Use of an electronic administrative database to identify older community dwelling adults at high-risk for hospitalization or emergency department visits: The elders risk assessment index

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The prevention of recurrent hospitalizations in the frail elderly requires the implementation of high-intensity interventions such as case management. In order to be practically and financially sustainable, these programs require a method of identifying those patients most at risk for hospitalization, and therefore most likely to benefit from an intervention. The goal of this study is to demonstrate the use of an electronic medical record to create an administrative index which is able to risk-stratify this heterogeneous population.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a retrospective cohort study at a single tertiary care facility in Rochester, Minnesota. Patients included all 12,650 community-dwelling adults age 60 and older assigned to a primary care internal medicine provider on January 1, 2005. Patient risk factors over the previous two years, including demographic characteristics, comorbid diseases, and hospitalizations, were evaluated for significance in a logistic regression model. The primary outcome was the total number of emergency room visits and hospitalizations in the subsequent two years. Risk factors were assigned a score based on their regression coefficient estimate and a total risk score created. This score was evaluated for sensitivity and specificity.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The final model had an AUC of 0.678 for the primary outcome. Patients in the highest 10% of the risk group had a relative risk of 9.5 for either hospitalization or emergency room visits, and a relative risk of 13.3 for hospitalization in the subsequent two year period.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>It is possible to create a screening tool which identifies an elderly population at high risk for hospital and emergency room admission using clinical and administrative data readily available within an electronic medical record.</p

The self in prejudice

Abstract: The self as a psychological construct, and the self in relation to the other has been discussed in psychological and sociological literature for decades, but not much attention has been given to the psychological development of the self in relation to the social construction of prejudice. The primary aim of this article is to explore the self in prejudice and thus the psychological processes involved in the development of self within the social context. Consequently, the aim is to explore the self in the construction and expression of prejudice from both a social and psychological approach, and to explain selfhood influences at the individual, group and community levels. I use the conceptual framework of Kohut’s self psychology as a lens to present the development of the self and thus the idea of the development of the self in relation to the other. In such exploration of self in prejudice, I present some of my ideas which include prejudice as an outcome of self-definition in the context of the other, as well as linking self in prejudice and group dynamics to attachment theory and the notion of “selfgroup’ in terms of overidentification with the in-group. While the social and the psychological in terms of the development of the self cannot be separated, I have therefore attempted to merge at some point the two bodies of thought in relation to the self in prejudice

Understanding defensive and secure in-group positivity: The role of collective narcissism

Integrating psychoanalytic ideas of group idealisation with social identity and categorisation theories, this article discusses the distinction between secure and defensive in-group positivity. Narcissistic in-group positivity captures a belief in in-group greatness that is contingent on external validation. It reflects defensive in-group positivity, insofar as it stems from the frustration of individual needs, and predicts increased sensitivity to threats as well as undesirable consequences for out-groups and the in-group. Secure in-group positivity—that is, in-group positivity without the narcissistic component—is a confidently held positive evaluation of one’s in-group that is independent of the recognition of the group in the eyes of others. It stems from the satisfaction of individual needs, is resilient to threats and has positive consequences for the in-group and out-groups. I review evidence for these two distinct ways people relate to their social groups and discuss theoretical and practical implications for understanding intra- and intergroup relations

Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes: What Can Be Unified and What Needs to Be Individualized?

Data show that the insights that improve obesity prevention and treatment will almost certainly benefit the incidence and care of type 2 diabetes

Chapter 11: Challenges in and Principles for Conducting Systematic Reviews of Genetic Tests used as Predictive Indicators

In this paper, we discuss common challenges in and principles for conducting systematic reviews of genetic tests. The types of genetic tests discussed are those used to 1). determine risk or susceptibility in asymptomatic individuals; 2). reveal prognostic information to guide clinical management in those with a condition; or 3). predict response to treatments or environmental factors. This paper is not intended to provide comprehensive guidance on evaluating all genetic tests. Rather, it focuses on issues that have been of particular concern to analysts and stakeholders and on areas that are of particular relevance for the evaluation of studies of genetic tests. The key points include:The general principles that apply in evaluating genetic tests are similar to those for other prognostic or predictive tests, but there are differences in how the principles need to be applied or the degree to which certain issues are relevant.A clear definition of the clinical scenario and an analytic framework is important when evaluating any test, including genetic tests.Organizing frameworks and analytic frameworks are useful constructs for approaching the evaluation of genetic tests.In constructing an analytic framework for evaluating a genetic test, analysts should consider preanalytic, analytic, and postanalytic factors; such factors are useful when assessing analytic validity.Predictive genetic tests are generally characterized by a delayed time between testing and clinically important events.Finding published information on the analytic validity of some genetic tests may be difficult. Web sites (FDA or diagnostic companies) and gray literature may be important sources.In situations where clinical factors associated with risk are well characterized, comparative effectiveness reviews should assess the added value of using genetic testing along with known factors compared with using the known factors alone.For genome-wide association studies, reviewers should determine whether the association has been validated in multiple studies to minimize both potential confounding and publication bias. In addition, reviewers should note whether appropriate adjustments for multiple comparisons were used

Large-Scale Evidence for the Effect of the COLIA1 Sp1 Polymorphism on Osteoporosis Outcomes: The GENOMOS Study

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis and fracture risk are considered to be under genetic control. Extensive work is being performed to identify the exact genetic variants that determine this risk. Previous work has suggested that a G/T polymorphism affecting an Sp1 binding site in the COLIA1 gene is a genetic marker for low bone mineral density (BMD) and osteoporotic fracture, but there have been no very-large-scale studies of COLIA1 alleles in relation to these phenotypes. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Here we evaluated the role of COLIA1 Sp1 alleles as a predictor of BMD and fracture in a multicenter study involving 20,786 individuals from several European countries. At the femoral neck, the average (95% confidence interval [CI]) BMD values were 25 mg/cm (2) (CI, 16 to 34 mg/cm (2)) lower in TT homozygotes than the other genotype groups ( p < 0.001), and a similar difference was observed at the lumbar spine; 21 mg/cm (2) (CI, 1 to 42 mg/cm (2)), ( p = 0.039). These associations were unaltered after adjustment for potential confounding factors. There was no association with fracture overall (odds ratio [OR] = 1.01 [CI, 0.95 to 1.08]) in either unadjusted or adjusted analyses, but there was a non-significant trend for association with vertebral fracture and a nominally significant association with incident vertebral fractures in females (OR = 1.33 [CI, 1.00 to 1.77]) that was independent of BMD, and unaltered in adjusted analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Allowing for the inevitable heterogeneity between participating teams, this study—which to our knowledge is the largest ever performed in the field of osteoporosis genetics for a single gene—demonstrates that the COLIA1 Sp1 polymorphism is associated with reduced BMD and could predispose to incident vertebral fractures in women, independent of BMD. The associations we observed were modest however, demonstrating the importance of conducting studies that are adequately powered to detect and quantify the effects of common genetic variants on complex diseases