Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 33
Filter
2.
BMC Health Serv Res ; 22(1): 388, 2022 Mar 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35331209

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Most emergency department (ED) patients arrive by their own transport and, for various reasons, may not choose the nearest ED. How far patients travel for ED treatment may reflect both patients' access to care and severity of illness. In this study, we aimed to examine the travel distance and travel time between a patient's home and ED they visited and investigate how these distances/times vary by patient and hospital characteristics. METHODS: We randomly sampled and collected data from 14,812 patients discharged to the community (DTC) between January and March 2016 from 50 hospital-based EDs nationwide. We geocoded and calculated the distance and travel time between patient and hospital-based ED addresses, examined the travel distances/ times between patients' home and the ED they visited, and used mixed-effects regression models to investigate how these distances/times vary by patient and hospital characteristics. RESULTS: Patients travelled an average of 8.0 (SD = 10.9) miles and 17.3 (SD = 18.0) driving minutes to the ED. Patients travelled significantly farther to avoid EDs in lower performing hospitals (p < 0.01) and in the West (p < 0.05) and Midwest (p < 0.05). Patients travelled farther when visiting EDs in rural areas. Younger patients travelled farther than older patients. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding how far patients are willing to travel is indicative of whether patient populations have adequate access to ED services. By showing that patients travel farther to avoid a low-performing hospital, we provide evidence that DTC patients likely do exercise some choice among EDs, indicating some market incentives for higher-quality care, even for some ED admissions. Understanding these issues will help policymakers better define access to ED care and assist in directing quality improvement efforts. To our knowledge, our study is the most comprehensive nationwide characterization of patient travel for ED treatment to date.


Subject(s)
Health Services Accessibility , Travel , Emergency Service, Hospital , Emergency Treatment , Hospitals , Humans
3.
Clin Case Rep ; 9(1): 355-361, 2021 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33489182

ABSTRACT

We present a multisystemic approach involving diverse specialists of a rare disease. Bringing into the perspective the importance of multidisciplinary work and complete patient knowledge in order to an adequate clinical practice and patient outcome.

5.
Cardiol Young ; 30(4): 594-596, 2020 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32223779

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The double outlet right ventricle is uncommon and usually makes patients have haemodynamic and structural complications. Having a hyperdynamic state, such as pregnancy, with volume overload is very risky for a patient with complex CHD (CCHD). The diagnosis in early stages can prevent cardiac complications. The multi-disciplinary assessment of the disease lets patients make choices in treatment and reproductive life. OBJECTIVE: Present a case of a successful pregnancy in a patient with a rare CCHD. PARTICIPANT: A pregnant 19-year-old patient with a double outlet right ventricle without haemodynamic or structural complications and no fetal abnormalities.


Subject(s)
Double Outlet Right Ventricle/diagnosis , Echocardiography/methods , Pregnancy Complications, Cardiovascular , Ultrasonography, Prenatal/methods , Female , Humans , Infant, Newborn , Male , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Outcome , Young Adult
8.
JACC Case Rep ; 1(4): 532-534, 2019 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34316871

ABSTRACT

Almost 80% of univentricular cardiac malformations with left morphology consist of a double inlet left ventricle (DILV). We report on the natural history of a 28-year-old male patient with DILV and ventriculoarterial discordance, patent ductus arteriosus, pulmonary hypertension and juxtaductal aortic coarctation. (Level of Difficulty: Intermediate.).

11.
Health Serv Res ; 53 Suppl 1: 2970-2987, 2018 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29552746

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate national present-on-admission (POA) reporting for hospital-acquired pressure ulcers (HAPUs) and examine the impact of quality measure exclusion criteria on HAPU rates. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Medicare inpatient, outpatient, and nursing facility data as well as independent provider claims (2010-2011). STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cross-sectional study. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We evaluated acute inpatient hospital admissions among Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) beneficiaries in 2011. Admissions were categorized as follows: (1) no pressure ulcer diagnosis, (2) new pressure ulcer diagnosis, and (3) previously documented pressure ulcer diagnosis. HAPU rates were calculated by varying patient exclusion criteria. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Among admissions with a pressure ulcer diagnosis, we observed a large discrepancy in the proportion of admissions with a HAPU based on hospital-reported POA data (5.2 percent) and the proportion with a new pressure ulcer diagnosis based on patient history in billing claims (49.7 percent). Applying quality measure exclusion criteria resulted in removal of 91.2 percent of admissions with a pressure injury diagnosis from HAPU rate calculations. CONCLUSIONS: As payers and health care organizations expand the use of quality measures, it is important to consider how the measures are implemented, coding revisions to improve measure validity, and the impact of patient exclusion criteria on provider performance evaluation.


Subject(s)
Clinical Coding/statistics & numerical data , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Iatrogenic Disease/epidemiology , Medicare/statistics & numerical data , Pressure Ulcer/epidemiology , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Comorbidity , Cross-Sectional Studies , Fee-for-Service Plans/statistics & numerical data , Female , Humans , Insurance Claim Review , Male , Pressure Ulcer/diagnosis , Retrospective Studies , Sex Factors , Socioeconomic Factors , United States
12.
JAMA Intern Med ; 178(4): 477-484, 2018 04 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29482196

ABSTRACT

Importance: The Institute of Medicine described diagnostic error as the next frontier in patient safety and highlighted a critical need for better measurement tools. Objectives: To estimate the proportions of emergency department (ED) visits attributable to symptoms of imminent ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke, aortic dissection, and subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) that end in discharge without diagnosis; to evaluate longitudinal trends; and to identify patient characteristics independently associated with missed diagnostic opportunities. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a retrospective cohort study of all Medicare claims for 2006 to 2014. The setting was hospital EDs in the United States. Participants included all fee-for-service Medicare patients admitted to the hospital during 2007 to 2014 for the conditions of interest. Hospice enrollees and patients with recent skilled nursing facility stays were excluded. Main Outcomes and Measures: The proportion of potential diagnostic opportunities missed in the ED was estimated using the difference between observed and expected ED discharges within 45 days of the index hospital admissions as the numerator, basing expected discharges on ED use by the same patients in earlier months. The denominator was estimated as the number of recognized emergencies (index hospital admissions) plus unrecognized emergencies (excess discharges). Results: There were 1 561 940 patients, including 17 963 hospitalized for ruptured AAA, 304 980 for AMI, 1 181 648 for stroke, 19 675 for aortic dissection, and 37 674 for SAH. The mean (SD) age was 77.9 (10.3) years; 8.9% were younger than 65 years, and 54.1% were female. The proportions of diagnostic opportunities missed in the ED were as follows: ruptured AAA (3.4%; 95% CI, 2.9%-4.0%), AMI (2.3%; 95% CI, 2.1%-2.4%), stroke (4.1%; 95% CI, 4.0%-4.2%), aortic dissection (4.5%; 95% CI, 3.9%-5.1%), and SAH (3.5%; 95% CI, 3.1%-3.9%). Longitudinal trends were either nonsignificant (AMI and aortic dissection) or increasing (ruptured AAA, stroke, and SAH). Patient characteristics associated with unrecognized emergencies included age younger than 65 years, dual eligibility for Medicare and Medicaid coverage, female sex, and each of the following chronic conditions: end-stage renal disease, dementia, depression, diabetes, cerebrovascular disease, hypertension, coronary artery disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Conclusions and Relevance: Among Medicare patients, opportunities to diagnose ruptured AAA, AMI, stroke, aortic dissection, and SAH are missed in less than 1 in 20 ED presentations. Further improvement may prove difficult.


