Search

Problem: Medical educators increasingly champion holistic review. However, in U.S. residency selection, holistic review has been difficult to implement, hindered by a reliance on standardized academic criteria such as board scores. Masking faculty interviewers to applicants' academic files is a potential means of promoting holistic residency selection by increasing the interview's ability to make a discrete contribution to evaluation. However, little research has directly analyzed the effects of masking on how residency selection committees evaluate applicants. This mixed-methods study examined how masking interviews altered residency selection in an anesthesiology program at a large U.S. academic medical center. Intervention: During the 2019–2020 residency selection season in the University of Pennsylvania's Department of Anesthesiology & Critical Care, we masked interviewers to the major academic components of candidates' application files (board scores, transcripts, letters) on approximately half of interview days. The intent of the masking intervention was to mitigate the tendency of interviewers to form predispositions about candidates based on standardized academic criteria and thereby allow the interview to make a more independent contribution to candidate evaluation. Context: Our examination of the masking intervention used a concurrent, partially mixed, equal-status mixed-methods design guided by a pragmatist approach. We audio-recorded selection committee meetings and qualitatively analyzed them to explore how masking affected the process of candidate evaluation. We also collected independent candidate ratings from interviewers and consensus committee ratings and statistically compared ratings of candidates interviewed on masked days to ratings from conventional days. Impact: In conventional committee meetings, interviewers focused on how to reconcile academic metrics and interviews, and their evaluations of interviews were framed according to predispositions about candidates formed through perusal of application files. In masked meetings, members instead spent considerable effort evaluating candidates' "fit" and whether they came off as tactful. Masked interviewers gave halting opinions of candidates and sometimes pushed for committee leaders to reveal academic information, leading to masking breaches. Higher USMLE Step 1 score and higher medical school ranking were statistically associated with more favorable consensus rating. We found no significant differences in rating outcomes between masked and conventional interview days. Lessons learned: Elimination of academic metrics during the residency interview phase does not straightforwardly promote holistic review. While critical reflection among medical educators about the fairness and utility of such metrics has been productive, research and intervention should focus on the more proximate topic of how programs apply academic and other criteria to evaluate applicants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Teaching hospitals typically pioneer investment in new technology and cultivate workforce characteristics generally associated with better quality, but the value of this extra investment is unclear.Objective: Compare outcomes and costs between major teaching and non-teaching hospitals by closely matching on patient characteristics.Design: Medicare patients at 339 major teaching hospitals (resident-to-bed (RTB) ratios ≥ 0.25); matched patient controls from 2439 non-teaching hospitals (RTB ratios < 0.05).Participants: Forty-three thousand nine hundred ninety pairs of patients (one from a major teaching hospital and one from a non-teaching hospital) admitted for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), 84,985 pairs admitted for heart failure (HF), and 74,947 pairs admitted for pneumonia (PNA).Exposure: Treatment at major teaching hospitals versus non-teaching hospitals.Main Measures: Thirty-day all-cause mortality, readmissions, ICU utilization, costs, payments, and value expressed as extra cost for a 1% improvement in survival.Key Results: Thirty-day mortality was lower in teaching than non-teaching hospitals (10.7% versus 12.0%, difference = - 1.3%, P < 0.0001). The paired cost difference (teaching - non-teaching) was $273 (P < 0.0001), yielding $211 per 1% mortality improvement. For the quintile of pairs with highest risk on admission, mortality differences were larger (24.6% versus 27.6%, difference = - 3.0%, P < 0.0001), and paired cost difference = $1289 (P < 0.0001), yielding $427 per 1% mortality improvement at 30 days. Readmissions and ICU utilization were lower in teaching hospitals (both P < 0.0001), but length of stay was longer (5.5 versus 5.1 days, P < 0.0001). Finally, individual results for AMI, HF, and PNA showed similar findings as in the combined results.Conclusions and Relevance: Among Medicare patients admitted for common medical conditions, as admission risk of mortality increased, the absolute mortality benefit of treatment at teaching hospitals also increased, though accompanied by marginally higher cost. Major teaching