Factors associated with geographic variation in cost per episode of care for three medical conditions

Objective: To identify associations between market factors, especially relative reimbursement rates, and the probability of surgery and cost per episode for three medical conditions (cataract, benign prostatic neoplasm, and knee degeneration) with multiple treatment options. Methods: We use 2004–2006 Medicare claims data for elderly beneficiaries from sixty nationally representative communities to estimate multivariate models for the probability of surgery and cost per episode of care as a function local market factors, including Medicare physician reimbursement for surgical versus non-surgical treatment and the availability of primary care and specialty physicians. We used Symmetry’s Episode Treatment Groups (ETG) software to group claims into episodes for the three conditions (n = 540,874 episodes). Results: Higher Medicare reimbursement for surgical episodes and greater availability of the relevant specialists are significantly associated with more surgery and higher cost per episode for all three conditions, while greater availability of primary care physicians is significantly associated with less frequent surgery and lower cost per episode. Conclusion: Relative Medicare reimbursement rates for surgical vs. non-surgical treatments and the availability of both primary care physicians and relevant specialists are associated with the likelihood of surgery and cost per episode

Attitudes toward risk among emergency physicians and advanced practice clinicians in Massachusetts

Objective Risk aversion is a personality trait influential to decision making in medicine. Little is known about how emergency department (ED) clinicians differ in their attitudes toward risk taking. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey of practicing ED clinicians (physicians and advanced practice clinicians [APCs]) in Massachusetts using the following 4 existing validated scales: the Risk-Taking Scale (RTS), Stress from Uncertainty Scale (SUS), the Fear of Malpractice Scale (FMS), and the Need for (Cognitive) Closure Scale (NCC). We used Cronbach\u27s α to assess the reliability of each scale and performed multivariable linear regressions to analyze the association between the score for each scale and clinician characteristics. Results Of 1458 ED clinicians recruited for participation, 1116 (76.5%) responded from 93% of acute care hospitals in Massachusetts. Each of the 4 scales demonstrated high internal consistency reliability with Cronbach\u27s αs ranging from 0.76 to 0.92. The 4 scales also were moderately correlated with one another (0.08 to 0.54; all P \u3c 0.05). The multivariable results demonstrated differences between physicians and APCs, with physicians showing a greater tolerance for risk or uncertainty (NCC difference, −3.58 [95% confidence interval, CI, −5.26 to −1.90]; SUS difference, −3.14 [95% CI: −4.99 to −1.29]) and a higher concern about malpractice (FMS difference, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.11–2.17]). Differences were also observed based on clinician age (a proxy for years of experience), with greater age associated with greater tolerance of risk or uncertainty (age older than 50 years compared with age 35 years and younger; NCC difference, −2.84 [95% CI, −4.69 to −1.00]; SUS difference, −4.71 [95% CI, −6,74 to −2.68]) and less concern about malpractice (FMS difference, −3.19 [95% CI, −4.31 to −2.06]). There were no appreciable differences based on sex, and there were no consistent associations between scale scores and the practice and payment characteristics assessed. Conclusion We found that risk attitudes of ED clinicians were associated with type of training (physician vs APC) and age (experience). These differences suggest one possible explanation for the observed differences in decision making

Comparative effectiveness of endovascular versus open repair of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm in the Medicare population

ObjectiveEndovascular aortic repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is increasingly used for emergent treatment of ruptured AAA (rAAA). We sought to compare the perioperative and long-term mortality, procedure-related complications, and rates of reintervention of EVAR vs open aortic repair of rAAA in Medicare beneficiaries.MethodsWe examined perioperative and long-term mortality and complications after EVAR or open aortic repair performed for rAAA in all traditional Medicare beneficiaries discharged from a United States hospital from 2001 to 2008. Patients were matched by propensity score on baseline demographics, coexisting conditions, admission source, and hospital volume of rAAA repair. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the effect of bias that might have resulted from unmeasured confounders.ResultsOf 10,998 patients with repaired rAAA, 1126 underwent EVAR and 9872 underwent open repair. Propensity score matching yielded 1099 patient pairs. The average age was 78 years, and 72.4% were male. Perioperative mortality was 33.8% for EVAR and 47.7% for open repair (P < .001), and this difference persisted for >4 years. At 36 months, EVAR patients had higher rates of AAA-related reinterventions than open repair patients (endovascular reintervention, 10.9% vs 1.5%; P < .001), whereas open patients had more laparotomy-related complications (incisional hernia repair, 1.8% vs 6.2%; P < .001; all surgical complications, 4.4% vs 9.1%; P < .001). Use of EVAR for rAAA increased from 6% of cases in 2001 to 31% in 2008, whereas during the same interval, overall 30-day mortality for admission for rAAA, regardless of treatment, decreased from 55.8% to 50.9%.ConclusionsEVAR for rAAA is associated with lower perioperative and long-term mortality in Medicare beneficiaries. Increasing adoption of EVAR for rAAA is associated with an overall decrease in mortality of patients hospitalized for rAAA during the last decade