Subject(s)
Aortic Dissection/diagnosis , Aortic Rupture/diagnosis , Diagnostic Errors , Emergencies , Myocardial Infarction/diagnosis , Stroke/diagnosis , Subarachnoid Hemorrhage/diagnosis , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Aortic Dissection/epidemiology , Aortic Rupture/epidemiology , Cardiovascular Diseases/diagnosis , Cardiovascular Diseases/epidemiology , Cerebrovascular Disorders/epidemiology , Cohort Studies , Coronary Artery Disease/epidemiology , Dementia/epidemiology , Depressive Disorder/epidemiology , Diabetes Mellitus/epidemiology , Emergency Service, Hospital , Female , Hospitalization , Humans , Hypertension/epidemiology , Kidney Failure, Chronic/epidemiology , Male , Medicaid , Medicare , Middle Aged , Myocardial Infarction/epidemiology , Patient Discharge , Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive/epidemiology , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , Sex Factors , Stroke/epidemiology , Subarachnoid Hemorrhage/epidemiology , United States/epidemiology
13.
BMJ Qual Saf ; 27(3): 182-189, 2018 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28754811

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Hospital-acquired pressure injuries (HAPIs) are publicly reported in the USA and used to adjust Medicare payment to acute inpatient facilities. Current methods used to identify HAPIs in administrative claims rely on hospital-reported present-on-admission (POA) data instead of prior patient health information. OBJECTIVE: To study the reliability of claims data for HAPIs and pressure injury (PI) stage by evaluating diagnostic coding agreement across interfacility transfers. METHODS: Using the 2012 100% Medicare Provider and Analysis Review file, we identified all fee-for-service acute inpatient discharge records with a PI diagnosis among Medicare patients 65 years and older. We then identified additional facility claims (eg, acute inpatient, long-stay inpatient or skilled nursing facility) belonging to the same patient who had either (1) admission within 1day of hospital discharge or (2) discharge within 1day of hospital admission. Multivariable logistic regression and stratified kappa statistics were used to measure coding agreement between transferring and receiving facilities in the presence or absence of a PI diagnosis at the time of patient transfer and PI stage category (early vs advanced). RESULTS: In our comparison of claims data between transferring and receiving facilities, we observed poor agreement in the presence or absence of a PI diagnosis at the time of transfer (36.3%, kappa=0.03) and poor agreement in PI stage category (74.3%, kappa=0.17). Among transfers with a POA PI reported by the receiving hospital, only 34.0% had a PI documented at the prior transferring facility. CONCLUSIONS: The observed discordance in PI documentation and staging between transferring and receiving facilities may indicate inaccuracy of HAPI identification in claims data. Future research should evaluate the accuracy of hospital-reported POA data and its impact on PI quality measurement.


Subject(s)
Documentation/statistics & numerical data , Medicare/statistics & numerical data , Patient Admission/statistics & numerical data , Patient Transfer/statistics & numerical data , Pressure Ulcer/epidemiology , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Clinical Coding/standards , Clinical Coding/statistics & numerical data , Documentation/standards , Fee-for-Service Plans , Female , Humans , Iatrogenic Disease , Insurance Claim Review , Logistic Models , Male , Racial Groups , Reproducibility of Results , Severity of Illness Index , United States
14.
Prehosp Disaster Med ; 32(6): 662-666, 2017 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28780916

ABSTRACT

In recent years, mass-casualty incidents (MCIs) have become more frequent and deadly, while emergency department (ED) crowding has grown steadily worse and widespread. The ability of hospitals to implement an effective mass-casualty surge plan, immediately and expertly, has therefore never been more important. Yet, mass-casualty exercises tend to be highly choreographed, pre-scheduled events that provide limited insight into hospitals' true capacity to respond to a no-notice event under real-world conditions. To address this gap, the US Department of Health and Human Services (Washington, DC USA), Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR), sponsored development of a set of tools meant to allow any hospital to run a real-time, no-notice exercise, focusing on the first hour and 15 minutes of a hospital's response to a sudden MCI, with the goals of minimizing burden, maximizing realism, and providing meaningful, outcome-oriented metrics to facilitate self-assessment. The resulting exercise, which was iteratively developed, piloted at nine hospitals nationwide, and completed in 2015, is now freely available for anyone to use or adapt. This report demonstrates the feasibility of implementing a no-notice exercise in the hospital setting and describes insights gained during the development process that might be helpful to future exercise developers. It also introduces the use of ED "immediate bed availability (IBA)" as an objective, dynamic measure of an ED's physical capacity for new arrivals. Waxman DA , Chan EW , Pillemer F , Smith TWJ , Abir M , Nelson C . Assessing and improving hospital mass-casualty preparedness: a no-notice exercise. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017;32(6):662-666.


