Search

Objectives The extent to which care quality influenced outcomes for patients hospitalised with COVID-19 is unknown. Our objective was to determine if prepandemic hospital quality is associated with mortality among Medicare patients hospitalised with COVID-19.Design This is a retrospective observational study. We calculated hospital-level risk-standardised in-hospital and 30-day mortality rates (risk-standardised mortality rates, RSMRs) for patients hospitalised with COVID-19, and correlation coefficients between RSMRs and pre-COVID-19 hospital quality, overall and stratified by hospital characteristics.Setting Short-term acute care hospitals and critical access hospitals in the USA.Participants Hospitalised Medicare beneficiaries (Fee-For-Service and Medicare Advantage) age 65 and older hospitalised with COVID-19, discharged between 1 April 2020 and 30 September 2021.Intervention/exposure Pre-COVID-19 hospital quality.Outcomes Risk-standardised COVID-19 in-hospital and 30-day mortality rates (RSMRs).Results In-hospital (n=4256) RSMRs for Medicare patients hospitalised with COVID-19 (April 2020–September 2021) ranged from 4.5% to 59.9% (median 18.2%; IQR 14.7%–23.7%); 30-day RSMRs ranged from 12.9% to 56.2% (IQR 24.6%–30.6%). COVID-19 RSMRs were negatively correlated with star rating summary scores (in-hospital correlation coefficient −0.41, p

Abstract Diagnosis codes are used to study SARS-CoV2 infections and COVID-19 hospitalizations in administrative and electronic health record (EHR) data. Using EHR data (April 2020–March 2021) at the Yale-New Haven Health System and the three hospital systems of the Mayo Clinic, computable phenotype definitions based on ICD-10 diagnosis of COVID-19 (U07.1) were evaluated against positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR or antigen tests. We included 69,423 patients at Yale and 75,748 at Mayo Clinic with either a diagnosis code or a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. The precision and recall of a COVID-19 diagnosis for a positive test were 68.8% and 83.3%, respectively, at Yale, with higher precision (95%) and lower recall (63.5%) at Mayo Clinic, varying between 59.2% in Rochester to 97.3% in Arizona. For hospitalizations with a principal COVID-19 diagnosis, 94.8% at Yale and 80.5% at Mayo Clinic had an associated positive laboratory test, with secondary diagnosis of COVID-19 identifying additional patients. These patients had a twofold higher inhospital mortality than based on principal diagnosis. Standardization of coding practices is needed before the use of diagnosis codes in clinical research and epidemiological surveillance of COVID-19.

Background: Cardioprotective antihyperglycemic agents, SGLT2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) and GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP1RA), improve outcomes of patients with type 2 diabetes, but adoption has been limited. Differences across individuals have been noted but area-level variation is unknown. Objectives: Given healthcare access and sociodemographic differences, we evaluated whether SGLT2i and GLP-1RA utilization varies across US counties. Methods: We linked 2019 Medicare Part D national prescription data with county-level demographic measures from the Agency for Health Quality and Research. We compared the number of beneficiaries receiving prescriptions for any cardioprotective antihyperglycemic to the number receiving metformin prescriptions across US counties. In multivariable linear regression with SGLT2i-to-metformin and GLP1RA-to-metformin prescriptions as outcomes, we evaluated county factors associated with use of cardioprotective agents while adjusting for sociodemographic measures, region, and cardiometabolic risk factor prevalence. Results: In 3066 US counties, there were a median 2,416 (IQR, 1681–3190) metformin-receiving beneficiaries per 100,000 population. A median 6.2% of beneficiaries receiving metformin received SGLT2i therapy, varying across counties (IQR, 3.4%–9.2%). A median 9.4% (IQR, 5.0%–13.0%) of beneficiaries receiving metformin received GLP-1RA. In adjusted analyses, higher percentage of Black population was associated with lower use at the county level of people on SGLT2i or GLP-1RA relative to metformin (a SD higher proportion of Black individuals with 0.4% [95% CI, -0.6% to -0.1%] and 0.5% [-0.8% to -0.2%] lower SGLT2i and GLP-1RA prescribing relative to metformin, respectively; P

