Accidental iatrogenic pneumothorax in hospitalized patients.

OBJECTIVE: Iatrogenic pneumothorax (IP) is an inherent risk to patients who undergo procedures that involve the intentional puncturing of the lung. IP also could occur accidentally to patients who do not undergo such procedures; such accidental IP (AIP) is suggestive of lapses in safe care. This study assessed the risk for AIP in patients hospitalized with specific diagnoses who underwent specific procedures. RESEARCH DESIGN: We analyzed 7.5 million discharge abstracts from 994 short-term acute care hospitals across 28 states in 2000 in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Nationwide Inpatient Sample. AHRQ Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs) were used to identify AIP. AIP incidences and associated diagnoses and procedures were explored. RESULTS: Patients who were admitted for pleurisy, cancer of the kidney and renal pelvis, or conduction disorders and complications of cardiac devices had the highest rates of developing AIP during hospitalization, with AIP rates at 2.24%, 1.14%, and 0.83% respectively. The procedure-specific rates for AIP varied from 2.68% for patients who underwent thoracentesis to 1.30% for those who underwent nephrectomy, to 0.06% for those who underwent gastrostomy. Thoracentesis appeared to be a high-risk procedure for patients who were admitted for secondary malignancies, pleurisy, or pneumonia, with AIP rates at 3.76%, 3.13%, and 2.28%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Although AIP is most common after thoracentesis, it is a substantial threat to patients undergoing a wide range of procedures.

Ambulatory care visits for treating adverse drug effects in the United States, 1995-2001.

BACKGROUND: Adverse d[rug events (ADEs) are a well-recognized patient safety 4concern, but their magnitude is unknown. Ambulatory viisits for treating adverse drug effects (VADEs) as recordeed in national surveys offer an alternative way to estimatte the national prevalence of ADEs because each VA]DE indicates that an ADE occurred and was seriousenough to require care. METHODS: A nationallyrepresentative sample of visits to physician offices, hospital outpatient departments, and emergency departments was analyzed. VADEs were identified as tthe first-listed cause of injury. RESULTS: In 2001, there Awere 4.3 million VADEs in the United States, averaging 15 visits per 1,000 population. VADE rates at physicianoffices, hospital outpatient departments, and hospittal emergency departments were at 3.7, 3.4, and 7.3 lper 1,000 visits, respectively. There was an upward tr'end in the total number of VADEs from 1995 to 2001 ((p < .05), but the increases in VADEs per 1000 visits an.d per 1,000 population were not statistically significant. VADEs were lower in children younger than 15 and higher in the elderly aged 65-74 than in adults aged 225-44 (p < .01) and were more frequent in females than irn males (p < .05). DISCUSSION: Although methodologically conservative, the study suggests that ADEs are a significant threat to patient safety in the United States.

Racial/ethnic disparities in potentially preventable readmissions: the case of diabetes.

OBJECTIVES: Considerable differences in prevalence of diabetes and management of the disease exist among racial/ethnic groups. We examined the relationship between race/ethnicity and hospital readmissions for diabetes-related conditions. METHODS: Nonmaternal adult patients with Medicare, Medicaid, or private insurance coverage hospitalized for diabetes-related conditions in 5 states were identified from the 1999 State Inpatient Databases of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. Racial/ethnic differences in the likelihood of readmission were estimated by logistic regression with adjustment for patient demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic characteristics and hospital attributes. RESULTS: The risk-adjusted likelihood of 180-day readmission was significantly lower for non-Hispanic Whites than for Hispanics across all 3 payers or for non-Hispanic Blacks among Medicare enrollees. Within each payer, Hispanics from low-income communities had the highest risk of readmission. Among Medicare beneficiaries, Blacks and Hispanics had higher percentages of readmission for acute complications and microvascular disease, while Whites had higher percentages of readmission for macrovascular conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Racial/ethnic disparities are more evident in 180-day than in 30-day readmission rates, and greatest among the Medicare population. Readmission diagnoses vary by race/ethnicity, with Blacks and Hispanics at higher risk for those complications more likely preventable with effective postdischarge care.

The national healthcare quality and disparities reports: an overview.

