Can Mozart Improve Weight Gain and Development of Feeding Skills in Premature Infants? A Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to assess in a prospective randomized study the effect of Mozart's music on time to regain birth weight (BW) and development of oral feeding skills in babies born between 280/7 and 316/7 weeks of gestation. STUDY DESIGN: Healthy premature infants born between 280/7 and 316/7 completed weeks of gestation were randomized within 3 days of birth to either music or no music exposure. Infants in the music group were exposed to Mozart's double piano sonata twice per day for 14 days. The primary outcome was time to regain birth weight. The secondary outcome was development of oral feeding skills as evaluated by a speech/language pathologist blinded to the intervention. We hypothesized that exposure to Mozart's double piano sonata would decrease time to regain BW and improve feeding skills. A total of 32 newborns were needed to detect a 3-day difference in time to regain BW. RESULTS: Forty infants were enrolled and randomized. There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding the time to regain BW (p = 0.181) and the time to achievement of full oral feeds (p = 0.809). CONCLUSION: Exposure to Mozart's double piano sonata for 14 days after birth did not significantly improve time to regain BW or time to achieve full oral feedings in very premature infants. It is possible that Mozart's music has no effect or that the duration of music exposure was not sufficient to have a physiologic effect on growth and oral feeding skills. KEY POINTS: · Classical music improves the medical condition of adults.. · Music decreases neonatal resting energy expenditure.. · Music exposure did not significantly impact weight gain.. · This clinical relevance warrants further evaluation..

Implications of Cross-System Use Among US Veterans With Advanced Kidney Disease in the Era of the MISSION Act: A Qualitative Study of Health Care Records.

Importance: Since 2014, when Congress passed the Veterans Access Choice and Accountability (Choice) Act (replaced in 2018 with the more comprehensive Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks [MISSION] Act), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has been paying for US veterans to receive increasing amounts of care in the private sector (non-VA care or VA community care). However, little is known about the implications of these legislative changes for the VA system. Objective: To describe the implications for the VA system of recent increases in VA-financed non-VA care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study was a thematic analysis of documentation in the electronic health records (EHRs) of a random sample of US veterans with advanced kidney disease between June 6, 2019, and February 5, 2021. Exposures: Mentions of community care in participant EHRs. Main Outcomes and Measures: Dominant themes pertaining to VA-financed non-VA care. Results: Among 1000 study participants, the mean (SD) age was 73.8 (11.4) years, and 957 participants (95.7%) were male. Three interrelated themes pertaining to VA-financed non-VA care emerged from qualitative analysis of documentation in cohort member EHRs: (1) VA as mothership, which describes extensive care coordination by VA staff members and clinicians to facilitate care outside the VA and the tendency of veterans and their non-VA clinicians to rely on the VA to fill gaps in this care; (2) hidden work of veterans, which describes the efforts of veterans and their family members to navigate the referral process, and to serve as intermediaries between VA and non-VA clinicians; and (3) strain on the VA system, which describes a challenging referral process and the ways in which cross-system care has stretched the traditional roles of VA staff and clinicians and interfered with VA care processes. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this qualitative study describing VA-financed non-VA care for veterans with advanced kidney disease spotlight the substantial challenges of cross-system use and the strain placed on the VA system, VA staff and clinicians, and veterans and their families in recent years. These difficult-to-measure consequences of cross-system care should be considered when budgeting, evaluating, and planning the provision of VA-financed non-VA care in the private sector.

Determination of colonoscopy indication from administrative claims data.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy outcomes, such as polyp detection or complication rates, may differ by procedure indication. OBJECTIVES: To develop methods to classify colonoscopy indications from administrative data, facilitating study of colonoscopy quality and outcomes. RESEARCH DESIGN: We linked 14,844 colonoscopy reports from the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative, a national repository of endoscopic reports, to the corresponding Medicare Carrier and Outpatient File claims. Colonoscopy indication was determined from the procedure reports. We developed algorithms using classification and regression trees and linear discriminant analysis (LDA) to classify colonoscopy indication. Predictor variables included ICD-9CM and CPT/HCPCS codes present on the colonoscopy claim or in the 12 months prior, patient demographics, and site of colonoscopy service. Algorithms were developed on a training set of 7515 procedures, then validated using a test set of 7329 procedures. RESULTS: Sensitivity was lowest for identifying average-risk screening colonoscopies, varying between 55% and 86% for the different algorithms, but specificity for this indication was consistently over 95%. Sensitivity for diagnostic colonoscopy varied between 77% and 89%, with specificity between 55% and 87%. Algorithms with classification and regression trees with 7 variables or LDA with 10 variables had similar overall accuracy, and generally lower accuracy than the algorithm using LDA with 30 variables. CONCLUSIONS: Algorithms using Medicare claims data have moderate sensitivity and specificity for colonoscopy indication, and will be useful for studying colonoscopy quality in this population. Further validation may be needed before use in alternative populations.