hospitals appear to return good value for the extra resources used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of bundled payments is growing because of their potential to align providers and hospitals on the goal of cost reduction. However, such gain sharing could incentivize providers to "cherry-pick" more profitable patients. Risk adjustment can prevent this unintended consequence, yet most bundling programs include minimal adjustment techniques. This study was conducted to determine how bundled payments for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) should be adjusted for risk. The authors collected financial data for all Medicare patients (age≥65 years) undergoing primary unilateral TKA at an academic center over a period of 2 years (n=941). Multivariate regression was performed to assess the effect of patient factors on the costs of acute inpatient care, including unplanned 30-day readmissions. This analysis mirrors a bundling model used in the Medicare Bundled Payments for Care Improvement initiative. Increased age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, and the presence of a Medicare Major Complications/Comorbid Conditions (MCC) modifier (typically representing major complications) were associated with increased costs (regression coefficients, $57 per year; $729 per ASA class beyond I; and $3122 for patients meeting MCC criteria; P=.003, P=.001, and P<.001, respectively). Differences in costs were not associated with body mass index, sex, or race. If the results are generalizable, Medicare bundled payments for TKA encompassing acute inpatient care should be adjusted upward by the stated amounts for older patients, those with elevated ASA class, and patients meeting MCC criteria. This is likely an underestimate for many bundling models, including the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement program, incorporating varying degrees of postacute care. Failure to adjust for factors that affect costs may create adverse incentives, creating barriers to care for certain patient populations. [Orthopedics. 2016; 39(5):e911-e916.]. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVES: To examine the independent association between heart rate variability (HRV), a marker of cardiac autonomic function, and cognitive impairment. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from Women's Health and Aging Study I. SETTING: Urban community in Baltimore, Maryland. PARTICIPANTS: A subset of 311 physically disabled, community-dwelling women aged 65 and older whose HRV data were obtained. MEASUREMENTS: Reduced HRV was defined as the lowest quartile of each of several HRV measures exploring time and frequency domains and compared with the remaining three quartiles. Cognitive impairment was defined as a Mini-Mental State Examination score less than 24. Multiple logistic regression was used to model the independent relationship between reduced HRV and prevalent cognitive impairment. RESULTS: The age-, education-, and race-adjusted prevalence of cognitive impairment was higher in those with reduced HRV than in those with nonreduced HRV. After adjusting for relevant demographic and clinical characteristics, participants with reduced HRV were significantly more likely than those with nonreduced HRV to have cognitive impairment; these findings were consistent across different HRV indices. In particular, reduced high-frequency power, indicative of decreased parasympathetic activity, was associated with 6.7 times greater odds of cognitive impairment (95% confidence interval=2.27–20.0). CONCLUSION: Cardiac autonomic dysfunction, particularly decreased parasympathetic activity, was independently associated with cognitive impairment in older disabled women in the community. This finding may improve understanding of the pathophysiological basis of cognitive impairment. The potential role of HRV as a cause or consequence of cognitive impairment needs to be elucidated in future studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article focuses on atrial fibrillation which is one of the most frequent complications of cardiac surgery, affecting more than one third of patients. Nearly 800,000 cardiac surgical procedures are performed annually in the United States. Despite the continued trends for patients undergoing these procedures to be of higher-risk and older than in the past, operative mortality remains low and has declined in some series on a risk-adjusted basis. In this setting, there is increasing attention being paid to perioperative complications as an important source of patient morbidity and health-care resource utilization.

The authors reflect on the process of increasing the value of social comparisons of physician performance in America using norms, and it mentions the influence that social comparisons can have on physician behavior, as well as evidence which suggests that comparisons can sometimes create patient harm. Efforts to improve the U.S. health care system are examined, along with physician-patient relations, antibiotic prescriptions, and compensation for doctors in America.

