13 research outputs found

    Determinants of racial/ethnic differences in blood pressure management among hypertensive patients

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Prior literature has shown that racial/ethnic minorities with hypertension may receive less aggressive treatment for their high blood pressure. However, to date there are few data available regarding the confounders of racial/ethnic disparities in the intensity of hypertension treatment. METHODS: We reviewed the medical records of 1,205 patients who had a minimum of two hypertension-related outpatient visits to 12 general internal medicine clinics during 7/1/01-6/30/02. Using logistic regression, we determined the odds of having therapy intensified by patient race/ethnicity after adjustment for clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Blacks (81.9%) and Whites (80.3%) were more likely than Latinos (71.5%) to have therapy intensified (P = 0.03). After adjustment for racial differences in the number of outpatient visits and presence of diabetes, there were no racial differences in rates of intensification. CONCLUSION: We found that racial/ethnic differences in therapy intensification were largely accounted for by differences in frequency of clinic visits and in the prevalence of diabetes. Given the higher rates of diabetes and hypertension related mortality among Hispanics in the U.S., future interventions to reduce disparities in cardiovascular outcomes should increase physician awareness of the need to intensify drug therapy more agressively in patients without waiting for multiple clinic visits, and should remind providers to treat hypertension more aggressively among diabetic patients

    Hospital Readmission in General Medicine Patients: A Prediction Model

    Get PDF
    Background: Previous studies of hospital readmission have focused on specific conditions or populations and generated complex prediction models. Objective: To identify predictors of early hospital readmission in a diverse patient population and derive and validate a simple model for identifying patients at high readmission risk. Design: Prospective observational cohort study. Patients: Participants encompassed 10,946 patients discharged home from general medicine services at six academic medical centers and were randomly divided into derivation (n = 7,287) and validation (n = 3,659) cohorts. Measurements: We identified readmissions from administrative data and 30-day post-discharge telephone follow-up. Patient-level factors were grouped into four categories: sociodemographic factors, social support, health condition, and healthcare utilization. We performed logistic regression analysis to identify significant predictors of unplanned readmission within 30 days of discharge and developed a scoring system for estimating readmission risk. Results: Approximately 17.5% of patients were readmitted in each cohort. Among patients in the derivation cohort, seven factors emerged as significant predictors of early readmission: insurance status, marital status, having a regular physician, Charlson comorbidity index, SF12 physical component score, ≥1 admission(s) within the last year, and current length of stay >2 days. A cumulative risk score of ≥25 points identified 5% of patients with a readmission risk of approximately 30% in each cohort. Model discrimination was fair with a c-statistic of 0.65 and 0.61 for the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively. Conclusions: Select patient characteristics easily available shortly after admission can be used to identify a subset of patients at elevated risk of early readmission. This information may guide the efficient use of interventions to prevent readmission

    Distal anastomotic vein adjunct usage in infrainguinal prosthetic bypasses

    Get PDF
    OBJECTIVE: Single-segment saphenous vein remains the optimal conduit for infrainguinal revascularization. In its absence, prosthetic conduit may be used. Existing data regarding the significance of anastomotic distal vein adjunct (DVA) usage with prosthetic grafts are based on small series. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort analysisderived from the regional Vascular Study Group of New England as well as the Brigham and Women\u27s hospital database. A total of 1018 infrainguinal prosthetic bypass grafts were captured in the dataset from 73 surgeons at 15 participating institutions. Propensity scoring and 3:1 matching was performed to create similar exposure groups for analysis. Outcome measures of interest included: primary patency, freedom from major adverse limb events (MALEs), and amputation free survival at 1 year as a function of vein patch utilization. Time to event data were compared with the log-rank test; multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate the adjusted association between vein cuff usage and the primary end points. DVA was defined as a vein patch, cuff, or boot in any configuration. RESULTS: Of the 1018 bypass operations, 94 (9.2%) had a DVA whereas 924 (90.8%) did not (no DVA). After propensity score matching, 88 DVAs (25%) and 264 no DVAs (75%) were analyzed. On univariate analysis of the matched cohort, the DVA and no DVA groups were similar in terms of mean age (70.0 vs 69.0; P = .55), male sex (58.0% vs 58.3%; P \u3e .99), and preoperative characteristics such as living at home (93.2% vs 94.3%; P = .79) and independent ambulatory status (72.7% vs 75.7%; P = .64). The DVA and no DVA groups had similar rates of major comorbidities such as hypertension chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, and dialysis dependence (P \u3e .05 for all). Likewise, they had similar rates of distal origin grafts (13.6% vs 12.5%; P = .85), critical limb ischemia indications (P = .53), and prior arterial bypass (58% vs 47%; P = .08). The DVA group had a higher rate of completion angiogram performed (55.7% vs 37.5%; P =.002) and were more likely to be discharged on coumadin (53.4% vs 37.1%; P =.01). By multivariable analysis, use of a distal DVA was protective against MALEs (hazard ratio, 0.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.90; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: This contemporary multi-institutional propensity-matched study demonstrates that patients that receive distal anastomotic vein adjuncts as part of infrainguinal prosthetic bypass operations in general have more extreme comorbidities and more technically challenging operations based on level of target vessel and prior bypass attempts. After propensity-matched analysis, the use of a DVA may protect against MALEs in prosthetic bypass surgery and should be considered when feasible. rights reserved

    Evaluation of a Patient-Centered Fall-Prevention Tool Kit to Reduce Falls and Injuries: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial

    No full text
    Importance: Falls represent a leading cause of preventable injury in hospitals and a frequently reported serious adverse event. Hospitalization is associated with an increased risk for falls and serious injuries including hip fractures, subdural hematomas, or even death. Multifactorial strategies have been shown to reduce falls in acute care hospitals, but evidence for fall-related injury prevention in hospitals is lacking. Objective: To assess whether a fall-prevention tool kit that engages patients and families in the fall-prevention process throughout hospitalization is associated with reduced falls and injurious falls. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nonrandomized controlled trial using stepped wedge design was conducted between November 1, 2015, and October 31, 2018, in 14 medical units within 3 academic medical centers in Boston and New York City. All adult inpatients hospitalized in participating units were included in the analysis. Interventions: A nurse-led fall-prevention tool kit linking evidence-based preventive interventions to patient-specific fall risk factors and designed to integrate continuous patient and family engagement in the fall-prevention process. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the rate of patient falls per 1000 patient-days in targeted units during the study period. The secondary outcome was the rate of falls with injury per 1000 patient-days. Results: During the interrupted time series, 37 231 patients were evaluated, including 17 948 before the intervention (mean [SD] age, 60.56 [18.30] years; 9723 [54.17%] women) and 19 283 after the intervention (mean [SD] age, 60.92 [18.10] years; 10 325 [53.54%] women). There was an overall adjusted 15% reduction in falls after implementation of the fall-prevention tool kit compared with before implementation (2.92 vs 2.49 falls per 1000 patient-days [95% CI, 2.06-3.00 falls per 1000 patient-days]; adjusted rate ratio 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.96; P = .01) and an adjusted 34% reduction in injurious falls (0.73 vs 0.48 injurious falls per 1000 patient-days [95% CI, 0.34-0.70 injurious falls per 1000 patient-days]; adjusted rate ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53-0.88; P = .003). Conclusions and Relevance: In this nonrandomized controlled trial, implementation of a fall-prevention tool kit was associated with a significant reduction in falls and related injuries. A patient-care team partnership appears to be beneficial for prevention of falls and fall-related injuries. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02969343

    Screening for Adverse Drug Events: A Randomized Trial of Automated Calls Coupled with Phone-Based Pharmacist Counseling

    No full text
    Background Medication adverse events are important and common yet are often not identified by clinicians. We evaluated an automated telephone surveillance system coupled with transfer to a live pharmacist to screen potentially drug-related symptoms after newly starting medications for four common primary care conditions: hypertension, diabetes, depression, and insomnia. Methods Cluster randomized trial with automated calls to eligible patients at 1 and 4 months after starting target drugs from intervention primary care clinics compared to propensity-matched patients from control clinics. Primary and secondary outcomes were physician documentation of any adverse effects associated with newly prescribed target medication, and whether the medication was discontinued and, if yes, whether the reason for stopping was an adverse effect. Results Of 4876 eligible intervention clinic patients who were contacted using automated calls, 776 (15.1%) responded and participated in the automated call. Based on positive symptom responses or request to speak to a pharmacist, 320 patients were transferred to the pharmacist and discussed 1021 potentially drug-related symptoms. Of these, 188 (18.5%) were assessed as probably and 479 (47.1%) as possibly related to the medication. Compared to a propensity-matched cohort of control clinic patients, intervention patients were significantly more likely to have adverse effects documented in the medical record by a physician (277 vs. 164 adverse effects, p \u3c 0.0001, and 177 vs. 122 patients discontinued with documented adverse effects, p \u3c 0.0001). Discussion Systematic automated telephone outreach monitoring coupled with real-time phone referral to a pharmacist identified a substantial number of previously unidentified potentially drug-related symptoms, many of which were validated as probably or possibly related to the drug by the pharmacist or their physicians. Multiple challenges were encountered using the interactive voice response (IVR) automated calling system, suggesting that other approaches may need to be considered and evaluated

    Impact of Kidney Failure Risk Prediction Clinical Decision Support on Monitoring and Referral in Primary Care Management of CKD: A Randomized Pragmatic Clinical TrialPlain-Language Summary

    No full text
    Rationale & Objective: To design and implement clinical decision support incorporating a validated risk prediction estimate of kidney failure in primary care clinics and to evaluate the impact on stage-appropriate monitoring and referral. Study Design: Block-randomized, pragmatic clinical trial. Setting & Participants: Ten primary care clinics in the greater Boston area. Patients with stage 3-5 chronic kidney disease (CKD) were included. Patients were randomized within each primary care physician panel through a block randomization approach. The trial occurred between December 4, 2015, and December 3, 2016. Intervention: Point-of-care noninterruptive clinical decision support that delivered the 5-year kidney failure risk equation as well as recommendations for stage-appropriate monitoring and referral to nephrology. Outcomes: The primary outcome was as follows: Urine and serum laboratory monitoring test findings measured at one timepoint 6 months after the initial primary care visit and analyzed only in patients who had not undergone the recommended monitoring test in the preceding 12 months. The secondary outcome was nephrology referral in patients with a calculated kidney failure risk equation value of >10% measured at one timepoint 6 months after the initial primary care visit. Results: The clinical decision support application requested and processed 569,533 Continuity of Care Documents during the study period. Of these, 41,842 (7.3%) documents led to a diagnosis of stage 3, 4, or 5 CKD by the clinical decision support application. A total of 5,590 patients with stage 3, 4, or 5 CKD were randomized and included in the study. The link to the clinical decision support application was clicked 122 times by 57 primary care physicians. There was no association between the clinical decision support intervention and the primary outcome. There was a small but statistically significant difference in nephrology referral, with a higher rate of referral in the control arm. Limitations: Contamination within provider and clinic may have attenuated the impact of the intervention and may have biased the result toward null. Conclusions: The noninterruptive design of the clinical decision support was selected to prevent cognitive overload; however, the design led to a very low rate of use and ultimately did not improve stage-appropriate monitoring. Funding: Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases of the National Institutes of Health under award K23DK097187. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02990897
    corecore