Search

Background: Approximately 25% of patients that present to the emergency department (ED) do so after contact with a healthcare professional. Many of these patients could be effectively managed in non-ED ambulatory settings. Aligning patients with safe and appropriate outpatient care has the potential to improve ED overcrowding, patient experience, outcomes, and costs. Little is understood about how healthcare providers approach triage decision-making and what factors influence their choices. Objectives: To evaluate how providers think about patient triage, and what factors influence their decision-making when triaging patient calls. Design: Cross-sectional survey-based study in which participants make triage decisions for hypothetical clinical scenarios. Participants: Healthcare providers in the specialties of internal medicine, family medicine, or emergency medicine within a large integrated healthcare system in the Southeast. Main Measures: Differences in individual training and practice characteristics were used to compare observed differences in triage outcomes. Free-response data were evaluated to identify themes and factors affecting triage decisions. Key Results: Out of 72 total participants, substantial variability in triage decision-making was observed among all patient cases. Attending physicians triaged 1.4 fewer cases to ED care compared with resident physicians (p < 0.001, 95% CI 0.62–2.1). Academic attendings demonstrated a trend toward fewer cases to ED care compared with community attendings (0.61, p = 0.188, 95% CI − 0.31–1.5). Qualitative data highlighted the complex considerations in provider triage and led to the development of a novel conceptual model to describe the cognitive triage process and the main influencing factors. Conclusions: Triage decision-making for healthcare providers is influenced by many factors related to clinical resources, care coordination, patient factors, and clinician factors. The complex considerations involved yield variability in triage decisions that is largely unexplained by descriptive physician factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A great deal of research has focused on how hospitals influence readmission rates. While hospitals play a vital role in reducing readmissions, a significant portion of the work also falls to primary care practices. Despite this critical role of primary care, little empirical evidence has shown what primary care characteristics or activities are associated with reductions in hospital admissions. Objective: To examine the relationship between practices' readmission reduction activities and their readmission rates. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective study of 1,788 practices who responded to the National Survey of Healthcare Organizations and Systems (fielded 2017–2018) and 415,663 hospital admissions for Medicare beneficiaries attributed to those practices from 2016 100% Medicare claims data. We constructed mixed-effects logistic regression models to estimate practice-level readmission rates and a linear regression model to evaluate the association between practices' readmission rates with their number of readmission reduction activities. Interventions: Standardized composite score, ranging from 0 to 1, representing the number of a practice's readmission reduction capabilities. The composite score was composed of 12 unique capabilities identified in the literature as being significantly associated with lower readmission rates (e.g., presence of care manager, medication reconciliation, shared-decision making, etc.). Main Outcomes and Measures: Practices' readmission rates for attributed Medicare beneficiaries. Key Results: Routinely engaging in more readmission reduction activities was significantly associated (P <.05) with lower readmission rates. On average, practices experienced a 0.05 percentage point decrease in readmission rates for each additional activity. Average risk-standardized readmission rates for practices performing 10 or more of the 12 activities in our composite measure were a full percentage point lower than risk-standardized readmission rates for practices engaging in none of the activities. Conclusions: Primary care practices that engaged in more readmission reduction activities had lower readmission rates. These findings add to the growing body of evidence suggesting that engaging in multiple activities, rather than any single activity, is associated with decreased readmissions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Food insecurity, limited or uncertain access to enough food for an active, healthy life, affected over 37 million Americans in 2018. Food insecurity is likely to be associated with worse health-related quality of life (HRQoL), but this association has not been measured with validated instruments in nationally representative samples. Given growing interest understanding food insecurity's role in health outcomes, it would be useful to learn what HRQoL measures best capture the experience of those with food insecurity. Objective: To determine the association between food insecurity and several validated HRQoL instruments in US adults. Design: Cross-sectional. Participants: US adults (age ≥ 18), weighted to be nationally representative. Main Measures: Food insecurity was assessed with three items derived from the USDA Household Food Security Survey Module. HRQoL was assessed using PROMIS-Preference (PROPr), which contains 7 PROMIS domains, self-rated health (SRH), Euroqol-5D-5L (EQ-5D), Health Utilities Index (HUI), and Short Form-6D (SF-6D). Key Results: In December 2017, 4142 individuals completed at least part of the survey (31% response rate), of whom 4060 (98.0%) reported food security information. Of survey respondents, 51.7% were women, 12.5% self-identified as black, 15.8% were Hispanic, and 11.0% did not have a high school diploma. 