BACKGROUND: Congress directed the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to lead an effort for the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to develop 2 annual reports: a National Healthcare Quality Report (NHQR) and a National Healthcare Disparities Report (NHDR). OBJECTIVES: This article lays out key concepts, definitions, statistical methods, and findings from these first ever national reports on quality and disparities. We also summarize some possible future directions for the reports. RESEARCH DESIGN: The NHQR and NHDR rely on secondary analysis of available data from over 40 established, national databases. The NHQR presents data at the national level, by sociodemographic characteristics, and at the state level. The NHDR presents data broken out by race/ethnicity and by socioeconomic status. MEASURES: The 2003 NHQR presented data on approximately 140 quality measures and the NHDR presented data on these same measures plus approximately 100 measures of access to care. RESULTS: The reports found that high healthcare quality is not a given and that disparities are pervasive throughout the US healthcare system. In addition, they found the quality and disparities issues are particularly apparent in preventive care, but that greater improvement is possible. CONCLUSIONS: As these reports evolve for the 2004 version and beyond, they will be a vital step in the effort to improve healthcare quality for all populations in the United States.

Assessing patient safety in the United States: challenges and opportunities.

BACKGROUND: In 1999, the US Congress mandated the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), to report annually to the nation about healthcare quality. One chapter in the National Healthcare Quality Report (NHQR) is focused on patient safety. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to describe the challenges in reporting the national status on patient safety for the first NHQR and discuss emerging opportunities to improve the comprehensiveness and reliability of future reporting. RESEARCH DESIGN: This study is a selective review of definitions, frameworks, data sources, measures, and emerging developments for assessing patient safety in the United States. RESULTS: Available data and measures for patient safety assessment in the nation are inadequate, especially for comparing regions and subpopulations and for trend analysis. However, many opportunities are emerging from the recently increased investments in patient safety research and many ongoing safety improvement efforts in the private sector and at the federal, state, and local government levels. CONCLUSION: There are many challenges in assessing national performance on patient safety today. Ongoing developments on multiple fronts will provide data and measures for more accurate and more comprehensive assessments of patient safety for future NHQRs.

Suboptimal prescribing in elderly outpatients: potentially harmful drug-drug and drug-disease combinations.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the prevalence and correlates of potentially harmful drug-drug combinations and drug-disease combinations prescribed for elderly patients at outpatient settings. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of the 1995-2000 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NAMCS) and the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (NHAMCS). SETTING: Physician offices and hospital outpatient departments. PARTICIPANTS: Outpatient visits by patients aged 65 and older in the NAMCS and NHAMCS (n=70,203). MEASUREMENTS: Incidences of six drug-drug combinations and 50 drug-disease combinations that can place elderly patients at risk for adverse events according to expert consensus panels. RESULTS: Overall, 0.74% (95% confidence interval (CI)=0.65-0.83) of visits with two or more prescriptions had at least one inappropriate drug-drug combination, and 2.58% (95% CI=2.44-2.72) of visits with at least one prescription had one or more inappropriate drug-disease combinations. Of visits with a prescription of warfarin, 6.60% (95% CI=5.46-7.74) were prescribed a drug with potentially harmful interaction. Of patients with benign prostatic hypertrophy, 4.06% (95% CI=3.06-5.06) had at least one of six drugs that should be avoided. The number of drugs prescribed is most predictive of inappropriate drug-drug and drug-disease combinations. CONCLUSION: Potentially harmful drug-drug and drug-disease combinations occur in various degrees in outpatient care in the elderly population. Targeting combinations such as those involving warfarin that are high in prevalence and potential harm offers a practical approach to improving prescribing and patient safety.

From theory to practice: improving the impact of health services research.

BACKGROUND: While significant strides have been made in health research, the incorporation of research evidence into healthcare decision-making has been marginal. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of how the utility of health services research can be improved through the use of theory. Integrating theory into health services research can improve research methodology and encourage stronger collaboration with decision-makers. DISCUSSION: Recognizing the importance of theory calls for new expectations in the practice of health services research. These include: the formation of interdisciplinary research teams; broadening the training for those who will practice health services research; and supportive organizational conditions that promote collaboration between researchers and decision makers. Further, funding bodies can provide a significant role in guiding and supporting the use of theory in the practice of health services research. SUMMARY: Institutions and researchers should incorporate the use of theory if health services research is to fulfill its potential for improving the delivery of health care.

Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy.

Decision makers in health care are increasingly interested in using high-quality scientific evidence to support clinical and health policy choices; however, the quality of available scientific evidence is often found to be inadequate. Reliable evidence is essential to improve health care quality and to support efficient use of limited resources. The widespread gaps in evidence-based knowledge suggest that systematic flaws exist in the production of scientific evidence, in part because there is no consistent effort to conduct clinical trials designed to meet the needs of decision makers. Clinical trials for which the hypothesis and study design are developed specifically to answer the questions faced by decision makers are called pragmatic or practical clinical trials (PCTs). The characteristic features of PCTs are that they (1) select clinically relevant alternative interventions to compare, (2) include a diverse population of study participants, (3) recruit participants from heterogeneous practice settings, and (4) collect data on a broad range of health outcomes. The supply of PCTs is limited primarily because the major funders of clinical research, the National Institutes of Health and the medical products industry, do not focus on supporting such trials. Increasing the supply of PCTs will depend on the development of a mechanism to establish priorities for these studies, significant expansion of an infrastructure to conduct clinical research within the health care delivery system, more reliance on high-quality evidence by health care decision makers, and a substantial increase in public and private funding for these studies. For these changes to occur, clinical and health policy decision makers will need to become more involved in all aspects of clinical research, including priority setting, infrastructure development, and funding.

Multiple hospitalizations for patients with diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the extent to which hospitalizations for patients with diabetes reflect multiple stays by the same individuals and to examine how multiple hospitalizations vary by patient demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Using the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project complete discharge data for five states (California, Missouri, New York, Tennessee, and Virginia) in 1999, we identified 648,748 nonneonatal, nonmaternal patients who had one or more hospitalizations listing diabetes. Multiple hospitalizations were measured as percent of patients with multiple stays, percent of total stays represented by multiple stays, and average number of stays per patient. Total hospital costs were also examined. Stratified analysis and regression were performed to assess differences by age, sex, race/ethnicity, payer, location, and income. RESULTS: Among patients with diabetes who had been hospitalized, 30% had two or more stays accounting for >50% of total hospitalizations and hospital costs. Controlled for patient age, sex, and clinical characteristics, the likelihood of having multiple hospitalizations was higher for Hispanics and non-Hispanic blacks compared with non-Hispanic whites, as well as for patients covered by Medicare or Medicaid and those living in low-income areas. The prevalence of diabetes complications and multiple conditions differed by age, race/ethnicity, and payer among patients with multiple stays. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple hospitalizations are common among patients with diabetes but vary by age, race/ethnicity, payer, and income, with those populations traditionally considered to be more vulnerable experiencing higher likelihoods of multiple stays. Significant opportunities exist to reduce the proportion of multiple hospitalizations for patients with diabetes. Clinical and policy interventions to improve the quality of care and outcomes for these patients should be designed accordingly and have the potential to pay major dividends.

Outcomes and effectiveness research: capacity building for nurse researchers at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Several of AHRQ's priority areas including disease prevention, health promotion, primary care, quality of care, service delivery, and patient safety are particularly relevant to nurse researchers. With much national attention focused on nursing-related issues such as staff shortages, training, mandatory overtime, working conditions, and autonomy, it is mandatory that nursing research be conducted to inform healthcare delivery and policy. Nurses also need to contribute to the health services literature so that an even balance of discipline perspective is represented. AHRQ's mandate is represented by the slogan "quality research for quality health care." Although our understanding has expanded of contributors to and determinants of evidence-based practice and the relationship between clinical care and improved outcomes, we have much to learn. Appreciating how and which components of nursing care influence patient outcomes represents an essential area of research in need of development. While clarifying nursing contributions to improved outcomes is not the sole purview of nurse researchers, it is plausible to assume that a clinical background in nursing combined with strong methodological skills can help policy makers and health system leaders understand how nurses can most effectively contribute to outcomes and quality improvement. AHRQ is clearly interested in capacity building of researchers from all relevant disciplines. Nurses, the largest provider of healthcare, need to build capacity and develop a much stronger presence in the health services research community of scholars.