Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 10 de 10
Filter
1.
JAMA Health Forum ; 2(9): e213309, 2021 09 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2255950
2.
JAMA Health Forum ; 3(5): e221809, 2022 05 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2255951
3.
JAMA Health Forum ; 3(12): e225256, 2022 12 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2148208

ABSTRACT

This JAMA Forum discusses the problems facing the health care workforce in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, including a shortage of workers and the challenge of increasing wages, and highlights issues that policy makers and leaders may consider to address these problems.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Health Workforce , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology
4.
JAMA Health Forum ; 3(1): e220143, 2022 01 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1858139
6.
National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series ; No. 28873, 2021.
Article in English | NBER | ID: grc-748639

ABSTRACT

The fourfold increase in opioid deaths between 2000 and 2017 rivals even the COVID-19 pandemic as a health crisis for America. Why did it happen? Measures of demand for pain relief – physical pain and despair – are high and in many cases rising, but their increase was nowhere near as large as the increase in deaths. The primary shift is in supply, primarily of new forms of allegedly safer narcotics. These new pain relievers flowed in greater volume to areas with more physical pain and mental health impairment, but since their apparent safety was an illusion, opioid deaths followed. By the end of the 2000s, restrictions on legal opioids led to further supply-side innovations which created the burgeoning illegal market that accounts for the bulk of opioid deaths today. Because opioid use is easier to start than end, America’s opioid epidemic is likely to persist for some time.

7.
JAMA Intern Med ; 181(2): 251-259, 2021 02 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1085684

ABSTRACT

Importance: Understanding how the electronic health record (EHR) system changes clinician work, productivity, and well-being is critical. Little is known regarding global variation in patterns of use. Objective: To provide insights into which EHR activities clinicians spend their time doing, the EHR tools they use, the system messages they receive, and the amount of time they spend using the EHR after hours. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study analyzed the deidentified metadata of ambulatory care health systems in the US, Canada, Northern Europe, Western Europe, the Middle East, and Oceania from January 1, 2019, to August 31, 2019. All of these organizations used the EHR software from Epic Systems and represented most of Epic Systems's ambulatory customer base. The sample included all clinicians with scheduled patient appointments, such as physicians and advanced practice practitioners. Exposures: Clinician EHR use was tracked by deidentified and aggregated metadata across a variety of clinical activities. Main Outcomes and Measures: Descriptive statistics for clinician EHR use included time spent on clinical activities, note documentation (as measured by the percentage of characters in the note generated by automated or manual data entry source), messages received, and time spent after hours. Results: A total of 371 health systems were included in the sample, of which 348 (93.8%) were located in the US and 23 (6.2%) were located in other countries. US clinicians spent more time per day actively using the EHR compared with non-US clinicians (mean time, 90.2 minutes vs 59.1 minutes; P < .001). In addition, US clinicians vs non-US clinicians spent significantly more time performing 4 clinical activities: notes (40.7 minutes vs 30.7 minutes; P < .001), orders (19.5 minutes vs 8.75 minutes; P < .001), in-basket messages (12.5 minutes vs 4.80 minutes; P < .001), and clinical review (17.6 minutes vs 14.8 minutes; P = .01). Clinicians in the US composed more automated note text than their non-US counterparts (77.5% vs 60.8% of note text; P < .001) and received statistically significantly more messages per day (33.8 vs 12.8; P < .001). Furthermore, US clinicians used the EHR for a longer time after hours, logging in 26.5 minutes per day vs 19.5 minutes per day for non-US clinicians (P = .01). The median US clinician spent as much time actively using the EHR per day (90.1 minutes) as a non-US clinician in the 99th percentile of active EHR use time per day (90.7 minutes) in the sample. These results persisted after controlling for organizational characteristics, including structure, type, size, and daily patient volume. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that US clinicians compared with their non-US counterparts spent substantially more time actively using the EHR for a wide range of clinical activities or tasks. This finding suggests that US clinicians have a greater EHR burden that may be associated with nontechnical factors, which policy makers and health system leaders should consider when addressing clinician wellness.


Subject(s)
Electronic Health Records/statistics & numerical data , Physicians , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Internationality , Time Factors , United States
9.
Health Aff (Millwood) ; 39(9): 1546-1556, 2020 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-823196

ABSTRACT

Life expectancy in the US increased 3.3 years between 1990 and 2015, but the drivers of this increase are not well understood. We used vital statistics data and cause-deletion analysis to identify the conditions most responsible for changing life expectancy and quantified how public health, pharmaceuticals, other (nonpharmaceutical) medical care, and other/unknown factors contributed to the improvement. We found that twelve conditions most responsible for changing life expectancy explained 2.9 years of net improvement (85 percent of the total). Ischemic heart disease was the largest positive contributor to life expectancy, and accidental poisoning or drug overdose was the largest negative contributor. Forty-four percent of improved life expectancy was attributable to public health, 35 percent was attributable to pharmaceuticals, 13 percent was attributable to other medical care, and -7 percent was attributable to other/unknown factors. Our findings emphasize the crucial role of public health advances, as well as pharmaceutical innovation, in explaining improving life expectancy.


Subject(s)
Life Expectancy , Pharmaceutical Preparations , Cause of Death , Humans , Patient Care
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL