and outcomes, while improving operating room and bed capacity and resource utilization at a tertiary care, Level I TC. Emergency general surgery regionalization should consider triage of both high-risk and low-risk patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prospective comparative cohort study, Level II.


Critical Care , General Surgery/methods , Patient Transfer , Risk Adjustment , Triage , Adult , Critical Care/methods , Critical Care/standards , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Female , Hospitals, Community/methods , Hospitals, Community/organization & administration , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Needs Assessment , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Patient Selection , Patient Transfer/methods , Patient Transfer/standards , Patient Transfer/statistics & numerical data , Quality Improvement/organization & administration , Risk Adjustment/methods , Risk Adjustment/standards , Tertiary Healthcare/statistics & numerical data , Trauma Centers/statistics & numerical data , Triage/methods , Triage/standards , United States/epidemiology
2.
J Trauma Acute Care Surg ; 92(1): 69-73, 2022 01 01.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34932042

BACKGROUND: The shock index pediatric age-adjusted (SIPA) predicts the need for increased resources and mortality among pediatric trauma patients without incorporating neurological status. A new scoring tool, rSIG, which is the reverse shock index (rSI) multiplied by the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), has been proven superior at predicting outcomes in adult trauma patients and mortality in pediatric patients compared with traditional scoring systems. We sought to compare the accuracy of rSIG to Shock Index (SI) and SIPA in predicting the need for early interventions in civilian pediatric trauma patients. METHODS: Patients (aged 1-18 years) in the 2014 to 2018 Pediatric Trauma Quality Improvement Program database with complete heart rate, systolic blood pressure, and total GCS were included. Optimal cut points of rSIG were calculated for predicting blood transfusion within 4 hours, intubation, intracranial pressure monitoring, and intensive care unit admission. From the optimal thresholds, sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve were calculated from receiver operating characteristics analyses to predict each outcome and compared with SI and SIPA. RESULTS: A total of 604,931 patients with a mean age of 11.1 years old were included. A minority of patients had a penetrating injury mechanism (5.6%) and the mean Injury Severity Score was 7.6. The mean SI and rSIG scores were 0.85 and 18.6, respectively. Reverse shock index multiplied by Glasgow Coma Scale performed better than SI and SIPA at predicting early trauma outcomes for the overall population, regardless of age. CONCLUSION: Reverse shock index multiplied by Glasgow Coma Scale outperformed SI and SIPA in the early identification of traumatically injured children at risk for early interventions, such as blood transfusion within 4 hours, intubation, intracranial pressure monitoring, and intensive care unit admission. Reverse shock index multiplied by Glasgow Coma Scale adds neurological status in initial patient assessment and may be used as a bedside triage tool to rapidly identify pediatric patients who will likely require early intervention and higher levels of care. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic, level III.


Early Medical Intervention , Glasgow Coma Scale , Risk Adjustment , Shock , Wounds and Injuries , Blood Pressure , Blood Transfusion/methods , Blood Transfusion/statistics & numerical data , Child , Early Diagnosis , Early Medical Intervention/methods , Early Medical Intervention/standards , Female , Heart Rate , Humans , Injury Severity Score , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Intracranial Pressure , Male , Pediatric Emergency Medicine/methods , Pediatric Emergency Medicine/standards , Research Design , Risk Adjustment/methods , Risk Adjustment/standards , Shock/diagnosis , Shock/etiology , Shock/therapy , Wounds and Injuries/complications , Wounds and Injuries/diagnosis , Wounds and Injuries/physiopathology
3.
Value Health ; 24(4): 530-538, 2021 04.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33840431