The author discusses a study published within the issue about the utilization of anesthesia services (AS) during outpatient endoscopies and colonoscopies and associated costs in the U.S. during the years of 2003-2009. The author explains the researchers' use of insurance claims and Medicare claims during the period to determine the utilization of anesthesia services (AS) and total spending among low-risk patients.

The article presents the author's perspectives on a study, published within the issue, which provides insights into postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) in general surgical patients. The data of the study were from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) in the U.S. He remarks that the consistent 30-day follow-up of ACS-NSQIP demonstrated in the study underpins its value as quality improvement tool and as basis for research.

Perioperative stroke is a potentially devastating complication in patients undergoing noncardiac, nonneurological surgery. This scientific statement summarizes established risk factors for perioperative stroke, preoperative and intraoperative strategies to mitigate the risk of stroke, suggestions for postoperative assessments, and treatment approaches for minimizing permanent neurological dysfunction in patients who experience a perioperative stroke. The first section focuses on preoperative optimization, including the role of preoperative carotid revascularization in patients with high-grade carotid stenosis and delaying surgery in patients with recent strokes. The second section reviews intraoperative strategies to reduce the risk of stroke, focusing on blood pressure control, perioperative goal-directed therapy, blood transfusion, and anesthetic technique. Finally, this statement presents strategies for the evaluation and treatment of patients with suspected postoperative strokes and, in particular, highlights the value of rapid recognition of strokes and the early use of intravenous thrombolysis and mechanical embolectomy in appropriate patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Cardiac surgery ICU characteristics and clinician staffing patterns have not been well characterized. We sought to describe Pennsylvania cardiac ICUs and to determine whether ICU characteristics are associated with mortality in the 30 days after cardiac surgery.Design: From 2012 to 2013, we conducted a survey of cardiac surgery ICUs in Pennsylvania to assess ICU structure, care practices, and clinician staffing patterns. ICU data were linked to an administrative database of cardiac surgery patient discharges. We used logistic regression to measure the association between ICU variables and death in 30 days.Setting: Cardiac surgery ICUs in Pennsylvania.Patients: Patients having coronary artery bypass grafting and/or cardiac valve repair or replacement from 2009 to 2011.Interventions: None.Measurements and Main Results: Of the 57 cardiac surgical ICUs in Pennsylvania, 43 (75.4%) responded to the facility survey. Rounds included respiratory therapists in 26 of 43 (60.5%) and pharmacists in 23 of 43 (53.5%). Eleven of 41 (26.8%) reported that at least 2/3 of their nurses had a bachelor's degree in nursing. Advanced practice providers were present in most of the ICUs (37/43; 86.0%) but residents (8/42; 18.6%) and fellows (7/43; 16.3%) were not. Daytime intensivists were present in 21 of 43 (48.8%) responding ICUs; eight of 43 (18.6%) had nighttime intensivists. Among 29,449 patients, there was no relationship between mortality and nurse ICU experience, presence of any intensivist, or absence of residents after risk adjustment. To exclude patients who may have undergone transcatheter aortic valve replacement, we conducted a subgroup analysis of patients undergoing only coronary artery bypass grafting, and results were similar.Conclusions: Pennsylvania cardiac surgery ICUs have variable structures, care practices, and clinician staffing, although none of these are statistically significantly associated with mortality in the 30 days following surgery after adjustment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Using Pennsylvania Medicare claims from 1995 to 1996, the authors previously reported that anesthesia procedure length appears longer in blacks than whites. In a new study using a different and larger data set, the authors now examine whether body mass index (BMI), not available in Medicare claims, explains this difference. The authors also examine the relative contributions of surgical and anesthesia times.Methods: The Obesity and Surgical Outcomes Study of 47 hospitals throughout Illinois, New York, and Texas abstracted chart information including BMI on elder Medicare patients (779 blacks and 14,596 whites) undergoing hip and knee replacement and repair, colectomy, and thoracotomy between 2002 and 2006. The authors matched all black Medicare patients to