Abstract Background The electronic health record (EHR) holds the prospect of providing more complete and timely access to clinical information for biomedical research, quality assessments, and quality improvement compared to other data sources, such as administrative claims. In this study, we sought to assess the completeness and timeliness of structured diagnoses in the EHR compared to computed diagnoses for hypertension (HTN), hyperlipidemia (HLD), and diabetes mellitus (DM). Methods We determined the amount of time for a structured diagnosis to be recorded in the EHR from when an equivalent diagnosis could be computed from other structured data elements, such as vital signs and laboratory results. We used EHR data for encounters from January 1, 2012 through February 10, 2019 from an academic health system. Diagnoses for HTN, HLD, and DM were computed for patients with at least two observations above threshold separated by at least 30 days, where the thresholds were outpatient blood pressure of ≥ 140/90 mmHg, any low-density lipoprotein ≥ 130 mg/dl, or any hemoglobin A1c ≥ 6.5%, respectively. The primary measure was the length of time between the computed diagnosis and the time at which a structured diagnosis could be identified within the EHR history or problem list. Results We found that 39.8% of those with HTN, 21.6% with HLD, and 5.2% with DM did not receive a corresponding structured diagnosis recorded in the EHR. For those who received a structured diagnosis, a mean of 389, 198, and 166 days elapsed before the patient had the corresponding diagnosis of HTN, HLD, or DM, respectively, recorded in the EHR. Conclusions We found a marked temporal delay between when a diagnosis can be computed or inferred and when an equivalent structured diagnosis is recorded within the EHR. These findings demonstrate the continued need for additional study of the EHR to avoid bias when using observational data and reinforce the need for computational approaches to identify clinical phenotypes.

Abstract Background To estimate, prior to finalization of claims, the national monthly numbers of admissions and rates of 30-day readmissions and post-discharge observation-stays for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), or pneumonia. Methods The centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Integrated Data Repository, including the Medicare beneficiary enrollment database, was accessed in June 2015, February 2017, and February 2018. We evaluated patterns of delay in Medicare claims accrual, and used incomplete, non-final claims data to develop and validate models for real-time estimation of admissions, readmissions, and observation stays. Results These real-time reporting models accurately estimate, within 2 months from admission, the monthly numbers of admissions, 30-day readmission and observation-stay rates for patients with AMI, HF, or pneumonia. Conclusions This work will allow CMS to track the impact of policy decisions in real time and enable hospitals to better monitor their performance nationally.

Background Despite its clinical significance, the risk of severe infection requiring hospitalization among outpatients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection who receive angiotensin‐converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) remains uncertain. Methods and Results In a propensity score–matched outpatient cohort (January–May 2020) of 2263 Medicare Advantage and commercially insured individuals with hypertension and a positive outpatient SARS‐CoV‐2, we determined the association of ACE inhibitors and ARBs with COVID‐19 hospitalization. In a concurrent inpatient cohort of 7933 hospitalized with COVID‐19, we tested their association with in‐hospital mortality. The robustness of the observations was assessed in a contemporary cohort (May–August). In the outpatient study, neither ACE inhibitors (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 0.53–1.13, P=0.18) nor ARBs (HR, 0.88; 0.61–1.26, P=0.48) were associated with hospitalization risk. ACE inhibitors were associated with lower hospitalization risk in the older Medicare group (HR, 0.61; 0.41–0.93, P=0.02), but not the younger commercially insured group (HR, 2.14; 0.82–5.60, P=0.12; P‐interaction 0.09). Neither ACE inhibitors nor ARBs were associated with lower hospitalization risk in either population in the validation cohort. In the primary inpatient study cohort, neither ACE inhibitors (HR, 0.97; 0.81–1.16; P=0.74) nor ARBs (HR, 1.15; 0.95–1.38, P=0.15) were associated with in‐hospital mortality. These observations were consistent in the validation cohort. Conclusions ACE inhibitors and ARBs were not associated with COVID‐19 hospitalization or mortality. Despite early evidence for a potential association between ACE inhibitors and severe COVID‐19 prevention in older individuals, the inconsistency of this observation in recent data argues against a role for prophylaxis.