OBJECTIVES: To develop a hospital indicator of resource use for injury admissions. METHODS: We focused on resource use for acute injury care and therefore adopted a hospital perspective. We included patients ≥16 years old with an Injury Severity Score >9 admitted to any of the 57 trauma centers of an inclusive Canadian trauma system from 2014 to 2018. We extracted data from the trauma registry and hospital financial reports and estimated resource use with activity-based costing. We developed risk-adjustment models by trauma center designation level (I/II and III/IV) for the whole sample, traumatic brain injuries, thoraco-abdominal injuries, orthopedic injuries, and patients ≥65 years old. Candidate variables were selected using bootstrap resampling. We performed benchmarking by comparing the adjusted mean cost in each center, obtained using shrinkage estimates, to the provincial mean. RESULTS: We included 38 713 patients. The models explained between 12% and 36% (optimism-corrected r2) of the variation in resource use. In the whole sample and in all subgroups, we identified centers with higher- or lower-than-expected resource use across level I/II and III/IV centers. CONCLUSIONS: We propose an algorithm to produce the indicator using data routinely collected in trauma registries to prompt targeted exploration of potential areas for improvement in resource use for injury admissions. The r2 of our models suggest that between 64% and 88% of the variation in resource use for injury care is dictated by factors other than patient baseline risk.


Injury Severity Score , Resource Allocation/economics , Resource Allocation/methods , Risk Adjustment/methods , Risk Adjustment/standards , Wounds and Injuries/economics , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Algorithms , Benchmarking , Female , Health Status Indicators , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Quebec , Registries , Retrospective Studies , Severity of Illness Index , Young Adult
5.
Can J Cardiol ; 36(12): 1847-1948, 2020 12.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33191198

The Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) atrial fibrillation (AF) guidelines program was developed to aid clinicians in the management of these complex patients, as well as to provide direction to policy makers and health care systems regarding related issues. The most recent comprehensive CCS AF guidelines update was published in 2010. Since then, periodic updates were published dealing with rapidly changing areas. However, since 2010 a large number of developments had accumulated in a wide range of areas, motivating the committee to complete a thorough guideline review. The 2020 iteration of the CCS AF guidelines represents a comprehensive renewal that integrates, updates, and replaces the past decade of guidelines, recommendations, and practical tips. It is intended to be used by practicing clinicians across all disciplines who care for patients with AF. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) system was used to evaluate recommendation strength and the quality of evidence. Areas of focus include: AF classification and definitions, epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical evaluation, screening and opportunistic AF detection, detection and management of modifiable risk factors, integrated approach to AF management, stroke prevention, arrhythmia management, sex differences, and AF in special populations. Extensive use is made of tables and figures to synthesize important material and present key concepts. This document should be an important aid for knowledge translation and a tool to help improve clinical management of this important and challenging arrhythmia.


Anticoagulants , Atrial Fibrillation , Catheter Ablation , Hemorrhage , Patient Care Management , Stroke , Aged, 80 and over , Anticoagulants/administration & dosage , Anticoagulants/adverse effects , Atrial Fibrillation/classification , Atrial Fibrillation/complications , Atrial Fibrillation/epidemiology , Atrial Fibrillation/therapy , Canada/epidemiology , Cardiovascular Diseases/epidemiology , Cardiovascular Diseases/therapy , Catheter Ablation/adverse effects , Catheter Ablation/methods , Female , Heart Disease Risk Factors , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Hemorrhage/prevention & control , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Care Management/methods , Patient Care Management/standards , Prevalence , Risk Adjustment/methods , Risk Adjustment/standards , Societies, Medical , Stroke/etiology , Stroke/prevention & control
6.
Gut ; 69(9): 1555-1563, 2020 09.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32620549

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an exponential increase in SARS-CoV-2 infections and associated deaths, and represents a significant challenge to healthcare professionals and facilities. Individual countries have taken several prevention and containment actions to control the spread of infection, including measures to guarantee safety of both healthcare professionals and patients who are at increased risk of infection from COVID-19. Faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) has a well-established role in the treatment of Clostridioides difficile infection. In the time of the pandemic, FMT centres and stool banks are required to adopt a workflow that continues to ensure reliable patient access to FMT while maintaining safety and quality of procedures. In this position paper, based on the best available evidence, worldwide FMT experts provide guidance on issues relating to the impact of COVID-19 on FMT, including patient selection, donor recruitment and selection, stool manufacturing, FMT procedures, patient follow-up and research activities.


Clostridium Infections/therapy , Coronavirus Infections , Donor Selection , Fecal Microbiota Transplantation/methods , Gastroenterology , Pandemics , Patient Selection , Pneumonia, Viral , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Change Management , Clostridium Infections/microbiology , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Gastroenterology/organization & administration , Gastroenterology/trends , Gastrointestinal Microbiome , Humans , Infection Control/methods , Infection Control/standards , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Risk Adjustment/methods , Risk Adjustment/standards , SARS-CoV-2
9.
Am J Med Qual ; 35(3): 205-212, 2020.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31248266

This article reviews the risk-adjustment models underpinning the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) standardized infection ratios. After first describing the models, the authors focus on hospital intensive care unit (ICU) designation as a variable employed across the various risk models. The risk-adjusted frequency with which ICU services are reported in Medicare fee-for-service claims data was compared as a proxy for determining whether reporting of ICU days is similar across hospitals. Extreme variation was found in the reporting of ICU utilization among admissions for congestive heart failure, ranging from 25% in the lowest admission hospital quartile to 95% in the highest. The across-hospital variation in reported ICU utilization was found to be unrelated to patient severity. Given that such extreme variation appears in a designation of ICU versus non-ICU utilization, the NHSN risk-adjustment models' dependence on nursing unit designation should be a cause for concern.


Cross Infection/prevention & control , Intensive Care Units/organization & administration , Medicare/organization & administration , Risk Adjustment/organization & administration , Benchmarking , Fee-for-Service Plans , Hospital Bed Capacity , Humans , Intensive Care Units/standards , Medicare/standards , Quality Indicators, Health Care , Risk Adjustment/standards , United States
11.
J Am Geriatr Soc ; 68(2): 297-304, 2020 02.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31880310

OBJECTIVES: Medicare value-based payment programs evaluate physicians' performance on their patients' annual Medicare costs and clinical outcomes. However, little is known about how geriatricians, who disproportionately provide care for medically complex older adults, perform on these measures. DESIGN: A retrospective study using multivariable regression methods to estimate the association of geriatric risk factors with annualized Medicare costs and preventable hospitalization rates and to compare geriatricians' performance on these outcomes to other primary care physicians (PCPs) under standard Medicare risk adjustment and after adding additional adjustment for geriatric risk factors. SETTING: Eight years (2006-2013) of cohort data from the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare beneficiaries, aged 65 years and older, with primary care services contributing 27 027 person-years of data. MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes were costs and preventable hospitalization rates; geriatric risk factors were patient frailty, long-term institutionalization, dementia, and depression. RESULTS: Geriatricians were more likely to care for patients with frailty (22.8% vs 14.1%), long-term institutionalization (12.0% vs 4.7%), dementia (21.6% vs 10.2%), and depression (23.6% vs 17.4%) than other PCPs (P < .001 for each). Under standard Medicare risk adjustment, geriatricians performed more poorly on costs compared to other PCPs (observed-expected [O-E] ratio = 1.24 vs 0.99) and preventable hospitalizations (O-E ratio = 1.16 vs 0.98). Adding frailty, institutionalization, dementia, and depression to risk adjustment improved geriatricians' performance on costs by 25% and on preventable hospitalization rates by 35%, relative to other PCPs. Concurrent-year risk prediction that removed the influence of unpredictable acute events further improved geriatricians' performance vs other PCPs (O-E ratio = 0.99 vs 1.00). CONCLUSION: Medicare should consider risk adjusting for frailty, long-term institutionalization, dementia, and depression to avoid inappropriately penalizing geriatricians who care for vulnerable older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:297-304, 2020.


