The Volume and Cost of Quality Metric Reporting.

Importance: US hospitals report data on many health care quality metrics to government and independent health care rating organizations, but the annual cost to acute care hospitals of measuring and reporting quality metric data, independent of resources spent on quality interventions, is not well known. Objective: To evaluate externally reported inpatient quality metrics for adult patients and estimate the cost of data collection and reporting, independent of quality-improvement efforts. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective time-driven activity-based costing study at the Johns Hopkins Hospital (Baltimore, Maryland) with hospital personnel involved in quality metric reporting processes interviewed between January 1, 2019, and June 30, 2019, about quality reporting activities in the 2018 calendar year. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included the number of metrics, annual person-hours per metric type, and annual personnel cost per metric type. Results: A total of 162 unique metrics were identified, of which 96 (59.3%) were claims-based, 107 (66.0%) were outcome metrics, and 101 (62.3%) were related to patient safety. Preparing and reporting data for these metrics required an estimated 108 478 person-hours, with an estimated personnel cost of $5 038 218.28 (2022 USD) plus an additional $602 730.66 in vendor fees. Claims-based (96 metrics; $37 553.58 per metric per year) and chart-abstracted (26 metrics; $33 871.30 per metric per year) metrics used the most resources per metric, while electronic metrics consumed far less (4 metrics; $1901.58 per metric per year). Conclusions and Relevance: Significant resources are expended exclusively for quality reporting, and some methods of quality assessment are far more expensive than others. Claims-based metrics were unexpectedly found to be the most resource intensive of all metric types. Policy makers should consider reducing the number of metrics and shifting to electronic metrics, when possible, to optimize resources spent in the overall pursuit of higher quality.

Telomerase and the Genetics of Emphysema Susceptibility. Implications for Pathogenesis Paradigms and Patient Care.

In the past five decades, alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency has been the only known genetic cause of emphysema, yet it explains the genetics in only 1-2% of severe cases. Recently, mutations in telomerase genes were found to induce susceptibility to young-onset, severe, and familial emphysema at a frequency comparable to that of alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency. Telomerase mutation carriers with emphysema report a family history of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, and both lung phenotypes show autosomal dominant inheritance within families. The data so far point to a strong gene-environment interaction that determines the lung disease type. In never-smokers, pulmonary fibrosis predominates, while smokers, especially females, are at risk for developing emphysema alone or in combination with pulmonary fibrosis. The telomere-mediated emphysema phenotype appears to have clinically recognizable features that are distinct from alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency, and patients are prone to developing short telomere syndrome comorbidities that influence clinical outcomes. In animal models, telomere dysfunction causes alveolar epithelial stem cell senescence, which is sufficient to drive lung remodeling and recruit inflammation. Here, we review the implications of these discoveries for understanding emphysema biology as well as for patient care.

A Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) severity score based on case designation criteria.

BACKGROUND: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome case designation criteria are scored as physicians' subjective, nominal interpretations of patient fatigue, pain (headaches, myalgia, arthralgia, sore throat and lymph nodes), cognitive dysfunction, sleep and exertional exhaustion. METHODS: Subjects self-reported symptoms using an anchored ordinal scale of 0 (no symptom), 1 (trivial complaints), 2 (mild), 3 (moderate), and 4 (severe). Fatigue of 3 or 4 distinguished "Fatigued" from "Not Fatigued" subjects. The sum of the 8(Sum8) ancillary criteria was tested as a proxy for fatigue. All subjects had history and physical examinations to exclude medical fatigue, and ensure categorization as healthy or CFS subjects. RESULTS: Fatigued subjects were divided into CFS with ≥4 symptoms or Chronic Idiopathic Fatigue (CIF) with ≤3 symptoms. ROC of Sum8 for CFS and Not Fatigued subjects generated a threshold of 14 (specificity=0.934; sensitivity=0.928). CFS (n=256) and CIF (n=55) criteria were refined to include Sum8≥14 and ≤13, respectively. Not Fatigued subjects had highly skewed Sum8 responses. Healthy Controls (HC; n=269) were defined by fatigue≤2 and Sum8≤13. Those with Sum8≥14 were defined as CFS-Like With Insufficient Fatigue Syndrome (CFSLWIFS; n=20). Sum8 and Fatigue were highly correlated (R(2)=0.977; Cronbach's alpha=0.924) indicating an intimate relationship between symptom constructs. Cluster analysis suggested 4 clades each in CFS and HC. Translational utility was inferred from the clustering of proteomics from cerebrospinal fluid. CONCLUSIONS: Plotting Fatigue severity versus Sum8 produced an internally consistent classifying system. This is a necessary step for translating symptom profiles into fatigue phenotypes and their pathophysiological mechanisms.

Dyspnea in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS): comparison of two prospective cross-sectional studies.

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) subjects have many systemic complaints including shortness of breath. Dyspnea was compared in two CFS and control cohorts to characterize pathophysiology. Cohort 1 of 257 CFS and 456 control subjects were compared using the Medical Research Council chronic Dyspnea Scale (MRC Score; range 0-5). Cohort 2 of 106 CFS and 90 controls answered a Dyspnea Severity Score (range 0-20) adapted from the MRC Score. Subsets of both cohorts completed CFS Severity Scores, fatigue, and other questionnaires. A subset had pulmonary function and total lung capacity measurements. Results show MRC Scores were equivalent between sexes in Cohort 1 CFS (1.92 [1.72-2.16]; mean [95% C.I.]) and controls (0.31 [0.23-0.39]; p<0.0001). Receiver-operator curves identified 2 as the threshold for positive MRC Scores in Cohort 1. This indicated 54% of CFS, but only 3% of controls, had significant dyspnea. In Cohort 2, Dyspnea Score threshold of 4 indicated shortness of breath in 67% of CFS and 23% of controls. Cohort 2 Dyspnea Scores were higher for CFS (7.80 [6.60-9.00]) than controls (2.40 [1.60-3.20]; p<0.0001). CFS had significantly worse fatigue and other complaints compared to controls. Pulmonary function was normal in CFS, but Borg scores and sensations of chest pain and dizziness were significantly greater during testing than controls. General linear model of Cohort 2 CFS responses linked Dyspnea with rapid heart rate, chest pain and dizziness. In conclusion, sensory hypersensitivity without airflow limitation contributed to dyspnea in CFS. Correlates of dyspnea in controls were distinct from CFS suggesting different mechanisms.

