Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet ; 196(1): e32080, 2024 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38087874

ABSTRACT

Code status is a label in the medical record indicating a patient's wishes for end-of-life (EOL) care in the event of a cardiopulmonary arrest. People with intellectual disabilities had a higher risk of both diagnosis and mortality from coronavirus infections (COVID-19) than the general population. Clinicians and disability advocates raised concerns that bias, diagnostic overshadowing, and ableism could impact the allocation of code status and treatment options, for patients with intellectual disabilities, including Down syndrome (DS). To study this, retrospective claims data from the Vizient® Clinical Data Base (used with permission of Vizient, all rights reserved.) of inpatient encounters with pneumonia (PNA) and/or COVID-19 at 825 hospitals from January 2019 to June 2022 were included. Claims data was analyzed for risk of mortality and risk of "Do Not Resuscitate" (DNR) status upon admission, considering patient age, admission source, Elixhauser comorbidities (excluding behavioral health), and DS. Logistic regression models with backward selection were created. In total, 1,739,549 inpatient encounters with diagnoses of COVID-19, PNA, or both were included. After controlling for other risk factors, a person with a diagnosis of DS and a diagnosis of COVID-19 PNA had 6.321 odds ratio of having a DNR status ordered at admission to the hospital compared with those with COVID-19 PNA without DS. The diagnosis of DS had the strongest association with DNR status after controlling for other risk factors. Open and honest discussions among healthcare professionals to foster equitable approaches to EOL care and code status are needed.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Down Syndrome , Intellectual Disability , Humans , Retrospective Studies , Resuscitation Orders , Down Syndrome/complications , Down Syndrome/epidemiology
2.
J Perinatol ; 44(2): 203-208, 2024 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38012436

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To describe the number of US births, maternal age at birth and NICU admissions by maternal age cohorts. Our study aims to measure NICU utilization by maternal age over time. STUDY DESIGN: We queried the CDC WONDER Natality database for births, NICU admissions, and maternal age at delivery from 2016 to 2021. Births and NICU admissions were analyzed by maternal age. RESULTS: Between 2016 and 2021, US births decreased by 7% (3,945,875 to 3,664,292/year). NICU admissions increased from 344,454 to 351,775 (+2%) and admit rate from 8.7% to 9.6%. The proportion of births by maternal age declined each year for ≤29 y but increased for ≥30 y. NICU admission rates were lowest at maternal age 20-29 y and increased with age ≥30 y. CONCLUSIONS: US NICUs have demonstrated a 2% increase in admissions despite a 7% decrease in births. Higher rates of NICU admissions among infants born at maternal age ≥30 y warrants investigation.


Subject(s)
Birth Rate , Intensive Care Units, Neonatal , Adult , Humans , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Young Adult , Hospitalization , Maternal Age , Female , Pregnancy
3.
Am J Med Qual ; 38(2): 87-92, 2023.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36855256

ABSTRACT

Patient records serve many purposes, one of which includes monitoring the quality of care provided that they can be analyzed through coding and documentation. Z-codes can provide additional information beyond a specific clinical disorder that may still warrant treatment. Social Determinants of Health have specific Z-codes that may help clinicians address social factors that may contribute to patients' health care outcomes. However, there are Z-codes that specify patient noncompliance which has a pejorative connotation that may stigmatize patients and prevent clinicians from examining nonadherence from a social determinant of health perspective. A retrospective cross-sectional study was performed to examine the associations of patient and encounter characteristics with the coding of patient noncompliance. Included in the study were all patients >18 years of age who were admitted to hospitals participating in the Vizient Clinical Data Base (CDB) between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2019. Almost 9 million US inpatients were included in the study. Of those, 6.3% had a noncompliance Z-code. Use of noncompliance Z-codes was associated with the following odds estimate ratio in decreasing order: the presence of a social determinant of health (odds ratio [OR], 4.817), African American race (OR, 2.010), Medicaid insurance (OR, 1.707), >3 chronic medical conditions (OR, 1.546), living in an economically distressed community (OR, 1.320), male gender (OR, 1.313), nonelective admission status (OR, 1.245), age <65 years (OR, 1.234). More than 1 in 15 patient hospitalizations had a noncompliance code. Factors associated with these codes are difficult, if not impossible, for patients to modify. Disproportionate representation of Africa-Americans among hospitalizations with noncompliance coding is concerning and urgently deserves further exploration to determine the degree to which it may be a product of clinician bias, especially if the term noncompliance prevents health care providers from looking into socioeconomic factors that may contribute to patient nonadherence.