Subject(s)
Benchmarking , Disaster Planning/standards , Emergency Medical Services/standards , Emergency Service, Hospital/standards , Mass Casualty Incidents , Quality Improvement , Humans , Surge Capacity , United States
15.
Am J Manag Care ; 22(11): 714-720, 2016 Nov.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27870545

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To compare home health utilization and clinical outcomes between Medicare beneficiaries in the fee-for-service (FFS) and Medicare Advantage (MA) programs, and to compare regional variation. STUDY DESIGN: We used the 2010 and 2011 Outcome and Assessment Information Set to identify all home health episodes begun in 2010 and to measure 7 clinical home health outcomes that are defined by CMS for public reporting. METHODS: We modeled the probability of home health use, the duration of home health episodes, and each clinical outcome measure as a function of MA versus FFS enrollment and model-specific risk adjustors. Empirical Bayes predictions from generalized linear mixed models were aggregated by hospital referral region (HRR) to create standardized regional measures of home health utilization and mean episode duration. RESULTS: We identified 30,837,130 FFS and 10,594,658 MA beneficiaries (excluding those dually eligible for Medicaid). After adjusting for demographic and clinical patient characteristics, the odds of receiving home health among FFS enrollees were 1.83 times those of MA (95% CI, 1.82-1.84). Adjusted home health duration was 34% longer for FFS (95% CI, 32%-34%). Outcomes differences were small in magnitude and inconsistent across measures. Regional variations in use and duration were substantial for both FFS and MA enrollees. Within HRRs, correlations between FFS and MA utilization rates and between FFS and MA episode durations were 0.51 and 0.94, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: MA beneficiaries use less home health than their FFS counterparts, but regional factors affect utilization, independent of insurance status.


Subject(s)
Home Care Services/statistics & numerical data , Medicaid/economics , Medicare Part C/economics , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Quality Indicators, Health Care , Aged , Fee-for-Service Plans/economics , Female , Health Maintenance Organizations/economics , Health Maintenance Organizations/statistics & numerical data , Home Care Services/economics , Humans , Logistic Models , Male , Medicaid/statistics & numerical data , Medicare Part C/statistics & numerical data , Odds Ratio , Risk Adjustment , United States
16.
Rand Health Q ; 5(4): 14, 2016 May 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28083424

ABSTRACT

The Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability Act of 2014 addressed the need for access to timely, high-quality health care for veterans. Section 201 of the legislation called for an independent assessment of various aspects of veterans' health care. The RAND Corporation was tasked with an assessment of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) current and projected health care capabilities and resources. An examination of data from a variety of sources, along with a survey of VA medical facility leaders, revealed the breadth and depth of VA resources and capabilities: fiscal resources, workforce and human resources, physical infrastructure, interorganizational relationships, and information resources. The assessment identified barriers to the effective use of these resources and capabilities. Analysis of data on access to VA care and the quality of that care showed that almost all veterans live within 40 miles of a VA health facility, but fewer have access to VA specialty care. Veterans usually receive care within 14 days of their desired appointment date, but wait times vary considerably across VA facilities. VA has long played a national leadership role in measuring the quality of health care. The assessment showed that VA health care quality was as good or better on most measures compared with other health systems, but quality performance lagged at some VA facilities. VA will require more resources and capabilities to meet a projected increase in veterans' demand for VA care over the next five years. Options for increasing capacity include accelerated hiring, full nurse practice authority, and expanded use of telehealth.