comparable whites and compared procedure lengths.Results: Mean BMI in the black and white populations was 30.24 and 28.96 kg/m, respectively (P<0.0001). After matching on age, sex, procedure, comorbidities, hospital, and BMI, mean white BMI in the comparison group was 30.1 kg/m (P=0.94). The typical matched pair difference (black-white) in anesthesia (induction to recovery room) procedure time was 7.0 min (P=0.0019), of which 6 min reflected the surgical (cut-to-close) time difference (P=0.0032). Within matched pairs, where the difference in procedure times was greater than 30 min between patients, blacks more commonly had longer procedure times (Odds=1.39; P=0.0008).Conclusions: Controlling for patient characteristics, BMI, and hospital, elder black Medicare patients experienced slightly but significantly longer procedure length than their closely matched white controls. Procedure length difference was almost completely due to surgery, not anesthesia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Study Objective: To assess the interest in and barriers to pursuing global health outreach (GHO) experiences for anesthesiology residents in the United States. Design: Survey instrument. Setting: Academic department of anesthesiology. Subjects: Anesthesiology residents who were members of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA). Measurements: An online survey was administered to residents in anesthesiology via the ASA membership database. Descriptive statistics, including means, frequencies, and percentages were calculated. Main Results: 91% of participants indicated an interest in GHO, of whom fewer than half (44%) had done a GHO medical mission. Seventy-nine percent reported that GHO affected their current practice or education; 33% commented they were now less wasteful with supplies and resources. Permission from work or obtaining work coverage were the primary barriers for both those with and without previous GHO participation. Of all respondents, 78% agreed that the availability of a GHO residency track would influence their ranking of that program for training, and 71% would pursue a GHO fellowship if available. Conclusions: Anesthesiology residents have an interest in residency and fellowship GHO programs. Formalization of GHO programs during training may reduce work-related barriers associated with GHO participation and broaden academic program recruitment. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The article discusses the changes integrated in the existing scheme of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines. Topics discussed include the Class of Recommendation (COR) and Level of Evidence (LOE) guidelines, and the implementation of the changes in the guidelines.

Importance: The US leads the world in bringing new medical products to market, but the ability to generate evidence to inform clinical practice in postmarket settings needs improvement. Although a diverse group of stakeholders is working to improve postmarket evidence generation, the role of private payers has been underappreciated., Observations: Payers are crucial allies in improving evidence generation because better data would better inform coverage decisions, their policies and practices influence the conduct of care and research, and their claims data are a source of real-world evidence used in medical product evaluation. In addition, payers have a stake in improving evidence generation because the kinds of evidence needed to inform health care and coverage decisions are often not available when a product enters the market and may not be generated without their involvement. Here, we describe several key steps payers could take to improve evidence generation, including participating in efforts to reduce administrative and financial barriers to the conduct of clinical trials, directly incentivizing evidence generation on high-priority questions by funding potential cost-saving trials, increasing engagement with the medical products industry on evidentiary needs for coverage decisions, and improving usability of claims data by reducing data lags and routinely recording unique device identifiers. Broad payer engagement with US Food and Drug Administration recommendations regarding evidence generation will ensure that the opportunities to participate in clinical research are extended to all communities and that evidence needed to inform care is generated in trials and surveillance systems that reflect the clinical reality across the US., Conclusions and Relevance: Increasing payer involvement in evidence generation can benefit all participants in the medical innovation ecosystem. The importance of payers in these efforts will continue to grow in response to imperatives to increase integration of care and research, engage a diverse set of communities in clinical research, and move toward alternative payment models.