14.1% of respondents reported food insecurity. In adjusted analyses, food insecurity was associated with worse HRQoL across all instruments and PROMIS domains (p <.0001 for all). The magnitude of the difference between food-insecure and food-secure participants was largest with the SF-6D, EQ-5D, and PROPr; among individual PROMIS domain scores, the largest difference was for ability to participate in social roles. Conclusions: Food insecurity is strongly associated with worse HRQoL, with differences between food-secure and food-insecure individuals best measured using the SF-6D, EQ-5D, and PROPr. Future work should develop a specific instrument to measure changes in HRQoL in food insecurity interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Care coordination between adult hospitalists and primary care providers (PCPs) is a critical component of successful transitions of care from hospital to home, yet one that is not well understood. Objective: The purpose of this study was to understand the challenges in coordination of care, as well as potential solutions, from the perspective of hospitalists and PCPs in North Carolina. Design and Participants: We conducted an exploratory qualitative study with 58 clinicians in four hospitalist focus groups ( n = 32), three PCP focus groups ( n = 19), and one hybrid group with both hospitalists and PCPs ( n = 7). Approach: Interview guides included questions about care coordination, information exchange, follow-up care, accountability, and medication management. Focus group sessions were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed in ATLAS.ti. The constant comparative method was used to evaluate differences between hospitalists and PCPs. Key Results: Hospitalists and PCPs were found to encounter similar care coordination challenges, including (1) lack of time, (2) difficulty reaching other clinicians, (3) lack of personal relationships with other clinicians, (4) lack of information feedback loops, (5) medication list discrepancies, and (6) lack of clarity regarding accountability for pending tests and home health. Hospitalists additionally noted difficulty obtaining timely follow-up appointments for after-hours or weekend discharges. PCPs additionally noted (1) not knowing when patients were hospitalized, (2) not having hospital records for post-hospitalization appointments, (3) difficulty locating important information in discharge summaries, and (4) feeling undervalued when hospitalists made medication changes without involving PCPs. Hospitalists and PCPs identified common themes of successful care coordination as (1) greater efforts to coordinate care for 'high-risk' patients, (2) improved direct telephone access to each other, (3) improved information exchange through shared electronic medical records, (4) enhanced interpersonal relationships, and (5) clearly defined accountability. Conclusions: Hospitalists and PCPs encounter similar challenges in care coordination, yet have important experiential differences related to sending and receiving roles for hospital discharges. Efforts to improve coordination of care between hospitalists and PCPs should aim to understand perspectives of clinicians in each setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Other risk factors for spontaneous pneumomediastinum include smoking and pre-existing lung parenchymal or airway disease.[1] COVID-19 pneumonia managed without invasive or positive pressure ventilation is a newly reported risk factor for spontaneous pneumomediastinum.[2] Potential pathophysiology includes diffuse alveolar injury that results in alveolar rupture and interstitial emphysema, which may dissect along the bronchovascular sheaths into the mediastinum in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.[3],[4] Providers caring for patients with COVID-19 pneumonia should be aware of this potential complication. CT angiography aimed at evaluating worsened hypoxia showed extensive pneumomediastinum extending into soft tissues of the lateral neck and mediastinal spaces of the heart (Fig. A 61-year-old woman was hospitalized with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. [Extracted from the article]

Information about the Implementation Science Workshop on a primary care-based multidisciplinary readmission prevention program held at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill in 2014 is presented. Physician Jamie Jurkiewicz Cavanaugh and colleagues described the implementation and evaluation of the program. The accompanying commentary of the workshop focused on strengths and weaknesses of the approach, emphasizing inferable lessons for learning health care organizations.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians caring for patients seeking alcohol detoxification face many challenges, including lack of evidence-based guidelines for treatment and high recidivism rates. OBJECTIVES: To develop a standardized protocol for determining which alcohol dependent patients seeking detoxification need inpatient versus outpatient treatment, and to study the protocol's implementation. DESIGN: Review of best evidence by ad hoc task force and subsequent creation of standardized protocol. Prospective observational evaluation of initial protocol implementation. PARTICIPANTS: Patients presenting for alcohol detoxification. INTERVENTION: Development and implementation of a protocol for evaluation and treatment of patients requesting alcohol detoxification. MAIN MEASURES: Number of admissions per month with primary alcohol related diagnosis (DRG), 30-day readmission rate, and length of stay, all measured before and after protocol implementation. RESULTS: We identified one randomized clinical trial and three cohort studies to inform the choice of inpatient versus outpatient detoxification, along with one prior protocol in this population, and combined that data with clinical experience to create an institutional protocol. After implementation, the average number of alcohol related admissions was 15.9 per month, compared with 18.9 per month before implementation ( p = 0.037). There was no difference in readmission rate or length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Creation and utilization of a protocol led to standardization of care for patients requesting detoxification from alcohol. Initial evaluation of protocol implementation showed a decrease in number of admissions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: We compared two implementation approaches for a health literacy diabetes intervention designed for community health centers. METHODS: A quasi-experimental, clinic-randomized evaluation was conducted at six community health centers from rural, suburban, and urban locations in Missouri between August 2008 and January 2010. In all, 486 adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus participated. Clinics were set up to implement either: 1) a clinic-based approach that involved practice re-design to routinely provide brief diabetes education and counseling services, set action-plans, and perform follow-up without additional financial resources [CARVE-IN]; or 2) an outsourced approach where clinics referred patients to a telephone-based diabetes educator for the same services [CARVE-OUT]. The fidelity of each intervention was determined by the number of contacts with patients, self-report of services received, and patient satisfaction. Intervention effectiveness was investigated by assessing patient knowledge, self-efficacy, health behaviors, and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Carve-out patients received on average 4.3 contacts (SD = 2.2) from the telephone-based diabetes educator versus 1.7 contacts (SD = 2.0) from the clinic nurse in the carve-in arm ( p < 0.001). They were also more likely to recall setting action plans and rated the process more positively than carve-in patients ( p < 0.001). Few differences in diabetes knowledge, self-efficacy, or health behaviors were found between the two approaches. However, clinical outcomes did vary in multivariable analyses; carve-out patients had a lower HbA1c ( β = −0.31, 95 % CI −0.56 to −0.06, p = 0.02), systolic blood pressure ( β = −3.65, 95 % CI −6.39 to −0.90, p = 0.01), and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol ( β = −7.96, 95 % CI −10.08 to −5.83, p < 0.001) at 6 months. CONCLUSION: An outsourced diabetes education and counseling approach for community health centers appears more feasible than clinic-based models. Patients receiving the carve-out strategy also demonstrated better clinical outcomes compared to those receiving the carve-in approach. Study limitations and unclear causal mechanisms explaining change in patient behavior suggest that further research is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Low literacy increases the risk for many adverse health outcomes, but the relationship between literacy and adverse outcomes in heart failure (HF) has not been well studied. METHODS: We studied a cohort of ambulatory patients with symptomatic HF (NYHA Class II-IV within the past 6 months) who were enrolled in a randomized controlled trial of self-care training recruited from internal medicine and cardiology clinics at four academic medical centers in the US. The primary outcome was combined all-cause hospitalization or death, with a secondary outcome of hospitalization for HF. Outcomes were assessed through blinded interviews and subsequent chart reviews, with adjudication of cause by a panel of masked assessors. Literacy was measured using the short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults. We used negative binomial regression to examine whether the incidence of the primary and secondary outcomes differed according to literacy. RESULTS: Of the 595 study participants, 37 % had low literacy. Mean age was 61, 31 % were NYHA class III/IV at baseline, 16 % were Latino, and 38 % were African-American. Those with low literacy were older, had a higher NYHA class, and were more likely to be Latino (all p < 0.001). Adjusting for site only, participants with low literacy had an incidence rate ratio (IRR) of 1.39 (95 % CI: 0.99, 1.94) for all-cause hospitalization or death and 1.36 (1.11, 1.66) for HF-related hospitalization. After adjusting for demographic, clinical, and self-management factors, the IRRs were 1.31 (1.06, 1.63) for all-cause hospitalization and death and 1.46 (1.20, 1.78) for HF-related hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Low literacy increased the risk of hospitalization for ambulatory patients with heart failure. Interventions designed to mitigate literacy-related disparities in outcomes are warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Low literacy skills are common and associated with a variety of poor health outcomes. This may be particularly important in patients with chronic illnesses such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) that require appropriate inhaler technique to maintain quality of life and avoid exacerbations. Objective: To explore the impact of a literacy-sensitive self-management intervention on inhaler technique scores in COPD patients and to determine if effects differ by literacy. Design: Randomized controlled trial. Participants: Ninety-nine patients with COPD. Intervention: Patients were randomly assigned to a one-on-one self-management educational intervention or usual care. The intervention focused on inhaler technique, smoking cessation, and using a COPD action plan. Main Measures: At baseline, an inhaler technique assessment, literacy assessment, health-related quality of life questionnaires, and pulmonary function tests were completed. Inhaler technique was re-evaluated after two to eight weeks. Key Results: Mean age 63, 65% female, 69% Caucasian, moderate COPD severity on average, 36% with low literacy, moderately impaired health-related quality of life, and similar baseline metered dose inhaler technique scores. Patients in the intervention group had greater mean improvement from baseline in metered dose inhaler technique score compared to those in the usual care group (difference in mean change 2.1, 95% CI 1.1, 3.0). The patients in the intervention group also had greater mean improvements in metered dose inhaler technique score than those in the usual care group whether they had low health literacy (difference in mean change 2.8, 95% CI 0.6, 4.9) or higher health literacy (1.8, 95% CI 0.7, 2.9). Conclusions: A literacy-sensitive self-management intervention can lead to improvements in inhaler technique, with benefits for patients with both low and higher health literacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We sought to examine the relationship between literacy and heart failure-related quality of life (HFQOL), and to explore whether literacy-related differences in knowledge, self-efficacy and/or self-care behavior explained the relationship.Methods: We recruited patients with symptomatic heart failure (HF) from four academic medical centers. Patients completed the short version of the Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (TOFHLA) and questions on HF-related knowledge, HF-related self-efficacy, and self-care behaviors. We assessed HFQOL with the Heart Failure Symptom Scale (HFSS) (range 0-100), with higher scores denoting better quality of life. We used bivariate (t-tests and chi-square) and multivariate linear regression analyses to estimate the associations between literacy and HF knowledge, self-efficacy, self-care behaviors, and HFQOL, controlling for demographic characteristics. Structural equation modeling was conducted to assess whether general HF knowledge, salt knowledge, self-care behaviors, and self-efficacy mediated the relationship between literacy and HFQOL.Results: We enrolled 605 patients with mean age of 60.7 years; 52% were male; 38% were African-American and 16% Latino; 26% had less than a high school education; and 67% had annual incomes under $25,000. Overall, 37% had low literacy (marginal or inadequate on TOFHLA). Patients with adequate literacy had higher general HF knowledge than those with low literacy (mean 6.6 vs. 5.5, adjusted difference 0.63, p < 0.01), higher self-efficacy (5.0 vs. 4.1, adjusted difference 0.99, p < 0.01), and higher prevalence of key self-care behaviors (p < 0.001). Those with adequate literacy had better HFQOL scores compared to those with low literacy (63.9 vs. 55.4, adjusted difference 7.20, p < 0.01), but differences in knowledge, self-efficacy, and self-care did not mediate this difference in HFQOL.Conclusion: Low literacy was associated with worse HFQOL and lower HF-related knowledge, self-efficacy, and self-care behaviors, but differences in knowledge, self-efficacy and self-care did not explain the relationship between low literacy and worse HFQOL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To perform a systematic review of interventions designed to improve health outcomes for persons with low literacy skills.We searched MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), Public Affairs Information Service (PAIS), Industrial and Labor Relations Review (ILLR), PsycInfo, and Ageline from 1980 to 2003.We included controlled and uncontrolled trials that measured literacy and examined the effect of interventions for people with low literacy on health outcomes, including health knowledge, health behaviors, use of health care resources, intermediate markers of disease status, and measures of morbidity or mortality. Two abstractors reviewed each study for inclusion. Disagreements were resolved by consensus among the research team.One reviewer abstracted data from each article into an evidence table; the second reviewer checked each entry. Disagreements about information in evidence tables were resolved by team consensus. Both data extractors independently completed an 11-item quality scale for each article; scores were averaged to give a final measure of article quality.We identified 20 articles examining interventions designed to improve health among people with low literacy. The most common outcome studied was health knowledge; fewer studies examined health behaviors, intermediate markers, or measures of disease prevalence or severity. The effectiveness of interventions appeared mixed. Limitations in research quality and heterogeneity in outcome measures make drawing firm conclusions about effective strategies difficult. Only 5 articles examined the interaction between literacy level and the effect of the intervention; they also found mixed results.Several interventions have been developed to improve health for people with low literacy. Limitations in study design, interventions tested, and outcomes assessed make drawing conclusions about effectiveness difficult. Further research is required to understand better the types of interventions that are most effective and efficient for overcoming literacy-related barriers to good health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To review the relationship between literacy and health outcomes.We searched MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), Public Affairs Information Service (PAIS), Industrial and Labor Relations Review (ILLR), PsychInfo, and Ageline from 1980 to 2003.We included observational studies that reported original data, measured literacy with any valid instrument, and measured one or more health outcomes. Two abstractors reviewed each study for inclusion and resolved disagreements by discussion.One reviewer abstracted data from each article into an evidence table; the second reviewer checked each entry. The whole study team reconciled disagreements about information in evidence tables. Both data extractors independently completed an 11-item quality scale for each article; scores were averaged to give a final measure of article quality.We reviewed 3,015 titles and abstracts and pulled 684 articles for full review; 73 articles met inclusion criteria and, of those, 44 addressed the questions of this report. Patients with low literacy had poorer health outcomes, including knowledge, intermediate disease markers, measures of morbidity, general health status, and use of health resources. Patients with low literacy were generally 1.5 to 3 times more likely to experience a given poor outcome. The average quality of the articles was fair to good. Most studies were cross-sectional in design; many failed to address adequately confounding and the use of multiple comparisons.Low literacy is associated with several adverse health outcomes. Future research, using more rigorous methods, will better define these relationships and guide developers of new interventions.J GEN INTERN MED 2004;19:1228–1239. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A response by Katie Kiser to a letter to the editor about her article "A randomized controlled trial of a literacy-sensitive self-management intervention for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients" in the 2012 issue is presented.