Geriatrics/economics , Risk Adjustment/standards , Value-Based Health Insurance/economics , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Alzheimer Disease/economics , Alzheimer Disease/therapy , Depression/economics , Depression/therapy , Female , Frailty/economics , Frailty/therapy , Geriatrics/organization & administration , Humans , Male , Medicare , Primary Health Care/economics , Primary Health Care/organization & administration , Primary Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Quality Assurance, Health Care/economics , Quality Assurance, Health Care/organization & administration , Retrospective Studies , United States , Value-Based Health Insurance/organization & administration
12.
Health Serv Res ; 54(6): 1223-1232, 2019 12.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31576566

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a claims-based comorbidity score for patients undergoing major surgery, and compare its performance with established comorbidity scores. DATA SOURCE: Five percent Medicare data from 2007 to 2014. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of patients aged ≥65 years undergoing six major operations (N = 99 250). DATA COLLECTION: One-year mortality was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, 30-day readmission, and length of stay. The comorbidity score was developed in the derivation cohort (70 percent sample) using logistic regression model. The comorbidity score was calibrated and validated in the validation cohort (30 percent sample), and compared against the Charlson, Elixhauser, and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Hierarchical Condition Categories (CMS-HCC) comorbidity scores using c-statistic, net reclassification improvement, and integrated discrimination improvement. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In the validation cohort, the surgery-specific comorbidity score was well calibrated and performed better than the Charlson, Elixhauser, and CMS-HCC comorbidity scores for all outcomes; the performance was comparable to the CMS-HCC for 30-day readmission. For example, the surgery-specific comorbidity score (c-statistic = 0.792; 95% CI, 0.785-0.799) had greater discrimination than the Charlson (c-statistic = 0.747; 95% CI, 0.739-0.755), Elixhauser (c-statistic = 0.747; 95% CI, 0.735-0.755), or CMS-HCC (c-statistic = 0.755; 95% CI, 0.747-0.763) scores in predicting 1-year mortality. The net reclassification improvement and integrated discrimination improvement were greater for surgery-specific comorbidity score compared to the Charlson, Elixhauser, and CMS-HCC scores. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to commonly used comorbidity measures, a surgery-specific comorbidity score better predicted outcomes in the surgical population.


Comorbidity , Guidelines as Topic , Hospital Mortality , International Classification of Diseases/standards , Risk Adjustment/standards , Surgical Procedures, Operative/classification , Surgical Procedures, Operative/statistics & numerical data , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Logistic Models , Male , Reproducibility of Results , Retrospective Studies , United States
13.
Matern Child Health J ; 23(8): 1140-1145, 2019 Aug.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31209616

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to describe the knowledge and perceptions of pregnant women in Miami-Dade County concerning Zika virus (ZIKV) in their community, to characterize their testing behaviors, and to identify any barriers that would keep them from seeking testing. METHODS: The Florida Department of Health in Miami-Dade County partnered with the Healthy Start Coalition of Miami-Dade to administer an assessment survey in eight OBGYN clinics from June to August 2017. The survey captured past ZIKV testing practices, attitudes towards testing, barriers to testing, risk perception of ZIKV in the participants' community, and ZIKV-related knowledge. Descriptive analyses were performed on variables of interest. Chi squared tests examined associations between categorical variables. RESULTS: A total of 363 participants were included in the analysis. Of these, 203 (55.9%) thought they should be tested for ZIKV, and less than half of the participants reported having been previously tested (152, 41.9%). Participants with some high school education were significantly more likely than those with higher education levels to see ZIKV as a "big problem" in the community (p = 0.0026). There was a significant association (p ≤ 0.0001) between women who thought that they should be tested, and those who perceived ZIKV to be a medium or big problem in their community. CONCLUSIONS FOR PRACTICE: Health interventions that focus on increasing ZIKV knowledge should also place greater emphasis on risk communication when targeting the pregnant population. Having a higher risk perception may be more predictive of testing behaviors than having a lack of barriers or a high level of ZIKV-related knowledge.