Importance: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Overall Star Rating is widely used by patients and consumers, and there is continued stakeholder curiosity surrounding the inclusion of a peer grouping step, implemented to the 2021 Overall Star Rating methods., Objective: To calculate hospital star rating scores with and without the peer grouping step, with the former approach stratifying hospitals into 3-, 4-, and 5-measure group peer groups based on the number of measure groups with at least 3 reported measures., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used Care Compare website data from January 2023 for 3076 hospitals that received a star rating in 2023. Data were analyzed from April 2023 to December 2023., Exposure: Peer grouping vs no peer grouping., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the distribution of star ratings, with 1 star being the lowest-performing hospitals and 5 stars, the highest. Analyses additionally identified the number of hospitals with a higher, lower, or identical star rating with the use of the peer grouping step compared with its nonuse, stratified by certain hospital characteristics., Results: Among 3076 hospitals that received a star rating in 2023, most were nonspecialty (1994 hospitals [64.8%]), nonteaching (1807 hospitals [58.7%]), non-safety net (2326 hospitals [75.6%]), non-critical access (2826 hospitals [91.9%]) hospitals with fewer than 200 beds (1822 hospitals [59.2%]) and located in an urban geographic designations (1935 hospitals [62.9%]). The presence of the peer grouping step resulted in 585 hospitals (19.0%) being assigned a different star rating than if the peer grouping step was absent, including considerably more hospitals receiving a higher star rating (517 hospitals) rather than a lower (68 hospitals) star rating. Hospital characteristics associated with a higher star rating included urbanicity (351 hospitals [67.9%]), non-safety net status (414 hospitals [80.1%]), and fewer than 200 beds (287 hospitals [55.6%]). Collectively, the presence of the peer grouping step supports a like-to-like comparison among hospitals and supports the ability of patients to assess overall hospital quality., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, inclusion of the peer grouping in the CMS star rating method resulted in modest changes in hospital star ratings compared with application of the method without peer grouping. Given improvement in face validity and the close association between the current peer grouping approach and stakeholder needs for peer-comparison, the current CMS Overall Star Rating method allows for durable comparisons in hospital performance.

Background: We define a "flagship hospital" as the largest academic hospital within a hospital referral region and a "flagship system" as a system that contains a flagship hospital and its affiliates. It is not known if patients admitted to an affiliate hospital, and not to its main flagship hospital, have better outcomes than those admitted to a hospital outside the flagship system but within the same hospital referral region., Objective: To compare mortality at flagship hospitals and their affiliates to matched control patients not in the flagship system but within the same hospital referral region., Design: A matched cohort study PARTICIPANTS: The study used hospitalizations for common medical conditions between 2018-2019 among older patients age ≥ 66 years. We analyzed 118,321 matched pairs of Medicare patients admitted with pneumonia (N=57,775), heart failure (N=42,531), or acute myocardial infarction (N=18,015) in 35 flagship hospitals, 124 affiliates, and 793 control hospitals., Main Measures: 30-day (primary) and 90-day (secondary) all-cause mortality., Key Results: 30-day mortality was lower among patients in flagship systems versus control hospitals that are not part of the flagship system but within the same hospital referral region (difference= -0.62%, 95% CI [-0.88%, -0.37%], P<0.001). This difference was smaller in affiliates versus controls (-0.43%, [-0.75%, -0.11%], P=0.008) than in flagship hospitals versus controls (-1.02%, [-1.46%, -0.58%], P<0.001; difference-in-difference -0.59%, [-1.13%, -0.05%], P=0.033). Similar results were found for 90-day mortality., Limitations: The study used claims-based data., Conclusions: In aggregate, within a hospital referral region, patients treated at the flagship hospital, at affiliates of the flagship hospital, and in the flagship system as a whole, all had lower mortality rates than matched controls outside the flagship system. However, the mortality advantage was larger for flagship hospitals than for their affiliates., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Society of General Internal Medicine.)