Subject(s)
Bias , Patient Compliance , Social Determinants of Health , Social Factors , Aged , Humans , Male , Black or African American , Cross-Sectional Studies , Documentation , Retrospective Studies , United States
5.
Pain Med ; 22(1): 181-190, 2021 02 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33543263

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a multidisciplinary, nonpharmacological, integrative approach that uses shared medical appointments to improve health-related quality of life and reduce opioid medication use in patients with chronic pain. DESIGN: This is a retrospective, pre-post review of "Living Well with Chronic Pain" shared medical appointments (August 2016 through May 2018). SETTING: The appointments included eight 3-hour-long visits held once per week at an outpatient wellness facility. SUBJECTS: Patients with chronic, non-cancer-related pain. METHODS: Patients received evaluation and evidence-based therapies from a team of integrative and lifestyle medicine professionals, as well as education about nonpharmacological therapeutic approaches, the etiology of pain, and the relationship of pain to lifestyle factors. Experiential elements focused on the relaxation techniques of meditation, yoga, breathing, and hypnotherapy, while patients also received acupuncture, acupressure, massage, cognitive behavioral therapy, and chiropractic education. Patients self-reported data via the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-57) standardized questionnaire. Use of opioid medications was evaluated in morphine milligram equivalents. RESULTS: A total of 178 participants completed the PROMIS-57 questionnaire at the first and the last visits. Statistically significant improvements in all domains (Physical Functioning, Anxiety, Depression, Fatigue, Social Roles, Pain Interference, and Sleep Disturbance) were observed (P < 0.001) between the pre-intervention (visit 1) and post-intervention (visit 8) scores. Average opioid use decreased nonsignificantly over the 8-week intervention, but the lower rate of opioid use was not sustained at 6 and 12 months' follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Patients suffering from chronic pain who participated in a multidisciplinary, nonpharmacological treatment approach delivered via shared medical appointments experienced reduced pain and improved measures of physical, mental, and social health without increased use of opioid pain medications.


Subject(s)
Chronic Pain , Shared Medical Appointments , Chronic Pain/therapy , Humans , Pain Management , Quality of Life , Retrospective Studies
6.
J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open ; 1(5): 1071-1077, 2020 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33145560

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine the impact of limiting the number of open active charts on wrong patient order entry events among 13 emergency departments (EDs) in a large integrated health system. METHODS: A retrospective chart review of all orders placed between September 2017 and September 2019 was conducted. The rate of retract and reorder events was analyzed with no overlap in both the period pre- and post-intervention period. Secondary analysis of error rate by clinician type, clinician patient load, and time of day was performed. RESULTS: The order retraction rate was not improved pre- and post-intervention. Retraction rates varied by clinician type with residents retracting more often than physicians (odds ratio [OR] = 1.443 [1.349, 1.545]). Advanced practice providers also showed a slightly higher rate than physicians (OR = 1.114 [1.071, 1.160]). Pharmacists showed very low rates compared to physicians (OR = 0.191 [0.048, 0.764]). Time of day and staffing ratios appear to be a factor with wrong patient order entry rates slightly lower during the night (1900-0700) than the day (OR 0.958 [0.923, 0.995]), and increasing slightly with every additional patient per provider (OR 1.019 [1.005, 1.032]). The Academic Medical Center had more retractions that the other EDs. OR for the various ED types compared to the Academic Medical Center included Community (OR 0.908 [0.859, 0.959]), Teaching Hospitals (OR 0.850 [0.802, 0.900]), and Freestanding (OR 0.932 [0.864, 1.006]). CONCLUSIONS: Limiting the number of open active charts from 4 to 2 did not significantly reduce the incidence of wrong patient order entry. Further investigation into other factors contributing to order entry errors is warranted.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...