Accuracy of Medicare claims for identifying findings and procedures performed during colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Administrative claims data are frequently used for quality measurement. OBJECTIVE: To examine the accuracy of administrative claims for potential colonoscopy quality measures, including findings (polyp or tumor detection), procedures (biopsy or polypectomy), and incomplete colonoscopy. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. PATIENTS: Patients age 65 and older undergoing colonoscopy in the Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative National Endoscopic Database in 2006. We linked colonoscopy records for these patients to Medicare colonoscopy claims by using patient age, sex, date of procedure, and performing provider's Unique Physician Identification Number. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of the Medicare claims for potential quality measures, including colonoscopy findings and procedures. RESULTS: We linked Medicare colonoscopy claims to 15,168 of the 30,011 Clinical Outcomes Research Initiative colonoscopy records. Sensitivity of the claims for colon polyps was 93.4%, with a specificity of 97.8%. Sensitivity of claims for other diagnoses, including colorectal tumors was suboptimal, although specificity was high. In contrast, sensitivity of claims for procedures-biopsy (with or without cautery) or polypectomy-was high (87.2%-97.6%), with specificity >97%. Claims had poor sensitivity for identification of incomplete colonoscopy. LIMITATIONS: Potential for inaccurate matching of colonoscopy records and Medicare claims. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare claims have high sensitivity and specificity for polyp detection, biopsy, and polypectomy at colonoscopy, but sensitivity is low for other diagnoses such as tumor detection and for incomplete colonoscopy. Caution is needed when using Medicare claims data for certain important quality measures, in particular tumor detection and incomplete colonoscopy.

Utilization and predictors of early repeat colonoscopy in Medicare beneficiaries.

OBJECTIVES: Early repeat colonoscopy after an index examination may be justifiable, but may also reflect quality issues during the first examination. The aims of this study were to examine the use of second colonoscopy within 1 year of an index colonoscopy, and to examine patient and provider factors associated with use of early repeat colonoscopy. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using a 20% nationally representative sample of 2003 Medicare claims. Patients aged ≥ 66 years undergoing colonoscopy were included in this study. We identified the use of second colonoscopy and barium enema within 1 year of the index procedure. We used logistic regression analyses to examine the independent predictors of these procedures. RESULTS: We included 328,167 outpatient colonoscopies. In all, 5% had second colonoscopy and 2.2% had barium enema within 1 year of the index examination. Early repeat colonoscopy was more common if the index examination was performed by a family physician (odds ratio 1.39, 95% confidence interval 1.23-1.56), general surgeon (odds ratio 1.18, 95% confidence interval 1.10-1.27) or internist (odds ratio 1.12, 95% confidence interval 1.02-1.23) compared with a gastroenterologist, or after colonoscopies by an endoscopist in the lower quartiles of colonoscopy volume compared with endoscopists in the highest quartile. Increasing patient age and comorbidity, polyp detection, biopsy, polyp removal, incomplete index examination, and site of service were also significantly associated with early repeat colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Early repeat colonoscopy is not unusual. The association of specialty and colonoscopy volume with early repeat colonoscopy suggests that there are modifiable processes of care or training that may prevent some of these repeat procedures.

Specialty differences in polyp detection, removal, and biopsy during colonoscopy.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is a technically complex procedure commonly performed to detect and remove colorectal pathology. This study examined the influence of provider characteristics on polyp detection, polyp removal, and diagnostic biopsy rates. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study using a 20% sample of 2003 Medicare claims. Primary outcome measures were use of diagnostic biopsy, polyp detection, and polyp removal. We used generalized estimating equations to identify independent predictors of the outcomes, adjusting for patient and provider characteristics. RESULTS: Among 328,167 outpatient colonoscopies, polyp detection and removal rates were significantly lower for nongastroenterologists than gastroenterologists, with adjusted relative risk for polyp detection between 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77-0.83) for general surgeons and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.89-0.98) for internists. Compared with gastroenterologists, diagnostic biopsy was significantly less likely for general (relative risk [RR] 0.69; 95% CI, 0.65-0.74) or colorectal surgeons (RR 0.58; 95% CI, 0.52-0.65). The likelihood of polyp detection and removal was higher for physicians in the middle 2 quartiles of annual colonoscopy volume, but similar for physicians in the highest and lowest volume quartiles. Polyp detection and removal were significantly less likely for examinations in ambulatory surgery centers or offices than hospital outpatient settings, while diagnostic biopsy was significantly less likely in office settings. CONCLUSIONS: Physician specialty, annual colonoscopy volume, and site of service are significant predictors of polyp detection, polyp removal, and diagnostic biopsy. These findings may have important implications for the effectiveness of colonoscopy.

In search of the perfect comorbidity measure for use with administrative claims data: does it exist?

BACKGROUND: Numerous measures of comorbidity have been developed for health services research with administrative claims. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the performance of 4 claims-based comorbidity measures. RESEARCH DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: We undertook a retrospective cohort study of 5777 Medicare beneficiaries ages 66 and older with stage III colon cancer reported to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program between January 1, 1992 and December 31, 1996. MEASURES: Comorbidity measures included Elixhauser's set of 30 condition indicators, Klabunde's outpatient and inpatient indices weighted for colorectal cancer patients, Diagnostic Cost Groups, and the Adjusted Clinical Group (ACG) System. Outcomes included receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy and 2 year noncancer mortality. RESULTS: For all measures, greater comorbidity significantly predicted lower receipt of chemotherapy and higher noncancer death. Nested logistic regression modeling suggests that using more claims sources to measure comorbidity generally improves the prediction of chemotherapy receipt and noncancer death, but depends on the measure type and outcome studied. All 4 comorbidity measures significantly improved the fit of baseline regression models for both chemotherapy receipt (baseline c-statistic 0.776; ranging from 0.779 after adding ACGs and Klabunde to 0.789 after Elixhauser) and noncancer death (baseline c-statistic 0.687; ranging from 0.717 after adding ACGs to 0.744 after Elixhauser). CONCLUSIONS: Although some comorbidity measures demonstrate minor advantages over others, each is fairly robust in predicting both chemotherapy receipt and noncancer death. Investigators should choose among these measures based on their availability, comfort with the methodology, and outcomes of interest.