Objective: To compare general surgery outcomes at flagship systems, flagship hospitals, and flagship hospital affiliates versus matched controls., Summary Background Data: It is unknown whether flagship hospitals perform better than flagship hospital affiliates for surgical patients., Methods: Using Medicare claims for 2018 to 2019, we matched patients undergoing inpatient general surgery in flagship system hospitals to controls who underwent the same procedure at hospitals outside the system but within the same region. We defined a "flagship hospital" within each region as the major teaching hospital with the highest patient volume that is also part of a hospital system; its system was labeled a "flagship system." We performed 4 main comparisons: patients treated at any flagship system hospital versus hospitals outside the flagship system; flagship hospitals versus hospitals outside the flagship system; flagship hospital affiliates versus hospitals outside the flagship system; and flagship hospitals versus affiliate hospitals. Our primary outcome was 30-day mortality., Results: We formed 32,228 closely matched pairs across 35 regions. Patients at flagship system hospitals (32,228 pairs) had lower 30-day mortality than matched control patients [3.79% vs. 4.36%, difference=-0.57% (-0.86%, -0.28%), P<0.001]. Similarly, patients at flagship hospitals (15,571/32,228 pairs) had lower mortality than control patients. However, patients at flagship hospital affiliates (16,657/32,228 pairs) had similar mortality to matched controls. Flagship hospitals had lower mortality than affiliate hospitals [difference-in-differences=-1.05% (-1.62%, -0.47%), P<0.001]., Conclusions: Patients treated at flagship hospitals had significantly lower mortality rates than those treated at flagship hospital affiliates. Hence, flagship system affiliation does not alone imply better surgical outcomes., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: In surgical patients, it is well known that higher hospital procedure volume is associated with better outcomes. To our knowledge, this volume-outcome association has not been studied in ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) in the US., Objective: To determine if low-volume ASCs have a higher rate of revisits after surgery, particularly among patients with multimorbidity., Design, Setting, and Participants: This matched case-control study used Medicare claims data and analyzed surgeries performed during 2018 and 2019 at ASCs. The study examined 2328 ASCs performing common ambulatory procedures and analyzed 4751 patients with a revisit within 7 days of surgery (defined to be either 1 of 4735 revisits or 1 of 16 deaths without a revisit). These cases were each closely matched to 5 control patients without revisits (23 755 controls). Data were analyzed from January 1, 2018, through December 31, 2019., Main Outcomes and Measures: Seven-day revisit in patients (cases) compared with the matched patients without the outcome (controls) in ASCs with low volume (less than 50 procedures over 2 years) vs higher volume (50 or more procedures)., Results: Patients at a low-volume ASC had a higher odds of a 7-day revisit vs patients who had their surgery at a higher-volume ASC (odds ratio [OR], 1.21; 95% CI, 1.09-1.36; P = .001). The odds of revisit for patients with multimorbidity were higher at low-volume ASCs when compared with higher-volume ASCs (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.27-1.94; P < .001). Among patients with multimorbidity in low-volume ASCs, for those who underwent orthopedic procedures, the odds of revisit were 84% higher (OR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.36-2.50; P < .001) vs higher-volume centers, and for those who underwent general surgery or other procedures, the odds of revisit were 36% higher (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.01-1.83; P = .05) vs a higher-volume center. The findings were not statistically significant for patients without multimorbidity., Conclusions and Relevance: In this observational study, the surgical volume of an ASC was an important indicator of patient outcomes. Older patients with multimorbidity should discuss with their surgeon the optimal location of their care.