Measuring the quality of inpatient specialist consultation in the intensive care unit: Nursing and family experiences of communication

Rationale: Critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) often require the care of specialist physicians for clinical or procedural expertise. The current state of communication between specialist physicians and families and nurses has not been explored. Objectives: To document the receipt of communication by nurses and family members regarding consultations performed on their patient or loved one, and to quantify how this impacts their overall perceptions of the quality of specialty care. Methods: Prospective survey of 60 adult family members and 90 nurses of 189 ICU patients who received a specialist consultation between March and October of 2015 in a single academic medical center in the United States. Surveys measured the prevalence of direct communication—defined as communication conducted in person, via telephone, or via text-page in which the specialist team gathered information about the patient from the nurse/family member and/or shared recommendations for care—and perceived quality of care. Results: In about two-thirds of family surveys (40/60) and one-half of nurse surveys (75/160), respondents had no direct communication with the specialist team that performed the consultation. Compared to nurses who had no direct communication with the specialists, those who did were 1.5 times more likely to rate the consultation as “excellent” (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.2–1.8, p Conclusions: Most ICU families and nurses have no interaction with specialist providers. Nurses’ frequent exclusion from conversations about specialty care may pose safety risks and increase the likelihood of mixed messages for patients and families, most of whom desire some interaction with specialists. Future research is needed to identify effective mechanisms for information sharing that keep nurses and families aware of consultation requests, delivery, and outcomes without increasing the risk of mixed messages.</p

Organizational factors and depression management in community-based primary care settings

Abstract Background Evidence-based quality improvement models for depression have not been fully implemented in routine primary care settings. To date, few studies have examined the organizational factors associated with depression management in real-world primary care practice. To successfully implement quality improvement models for depression, there must be a better understanding of the relevant organizational structure and processes of the primary care setting. The objective of this study is to describe these organizational features of routine primary care practice, and the organization of depression care, using survey questions derived from an evidence-based framework. Methods We used this framework to implement a survey of 27 practices comprised of 49 unique offices within a large primary care practice network in western Pennsylvania. Survey questions addressed practice structure (e.g., human resources, leadership, information technology (IT) infrastructure, and external incentives) and process features (e.g., staff performance, degree of integrated depression care, and IT performance). Results The results of our survey demonstrated substantial variation across the practice network of organizational factors pertinent to implementation of evidence-based depression management. Notably, quality improvement capability and IT infrastructure were widespread, but specific application to depression care differed between practices, as did coordination and communication tasks surrounding depression treatment. Conclusions The primary care practices in the network that we surveyed are at differing stages in their organization and implementation of evidence-based depression management. Practical surveys such as this may serve to better direct implementation of these quality improvement strategies for depression by improving understanding of the organizational barriers and facilitators that exist within both practices and practice networks. In addition, survey information can inform efforts of individual primary care practices in customizing intervention strategies to improve depression management.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78269/1/1748-5908-4-84.xmlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78269/2/1748-5908-4-84-S1.PDFhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78269/3/1748-5908-4-84.pdfPeer Reviewe

Differences in Treatment Patterns and Outcomes of Acute Myocardial Infarction for Low- and High-Income Patients in 6 Countries

