Survival Rates in Trauma Patients Following Health Care Reform in Massachusetts

IMPORTANCE: Massachusetts introduced health care reform (HCR) in 2006, expecting to expand health insurance coverage and improve outcomes. Because traumatic injury is a common acute condition with important health, disability, and economic consequences, examination of the effect of HCR on patients hospitalized following injury may help inform the national HCR debate. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of Massachusetts HCR on survival rates of injured patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective cohort study of 1,520,599 patients hospitalized following traumatic injury in Massachusetts or New York during the 10 years (2002-2011) surrounding Massachusetts HCR using data from the State Inpatient Databases. We assessed the effect of HCR on mortality rates using a difference-in-differences approach to control for temporal trends in mortality. INTERVENTION: Health care reform in Massachusetts in 2006. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE: Survival until hospital discharge. RESULTS: During the 10-year study period, the rates of uninsured trauma patients in Massachusetts decreased steadily from 14.9% in 2002 to 5.0.% in 2011. In New York, the rates of uninsured trauma patients fell from 14.9% in 2002 to 10.5% in 2011. The risk-adjusted difference-in-difference assessment revealed a transient increase of 604 excess deaths (95% CI, 419-790) in Massachusetts in the 3 years following implementation of HCR. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Health care reform did not affect health insurance coverage for patients hospitalized following injury but was associated with a transient increase in adjusted mortality rates. Reducing mortality rates for acutely injured patients may require more comprehensive interventions than simply promoting health insurance coverage through legislation

Reproducibility of hospital rankings based on centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hospital Compare measures as a function of measure reliability

Importance: Unreliable performance measures can mask poor-quality care and distort financial incentives in value-based purchasing. Objective: To examine the association between test-retest reliability and the reproducibility of hospital rankings. Design, Setting, and Participants: In a cross-sectional design, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hospital Compare data were analyzed for the 2017 (based on 2014-2017 data) and 2018 (based on 2015-2018 data) reporting periods. The study was conducted from December 13, 2020, to September 30, 2021. This analysis was based on 28 measures, including mortality (acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, pneumonia, and coronary artery bypass grafting), readmissions (acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, pneumonia, and coronary artery bypass grafting), and surgical complications (postoperative acute kidney failure, postoperative respiratory failure, postoperative sepsis, and failure to rescue). Exposures: Measure reliability based on test-retest reliability testing. Main Outcomes and Measures: The reproducibility of hospital rankings was quantified by calculating the reclassification rate across the 2017 and 2018 reporting periods after categorizing the hospitals into terciles, quartiles, deciles, and statistical outliers. Linear regression analysis was used to examine the association between the reclassification rate and the intraclass correlation coefficient for each of the classification systems. Results: The analytic cohort consisted of 28 measures from 4452 hospitals with a median of 2927 (IQR, 2378-3160) hospitals contributing data for each measure. The hospitals participating in the Inpatient Prospective Payment System (n = 3195) had a median bed size of 141 (IQR, 69-261), average daily census of 70 (IQR, 24-155) patients, and a median disproportionate share hospital percentage of 38.2% (IQR, 18.7%-36.6%). The median intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.78 (IQR, 0.72-0.81), ranging between 0.50 and 0.85. The median reclassification rate was 70% (IQR, 62%-71%) when hospitals were ranked by deciles, 43% (IQR, 39%-45%) when ranked by quartiles, 34% (IQR, 31%-36%) when ranked by terciles, and 3.8% (IQR, 2.0%-6.2%) when ranked by outlier status. Increases in measure reliability were not associated with decreases in the reclassification rate. Each 0.1-point increase in the intraclass correlation coefficient was associated with a 6.80 (95% CI, 2.28-11.30; P = .005) percentage-point increase in the reclassification rate when hospitals were ranked into performance deciles, 4.15 (95% CI, 1.16-7.14; P = .008) when ranked into performance quartiles, 1.47 (95% CI, 1.84, 4.77; P = .37) when ranked into performance terciles, and 3.70 (95% CI, 1.30-6.09; P = .004) when ranked by outlier status. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, more reliable measures were not associated with lower rates of reclassifying hospitals using test-retest reliability testing. These findings suggest that measure reliability should not be assessed with test-retest reliability testing

Story culture framework: A cross cultural study

Digital storytelling has emerged as a powerful tool to engage with communities in the last few years. However, little attention has been paid for the challenges and failures faced around using digital storytelling as a tool. The paper talks about digital storytelling as a participatory method explored within three culturally different transforming communities. The key finding in the study is revealing the importance of the preliminary activities that helped design the innovative methods. In this paper, the author assesses how the participatory research methods, such as story interviews, digital storytelling workshops, and story kits, helped to gather participants’ personal experiences within the three chosen communities. The study proposes story culture framework a technique to explore cross cultural communities using stories as its principal focus. The author concludes by highlighting challenges for HCI researchers working with digital technologies and cross-cultural communities.EPSR

Perceived barriers to the regionalization of adult critical care in the United States: a qualitative preliminary study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Regionalization of adult critical care services may improve outcomes for critically ill patients. We sought to develop a framework for understanding clinician attitudes toward regionalization and potential barriers to developing a tiered, regionalized system of care in the United States.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We performed a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews of critical care stakeholders in the United States, including physicians, nurses and hospital administrators. Stakeholders were identified from a stratified-random sample of United States general medical and surgical hospitals. Key barriers and potential solutions were identified by performing content analysis of the interview transcriptions.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We interviewed 30 stakeholders from 24 different hospitals, representing a broad range of hospital locations and sizes. Key barriers to regionalization included personal and economic strain on families, loss of autonomy on the part of referring physicians and hospitals, loss of revenue on the part of referring physicians and hospitals, the potential to worsen outcomes at small hospitals by limiting services, and the potential to overwhelm large hospitals. Improving communication between destination and source hospitals, provider education, instituting voluntary objective criteria to become a designated referral center, and mechanisms to feed back patients and revenue to source hospitals were identified as potential solutions to some of these barriers.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Regionalization efforts will be met with significant conceptual and structural barriers. These data provide a foundation for future research and can be used to inform policy decisions regarding the design and implementation of a regionalized system of critical care.</p

Developing cancer warning statements for alcoholic beverages

Background: There is growing evidence of the increased cancer risk associated with alcohol consumption, but this is not well understood by the general public. This study investigated the acceptability among drinkers of cancer warning statements for alcoholic beverages. Methods: Six focus groups were conducted with Australian drinkers to develop a series of cancer-related warning statements for alcohol products. Eleven cancer warning statements and one general health warning statement were subsequently tested on 2,168 drinkers via an online survey. The statements varied by message frame (positive vs negative), cancer reference (general vs specific), and the way causality was communicated (‘increases risk of cancer’ vs ‘can cause cancer’). Results: Overall, responses to the cancer statements were neutral to favorable, indicating that they are unlikely to encounter high levels of negative reaction from the community if introduced on alcoholic beverages. Females, younger respondents, and those with higher levels of education generally found the statements to be more believable, convincing, and personally relevant. Positively framed messages, those referring to specific forms of cancer, and those using ‘increases risk of cancer’ performed better than negatively framed messages, those referring to cancer in general, and those using the term ‘can cause cancer’. Conclusion: Cancer warning statements on alcoholic beverages constitute a potential means of increasing awareness about the relationship between alcohol consumption and cancer risk