Mass Screening/psychology , Perception , Pregnant Women/psychology , Risk Adjustment/standards , Zika Virus Infection/diagnosis , Adolescent , Adult , Female , Florida , Humans , Mass Screening/methods , Mass Screening/statistics & numerical data , Pregnancy , Risk Adjustment/methods , Risk Assessment/methods , Surveys and Questionnaires , Zika Virus/pathogenicity , Zika Virus Infection/psychology
14.
Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed ; 104(4): F390-F395, 2019 Jul.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30297334

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the number of very low birthweight (VLBW) infants treated annually in neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) (hospital volume) has an effect on their in-hospital mortality under the regulatory conditions in Germany. SETTING: The study included VLBW infants with <33 weeks of gestational age and birth weight below 1500 g admitted to NICUs in the state of Baden-Wüerttemberg, Germany, from 2003 to 2008. Cases were extracted from the compulsory German neonatal quality assurance programme with variables essential for calculation of the Clinical Risk Index for Babies (CRIB) and PREM birth model (PREM(bm)) scores. The cohort was divided into four subgroups corresponding to their disease severity (low, intermediate, high and very high) according to each score. Low-volume NICUs (LV-NICUs) were defined as treating up to 50 cases per year, while high-volume NICUs >50 cases. RESULTS: After exclusion of infants with lethal malformations, 5340 cases from 32 units were analysed. While raw mortality was comparable, infants in LV-NICUs had an increased mortality after risk adjustment with the CRIB and PREM(bm) scores (OR 1.48 (95% CI 1.16 to 1.90), p=0.002 with CRIB; and OR 1.39 (95% CI 1.11 to 1.76), p=0.005 with PREM(bm)). In a subgroup analysis mortality was significantly higher for LV-NICUs in the intermediate disease severity group (OR 1.49 (95% CI 1.02 to 2.17), p=0.037 with CRIB) and in the high-risk group (OR 1.70 (95% CI 1.16 to 1.90), p=0.002 with CRIB; and OR 1.39 (95% CI 1.11 to 1.76), p=0.005 with PREM(bm)), but not in the low-risk and very high-risk subgroups. CONCLUSION: Depending on the severity of the disease, the risk-adjusted mortality in German NICUs with 50 or less annual cases of VLBW infants may be significantly increased.


Infant Mortality/trends , Infant, Very Low Birth Weight , Intensive Care Units, Neonatal/standards , Intensive Care, Neonatal/standards , Risk Adjustment/standards , Severity of Illness Index , Female , Germany , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Infant , Infant Care/standards , Infant, Newborn , Male , Quality Assurance, Health Care , Risk Assessment , Risk Factors
15.
JNMA J Nepal Med Assoc ; 56(211): 691-695, 2018.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30381767

INTRODUCTION: Volunteers and humanitarian aid workers working in disaster struck areas of the world are a vulnerable group of travelers. Nepal saw an influx of these humanitarian aid workers following earthquakes in April and May 2015. This study was undertaken to find out the pre-travel preparation and to estimate the risk of disease while the volunteers were deployed in Nepal. METHODS: This was a descriptive cross-sectional study conducted at CIWEC Hospital located in Kathmandu. A questionnaire was given to all volunteers and aid workers who arrived at the hospital for evaluation of health related problems and agreed to be part of the study. RESULTS: Ninety-five volunteers were enrolled in the study. Among these, 65 (68%) were female and 30 (32%) were male. The immunizations received before travel were Hepatitis A 82 (86%), Hepatitis B 82 (86%), Typhoid 70 (73%), Rabies 38 (40%), Japanese Encephalitis 34 (36%), Influenza within last one year 23 (24%), measles 48 (51%), Cholera 34 (36%),Tetanus within 10 years 71 (75%) and Varicella 38 (40%). Forty-four (45%) of travelers carried medication for treatment of Traveler's Diarrhea (TD) which included Ciprofloxacin, Azithromycin, Loperamide and others like Metronidazole and Charcoal. The common illnesses encountered were gastrointestinal, skin problems , injury and musculoskeletal problems, respiratory problems, genitourinary problems, cardiovascular, psychological problems, syncope, and miscellaneous. CONCLUSIONS: Traveler's Diarrhea and dermatological problems were the most common health related problems. Volunteers were not properly prepared for self-treatment and pre-travel preparation was sub-optimal. Important pre travel health advice will decrease the incidence of health problems in this group.


Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Communicable Disease Control/methods , Diarrhea , Earthquakes , Relief Work , Risk Adjustment , Skin Diseases , Volunteers/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Cross-Sectional Studies , Diarrhea/epidemiology , Diarrhea/etiology , Diarrhea/prevention & control , Female , Humans , Immunization/methods , Incidence , Male , Natural Disasters , Nepal/epidemiology , Risk Adjustment/methods , Risk Adjustment/standards , Skin Diseases/epidemiology , Skin Diseases/etiology , Skin Diseases/prevention & control , Wounds and Injuries/prevention & control
16.
Am J Manag Care ; 24(10): e319-e324, 2018 10 01.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30325193

OBJECTIVES: To understand the association between agency-level CMS Hierarchical Condition Categories (HCC) risk scores and patient experience measures for home health. STUDY DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional study. METHODS: We extracted variables from the 2014 Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data for Home Health Agencies and Home Health Compare file. We applied fixed-effects models for the analyses. Our dependent variables included both global and composite patient experience measures. The 2 global patient experience measures were the patient's overall rating of care provided by the agency (rating) and the patient's willingness to recommend the home health agency to others (recommendation). The 3 composite patient experience measures were how often the patient felt the provider gave care in a professional way (professional way), how well the home health team communicated with the patient (communication), and whether the home health team discussed medicines, pain, and home safety with the patient (discussion). RESULTS: Increased agency-level CMS HCC risk scores were negatively associated with all patient experience measures: rating (-2.04; P ≤.001), recommendation (-2.75; P <.001), professional way (-1.56; P <.001), communication (-1.67; P <.001), and discussion (-1.69; P ≤.001). Several covariates, including the percentage of racial/ethnic minority beneficiaries, ownership of the agency, and number of tenured years with the Medicare program, were significantly associated with patient experience measures. CONCLUSIONS: A negative association exists between CMS HCC risk scores and patient experience measures. To avoid unintended consequences, patient experience measures need further risk adjustment under the CMS 5-star patient survey rating system and the Home Health Value-Based Purchasing pilot program.


Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S./organization & administration , Home Care Agencies/organization & administration , Patient Satisfaction , Quality of Health Care/standards , Risk Adjustment/standards , Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S./standards , Communication , Cross-Sectional Studies , Health Services Accessibility , Home Care Agencies/standards , Humans , Patient Education as Topic/standards , Professionalism/standards , United States
17.
AJR Am J Roentgenol ; 211(2): 392-399, 2018 08.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29975119

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to use detailed electronic health record data to profile the use of condition-specific, risk-standardized imaging by emergency physicians. MATERIALS AND METHODS: CT utilization in four emergency departments in a single health care system was retrospectively analyzed. The primary outcome for analysis was indication-specific, risk-standardized CT utilization. We constructed seven clinical cohorts on the basis of the presence or absence of a traumatic indication for the most frequently performed CT studies. Risk standardization was performed using machine learning algorithms and hierarchic logistic regression models. Variation in CT utilization for each cohort was analyzed using coefficients of variation and box plots, the effect of risk standardization on physician profiling was determined using slope diagrams and kappa values, and within-physician correlation was assessed using correlation coefficients and matrices. RESULTS: For the seven cohorts, the number of physicians ordering more than 25 CT studies for a particular indication ranged from 70 to 88, and the number of ED visits ranged from 17,458 to 117,489. The unadjusted variation was large for each indication (coefficient of variation, 30.2-57.9). Risk standardization resulted in reduced but persistent variation for all indications (coefficient of variation, 12.3-22.3). Among indication-specific models, risk standardization resulted in reclassification by two or more deciles for 14.0-39.1% of physicians. The R value for within-physician correlation varied from 0.02 to 0.80 and was highest between chest and abdominal imaging for trauma. CONCLUSION: In this multisite study of CT utilization, risk standardization had a substantial impact on variation in CT utilization and emergency physician profiling. Administrators and payers should include risk standardization in future measures of physician imaging to ensure valid assessment of performance and achieve improvements in emergency care value.


Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/statistics & numerical data , Risk Adjustment/standards , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/statistics & numerical data , Utilization Review , Algorithms , Humans , Machine Learning , Retrospective Studies
18.
Nurs Res ; 67(4): 314-323, 2018.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29870519

BACKGROUND: Research investigating risk factors for hospital-acquired pressure injury (HAPI) has primarily focused on the characteristics of patients and nursing staff. Limited data are available on the association of hospital characteristics with HAPI. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to quantify the association of hospital characteristics with HAPI and their effect on residual hospital variation in HAPI risk. METHODS: We employed a retrospective cohort study design with split validation using hierarchical survival analysis. This study extends the analysis "Hospital-Acquired Pressure Injury (HAPI): Risk Adjusted Comparisons in an Integrated Healthcare Delivery System" by Rondinelli et al. (2018) to include hospital-level factors. We analyzed 1,661 HAPI episodes among 728,266 adult hospitalization episodes across 35 California Kaiser Permanente hospitals, an integrated healthcare delivery system between January 1, 2013, and June 30, 2015. RESULTS: After adjusting for patient-level and hospital-level variables, 2 out of 12 candidate hospital variables were statistically significant predictors of HAPI. The hazard for HAPI decreased by 4.8% for every 0.1% increase in a hospital's mean mortality ([6.3%, 2.6%], p < .001), whereas every 1% increase in a hospital's proportion of patients with a history of diabetes increased HAPI hazard by 5% ([-0.04%, 10.0%], p = .072). Addition of these hierarchical variables decreased unexplained hospital variation of HAPI risk by 35%. DISCUSSION: We found hospitals with higher patient mortality had lower HAPI risk. Higher patient mortality may decrease the pool of patients who live to HAPI occurrence. Such hospitals may also provide more resources (specialty staff) to care for frail patient populations. Future research should aim to combine hospital data sets to overcome power limitations at the hospital level and should investigate additional measures of structure and process related to HAPI care.


Hospitals/classification , Quality Indicators, Health Care/standards , Risk Adjustment/standards , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , California/epidemiology , Cohort Studies , Female , Hospital Mortality , Hospitals/standards , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pressure Ulcer/epidemiology , Pressure Ulcer/mortality , Quality Indicators, Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Quality of Health Care/classification , Quality of Health Care/standards , Retrospective Studies , Risk Adjustment/methods , Risk Factors , Survival Analysis
19.
J Health Econ ; 56: 259-280, 2017 12.
Article En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29248056

I develop a model of insurer price-setting and consumer welfare under risk-adjustment, a policy commonly used to combat inefficient sorting due to adverse selection in health insurance markets. I use the model to illustrate graphically that risk-adjustment causes health plan prices to be based on costs not predicted by the risk-adjustment model ("residual costs") rather than total costs, either weakening or exacerbating selection problems depending on the correlation between demand and costs predicted by the risk-adjustment model. I then use a structural model to estimate the welfare consequences of risk-adjustment, finding a welfare gain of over $600 per person-year.


Economic Competition , Insurance Selection Bias , Insurance, Health/economics , Risk Adjustment/standards , Algorithms , Female , Humans , Male , Models, Theoretical , Risk Adjustment/statistics & numerical data
...