19.
N Engl J Med ; 371(16): 1518-25, 2014 Oct 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25317871

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Many believe that fear of malpractice lawsuits drives physicians to order otherwise unnecessary care and that legal reforms could reduce such wasteful spending. Emergency physicians practice in an information-poor, resource-rich environment that may lend itself to costly defensive practice. Three states, Texas (in 2003), Georgia (in 2005), and South Carolina (in 2005), enacted legislation that changed the malpractice standard for emergency care to gross negligence. We investigated whether these substantial reforms changed practice. METHODS: Using a 5% random sample of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, we identified all emergency department visits to hospitals in the three reform states and in neighboring (control) states from 1997 through 2011. Using a quasi-experimental design, we compared patient-level outcomes, before and after legislation, in reform states and control states. We controlled for characteristics of the patients, time-invariant hospital characteristics, and temporal trends. Outcomes were policy-attributable changes in the use of computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), per-visit emergency department charges, and the rate of hospital admissions. RESULTS: For eight of the nine state-outcome combinations tested, no policy-attributable reduction in the intensity of care was detected. We found no reduction in the rates of CT or MRI utilization or hospital admission in any of the three reform states and no reduction in charges in Texas or South Carolina. In Georgia, reform was associated with a 3.6% reduction (95% confidence interval, 0.9 to 6.2) in per-visit emergency department charges. CONCLUSIONS: Legislation that substantially changed the malpractice standard for emergency physicians in three states had little effect on the intensity of practice, as measured by imaging rates, average charges, or hospital admission rates. (Funded by the Veterans Affairs Office of Academic Affiliations and others.).


Subject(s)
Defensive Medicine/statistics & numerical data , Emergency Medicine/legislation & jurisprudence , Emergency Service, Hospital/legislation & jurisprudence , Malpractice/legislation & jurisprudence , Medicare , Emergency Medicine/standards , Emergency Service, Hospital/economics , Fee-for-Service Plans , Health Care Reform/legislation & jurisprudence , Hospitalization/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Liability, Legal , Magnetic Resonance Imaging/statistics & numerical data , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/statistics & numerical data , United States
20.
Ann Emerg Med ; 61(6): 677-689.e101, 2013 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23522610

ABSTRACT

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Efficient management and allocation of scarce medical resources can improve outcomes for victims of mass casualty events. However, the effectiveness of specific strategies has never been systematically reviewed. We analyze published evidence on strategies to optimize the management and allocation of scarce resources across a wide range of mass casualty event contexts and study designs. METHODS: Our literature search included MEDLINE, Scopus, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Global Health, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, from 1990 through late 2011. We also searched the gray literature, using the New York Academy of Medicine's Grey Literature Report and key Web sites. We included both English- and foreign-language articles. We included studies that evaluated strategies used in actual mass casualty events or tested through drills, exercises, or computer simulations. We excluded studies that lacked a comparison group or did not report quantitative outcomes. Data extraction, quality assessment, and strength of evidence ratings were conducted by a single researcher and reviewed by a second; discrepancies were reconciled by the 2 reviewers. Because of heterogeneity in outcome measures, we qualitatively synthesized findings within categories of strategies. RESULTS: From 5,716 potentially relevant citations, 74 studies met inclusion criteria. Strategies included reducing demand for health care services (18 studies), optimizing use of existing resources (50), augmenting existing resources (5), implementing crisis standards of care (5), and multiple categories (4). The evidence was sufficient to form conclusions on 2 strategies, although the strength of evidence was rated as low. First, as a strategy to reduce demand for health care services, points of dispensing can be used to efficiently distribute biological countermeasures after a bioterrorism attack or influenza pandemic, and their organization influences speed of distribution. Second, as a strategy to optimize use of existing resources, commonly used field triage systems do not perform consistently during actual mass casualty events. The number of high-quality studies addressing other strategies was insufficient to support conclusions about their effectiveness because of differences in study context, comparison groups, and outcome measures. Our literature search may have missed key resource management and allocation strategies because of their extreme heterogeneity. Interrater reliability was not assessed for quality assessments or strength of evidence ratings. Publication bias is likely, given the large number of studies reporting positive findings. CONCLUSION: The current evidence base is inadequate to inform providers and policymakers about the most effective strategies for managing or allocating scarce resources during mass casualty events. Consensus on methodological standards that encompass a range of study designs is needed to guide future research and strengthen the evidence base. Evidentiary standards should be developed to promote consensus interpretations of the evidence supporting individual strategies.


Subject(s)
Disaster Medicine/methods , Mass Casualty Incidents , Resource Allocation/methods , Disaster Planning/methods , Humans , Triage/methods
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...