Migraine headaches in chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS): comparison of two prospective cross-sectional studies.

BACKGROUND: Headaches are more frequent in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) than healthy control (HC) subjects. The 2004 International Headache Society (IHS) criteria were used to define CFS headache phenotypes. METHODS: Subjects in Cohort 1 (HC = 368; CFS = 203) completed questionnaires about many diverse symptoms by giving nominal (yes/no) answers. Cohort 2 (HC = 21; CFS = 67) had more focused evaluations. They scored symptom severities on 0 to 4 anchored ordinal scales, and had structured headache evaluations. All subjects had history and physical examinations; assessments for exclusion criteria; questionnaires about CFS related symptoms (0 to 4 scale), Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) and Medical Outcome Survey Short Form 36 (MOS SF-36). RESULTS: Demographics, trends for the number of diffuse "functional" symptoms present, and severity of CFS case designation criteria symptoms were equivalent between CFS subjects in Cohorts 1 and 2. HC had significantly fewer symptoms, lower MFI and higher SF-36 domain scores than CFS in both cohorts. Migraine headaches were found in 84%, and tension-type headaches in 81% of Cohort 2 CFS. This compared to 5% and 45%, respectively, in HC. The CFS group had migraine without aura (60%; MO; CFS+MO), with aura (24%; CFS+MA), tension headaches only (12%), or no headaches (4%). Co-morbid tension and migraine headaches were found in 67% of CFS. CFS+MA had higher severity scores than CFS+MO for the sum of scores for poor memory, dizziness, balance, and numbness ("Neuro-construct", p = 0.002) and perceived heart rhythm disturbances, palpitations and noncardiac chest pain ("Cardio-construct"; p = 0.045, t-tests after Bonferroni corrections). CFS+MO subjects had lower pressure-induced pain thresholds (2.36 kg [1.95-2.78; 95% C.I.] n = 40) and a higher prevalence of fibromyalgia (47%; 1990 criteria) compared to HC (5.23 kg [3.95-6.52] n = 20; and 0%, respectively). Sumatriptan was beneficial for 13 out of 14 newly diagnosed CFS migraine subjects. CONCLUSIONS: CFS subjects had higher prevalences of MO and MA than HC, suggesting that mechanisms of migraine pathogenesis such as central sensitization may contribute to CFS pathophysiology. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Georgetown University IRB # 2006-481

Neuroregulation of human nasal mucosa.

Multiple subsets of nociceptive, parasympathetic, and sympathetic nerves innervate human nasal mucosa. These play carefully coordinated roles in regulating glandular, vascular, and other processes. These functions are vital for cleaning and humidifying ambient air before it is inhaled into the lungs. The recent identification of distinct classes of nociceptive nerves with unique patterns of transient receptor potential sensory receptor ion channel proteins may account for the polymodal, chemo- and mechanicosensitivity of many trigeminal neurons. Modulation of these families of proteins, excitatory and inhibitory autoreceptors, and combinations of neurotransmitters introduces a new level of complexity and subtlety to nasal innervation. These findings may provide a rational basis for responses to air-temperature changes, culinary and botanical odorants ("aromatherapy"), and inhaled irritants in conditions as diverse as allergic and nonallergic rhinitis, occupational rhinitis, hyposmia, and multiple chemical sensitivity.

New concepts of neural regulation in human nasal mucosa.

Nasal mucosa is innervated by multiple subsets of nociceptive, parasympathetic and sympathetic nerves. These play carefully coordinated roles in regulating glandular, vascular and other processes. These functions are vital for cleaning and humidifying ambient air before it is inhaled into the lungs. The recent recognition of distinct classes of nociceptive nerves with unique patterns of sensory receptors that include seven transmembrane G-protein coupled receptors, new families of transient receptor potential and voltage and calcium gated ion channels, and combinations of neurotransmitters that can be modulated during inflammation by neurotrophic factors has revolutionized our understanding of the complexity and subtlety of nasal innervation. These findings may provide a rational basis for responses to air temperature changes, culinary and botanical odorants ("aromatherapy"), and inhaled irritants in conditions as diverse as idiopathic nonallergic rhinitis, occupational rhinitis, hyposmia, and multiple chemical sensitivity.

Nasal reflexes: implications for exercise, breathing, and sex.

Nasal patency, with both congestion and decongestion, is affected in a wide variety of reflexes. Stimuli leading to nasal reflexes include exercise; alterations of body position, pressure, and temperature; neurologic syndromes; and dentistry. As anticipated, the vagal and trigeminal systems are closely integrated through nasobronchial and bronchonasal reflexes. However, perhaps of greater pathophysiologic importance are the naso-hypopharyngeal-laryngeal reflexes that become aggravated during sinusitis. None other than Sigmund Freud saw deeply beyond the facial adornment and recognized the deeper sexual tensions that can regulate nasal functions and psychoanalytical status. Wine, women, and song are linked with airflow through the nose-the nose, which by any other name would still smell as sweetly.