Objectives To develop a model of in-hospital mortality using medical record front page (MRFP) data and assess its validity in case-mix standardisation by comparison with a model developed using the complete medical record data.Design A nationally representative retrospective study.Setting Representative hospitals in China, covering 161 hospitals in modelling cohort and 156 hospitals in validation cohort.Participants Representative patients admitted for acute myocardial infarction. 8370 patients in modelling cohort and 9704 patients in validation cohort.Primary outcome measures In-hospital mortality, which was defined explicitly as death that occurred during hospitalisation, and the hospital-level risk standardised mortality rate (RSMR).Results A total of 14 variables were included in the model predicting in-hospital mortality based on MRFP data, with the area under receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.78 among modelling cohort and 0.79 among validation cohort. The median of absolute difference between the hospital RSMR predicted by hierarchical generalised linear models established based on MRFP data and complete medical record data, which was built as ‘reference model’, was 0.08% (10th and 90th percentiles: −1.8% and 1.6%). In the regression model comparing the RSMR between two models, the slope and intercept of the regression equation is 0.90 and 0.007 in modelling cohort, while 0.85 and 0.010 in validation cohort, which indicated that the evaluation capability from two models were very similar.Conclusions The models based on MRFP data showed good discrimination and calibration capability, as well as similar risk prediction effect in comparison with the model based on complete medical record data, which proved that MRFP data could be suitable for risk adjustment in hospital performance measurement.

Abstract Background Since clinical management of heart failure relies on weights that are self-reported by the patient, errors in reporting will negatively impact the ability of health care professionals to offer timely and effective preventive care. Errors might often result from rounding, or more generally from individual preferences for numbers ending in certain digits, such as 0 or 5. We apply fraud detection methods to assess preferences for numbers ending in these digits in order to inform medical decision making. Methods The Telemonitoring to Improve Heart Failure Outcomes trial tested an approach to telemonitoring that used existing technology; intervention patients (n = 826) were asked to measure their weight daily using a digital scale and to relay measurements using their telephone keypads. First, we estimated the number of weights subject to end-digit preference by dividing the weights by five and comparing the resultant distribution with the uniform distribution. Then, we assessed the characteristics of patients reporting an excess number of weights ending in 0 or 5, adjusting for chance reporting of these values. Results Of the 114,867 weight readings reported during the trial, 18.6% were affected by end-digit preference, and the likelihood of these errors occurring increased with the number of days that had elapsed since trial enrolment (odds ratio per day: 1.002, p

ObjectivesTo describe trends in the availability of biomarker testing in Chinese hospitals and how practice complies with established standards for the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI).BackgroundCardiac biomarker testing is standard in high-income countries, but little is known about the availability and use of cardiac biomarker testing in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) such as China.MethodsBased on a nationally representative sample of Chinese hospitals in 2001, 2006 and 2011, we describe the temporal trends and regional differences in the hospital capability and rates of use of cardiac biomarker testing, as well as the variation in use across hospitals with testing capability, for patients labeled with the diagnosis of AMI.ResultsWe sampled 175 hospitals (162 participated in the study) and 18,631 AMI admissions. 14,370 patients were included in analysis of biomarker use. The proportion of hospitals with biomarker testing capability was 57.4% in 2001 (25.0% troponin and 32.4% creatine kinase MB fraction (CK-MB) only) and 96.3% (81.4% troponin and 14.9% CK-MB only) in 2011. The proportion of hospitals with troponin testing capability in 2011 was significantly higher in urban compared with rural hospitals (96.8% vs. 71.4%, p< 0.001). In 2011, only 55.9% of hospitals with troponin testing capability (71 out of 127 hospitals) used the assay for more than 80% of their patients with AMI. Among hospitals with either biomarker testing capability, there was marked variation in use in both rural (from 7.1% to 100.0% of patients) and urban hospitals (from 57.9% to 100.0% of patients). In 2011, 36.1% of the patients with AMI did not have troponin tested and 4.9% did not have either biomarker measured.ConclusionsThe recommended biomarker tests for AMI diagnosis are not universally available and the testing is not consistently applied when it is available in China.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01624883.