IMPORTANCE: Differences in the organization and financing of health systems may produce more or less equitable outcomes for advantaged vs disadvantaged populations. We compared treatments and outcomes of older high- and low-income patients across 6 countries. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether treatment patterns and outcomes for patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction differ for low- vs high-income individuals across 6 countries. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Serial cross-sectional cohort study of all adults aged 66 years or older hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction from 2013 through 2018 in the US, Canada, England, the Netherlands, Taiwan, and Israel using population-representative administrative data. EXPOSURES: Being in the top and bottom quintile of income within and across countries. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Thirty-day and 1-year mortality; secondary outcomes included rates of cardiac catheterization and revascularization, length of stay, and readmission rates. RESULTS: We studied 289 376 patients hospitalized with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and 843 046 hospitalized with non-STEMI (NSTEMI). Adjusted 30-day mortality generally was 1 to 3 percentage points lower for high-income patients. For instance, 30-day mortality among patients admitted with STEMI in the Netherlands was 10.2% for those with high income vs 13.1% for those with low income (difference, -2.8 percentage points [95% CI, -4.1 to -1.5]). One-year mortality differences for STEMI were even larger than 30-day mortality, with the highest difference in Israel (16.2% vs 25.3%; difference, -9.1 percentage points [95% CI, -16.7 to -1.6]). In all countries, rates of cardiac catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention were higher among high- vs low-income populations, with absolute differences ranging from 1 to 6 percentage points (eg, 73.6% vs 67.4%; difference, 6.1 percentage points [95% CI, 1.2 to 11.0] for percutaneous intervention in England for STEMI). Rates of coronary artery bypass graft surgery for patients with STEMI in low- vs high-income strata were similar but for NSTEMI were generally 1 to 2 percentage points higher among high-income patients (eg, 12.5% vs 11.0% in the US; difference, 1.5 percentage points [95% CI, 1.3 to 1.8 ]). Thirty-day readmission rates generally also were 1 to 3 percentage points lower and hospital length of stay generally was 0.2 to 0.5 days shorter for high-income patients. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: High-income individuals had substantially better survival and were more likely to receive lifesaving revascularization and had shorter hospital lengths of stay and fewer readmissions across almost all countries. Our results suggest that income-based disparities were present even in countries with universal health insurance and robust social safety net systems

Conducting High-Value Secondary Dataset Analysis: An Introductory Guide and Resources

Secondary analyses of large datasets provide a mechanism for researchers to address high impact questions that would otherwise be prohibitively expensive and time-consuming to study. This paper presents a guide to assist investigators interested in conducting secondary data analysis, including advice on the process of successful secondary data analysis as well as a brief summary of high-value datasets and online resources for researchers, including the SGIM dataset compendium (www.sgim.org/go/datasets). The same basic research principles that apply to primary data analysis apply to secondary data analysis, including the development of a clear and clinically relevant research question, study sample, appropriate measures, and a thoughtful analytic approach. A real-world case description illustrates key steps: (1) define your research topic and question; (2) select a dataset; (3) get to know your dataset; and (4) structure your analysis and presentation of findings in a way that is clinically meaningful. Secondary dataset analysis is a well-established methodology. Secondary analysis is particularly valuable for junior investigators, who have limited time and resources to demonstrate expertise and productivity

Trends in the Ambulatory Management of Headache: Analysis of NAMCS and NHAMCS Data 1999–2010

BACKGROUND: Headache is a frequent complaint and among the most common reasons for visiting a physician. OBJECTIVE: To characterize trends from 1999 through 2010 in the management of headache. DESIGN: Longitudinal trends analysis. DATA: Nationally representative sample of visits to clinicians for headache from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey and National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, excluding visits with “red flags,” such as neurologic deficit, cancer, or trauma. MAIN MEASURES: Use of advanced imaging (CT/MRI), opioids/barbiturates, and referrals to other physicians (guideline-discordant indicators), as well as counseling on lifestyle modifications and use of preventive medications including verapamil, topiramate, amitriptyline, or propranolol (guideline-concordant during study period). We analyzed results using logistic regression, adjusting for patient and clinician characteristics, and weighted to reflect U.S. population estimates. Additionally, we stratified findings based on migraine versus non-migraine, acute versus chronic symptoms, and whether the clinician self-identified as the primary care physician. KEY RESULTS: We identified 9,362 visits for headache, representing an estimated 144 million visits during the study period. Nearly three-quarters of patients were female, and the mean age was approximately 46 years. Use of CT/MRI rose from 6.7 % of visits in 1999–2000 to 13.9 % in 2009–2010 (unadjusted p < 0.001), and referrals to other physicians increased from 6.9 % to 13.2 % (p = 0.005). In contrast, clinician counseling declined from 23.5 % to 18.5 % (p = 0.041). Use of preventive medications increased from 8.5 % to 15.9 % (p = 0.001), while opioids/barbiturates remained unchanged, at approximately 18 %. Adjusted trends were similar, as were results after stratifying by migraine versus non-migraine and acute versus chronic presentation. Primary care clinicians had lower odds of ordering CT/MRI (OR 0.56 [0.42, 0.74]). CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to numerous guidelines, clinicians are increasingly ordering advanced imaging and referring to other physicians, and less frequently offering lifestyle counseling to their patients. The management of headache represents an important opportunity to improve the value of U.S. healthcare. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11606-014-3107-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users