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<0.0001; 30 days -0.38, p<0.0001). Correlations with in-hospital RSMRs were strongest for patient experience (-0.39, p<0.0001) and timely and effective care (-0.30, p<0.0001) group scores; 30-day RSMRs were strongest for patient experience (-0.34, p<0.0001) and mortality (-0.33, p<0.0001) groups. Patients admitted to 1-star hospitals had higher odds of mortality (in-hospital OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.83 to 1.91; 30-day OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.43 to 1.48) compared with 5-star hospitals. If all hospitals performed like an average 5-star hospital, we estimate 38 000 fewer COVID-19-related deaths would have occurred between April 2020 and September 2021., Conclusions: Hospitals with better prepandemic quality may have care structures and processes that allowed for better care delivery and outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding the relationship between pre-COVID-19 hospital quality and COVID-19 outcomes will allow policy-makers and hospitals better prepare for future public health emergencies., Competing Interests: Competing interests: S-XL, YW, JZ, JG, KM, EN, ZL, AV, LS and EWT receive salary support from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to develop, implement and maintain hospital performance outcome measures, including the methodology for the Overall Hospital Star Ratings, that are publicly reported. SB and MS are employed by CMS. LAF is employed by the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. DP is a subcontractor to Yale/CORE., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

The limited number and diversity of resident physicians pursuing careers as physician-scientists in medicine has been a concern for many decades. The Anesthesia Research Council aimed to address the status of the anesthesiology physician-scientist pipeline, benchmarked against other medical specialties, and to develop strategic recommendations to sustain and expand the number and diversity of anesthesiology physician-scientists. The working group analyzed data from the Association of American Medical Colleges and the National Resident Matching Program to characterize the diversity and number of research-oriented residents from US and international allopathic medical schools entering 11 medical specialties from 2009 to 2019. Two surveys were developed to assess the research culture of anesthesiology departments. National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding information awarded to anesthesiology physician-scientists and departments was collected from NIH RePORTER and the Blue Ridge Medical Institute. Anesthesiology ranked eighth to tenth place of 11 medical specialties in the percent of "research-oriented" entering residents, defined as those with advanced degrees (Master's or PhDs) in addition to the MD degree or having published at least 3 research publications before residency. Anesthesiology ranked eighth of 11 specialties in the percent of entering residents who were women but ranked fourth of 11 specialties in the percent of entering residents who self-identified as belonging to an underrepresented group in medicine. There has been a 72% increase in both the total NIH funding awarded to anesthesiology departments and the number of NIH K-series mentored training grants (eg, K08 and K23) awarded to anesthesiology physician-scientists between 2015 and 2020. Recommendations for expanding the size and diversity of the anesthesiology physician-scientist pipeline included (1) developing strategies to increase the number of research intensive anesthesiology departments; (2) unifying the diverse programs among academic anesthesiology foundations and societies that seek to grow research in the specialty; (3) adjusting American Society of Anesthesiologists metrics of success to include the number of anesthesiology physician-scientists with extramural research support; (4) increasing the number of mentored awards from Foundation of Anesthesia Education and Research (FAER) and International Anesthesia Research Society (IARS); (5) supporting an organized and concerted effort to inform research-oriented medical students of the diverse research opportunities within anesthesiology should include the specialty being represented at the annual meetings of Medical Scientist Training Program (MSTP) students and the American Physician Scientist Association, as well as in institutional MSTP programs. The medical specialty of anesthesiology is defined by new discoveries and contributions to perioperative medicine which will only be sustained by a robust pipeline of anesthesiology physician-scientists., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 International Anesthesia Research Society.)

Background: The term "multimorbidity" identifies high-risk, complex patients and is conventionally defined as ≥2 comorbidities. However, this labels almost all older patients as multimorbid, making this definition less useful for physicians, hospitals, and policymakers., Objective: Develop new medical condition-specific multimorbidity definitions for patients admitted with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure (HF), and pneumonia patients. We developed three medical condition-specific multimorbidity definitions as the presence of single, double, or triple combinations of comorbidities - called Qualifying Comorbidity Sets (QCSs) - associated with at least doubling the risk of 30-day mortality for AMI and pneumonia, or one-and-a-half times for HF patients, compared to typical patients with these conditions., Design: Cohort-based matching study PARTICIPANTS: One hundred percent Medicare Fee-for-Service beneficiaries with inpatient admissions between 2016 and 2019 for AMI, HF, and pneumonia., Main Measures: Thirty-day all-location mortality KEY RESULTS: We defined multimorbidity as the presence of ≥1 QCS. The new definitions labeled fewer patients as multimorbid with a much higher risk of death compared to the conventional definition (≥2 comorbidities). The proportions of patients labeled as multimorbid using the new definition versus the conventional definition were: for AMI 47% versus 87% (p value<0.0001), HF 53% versus 98% (p value<0.0001), and pneumonia 57% versus 91% (p value<0.0001). Thirty-day mortality was higher among patients with ≥1 QCS compared to ≥2 comorbidities: for AMI 15.0% versus 9.5% (p<0.0001), HF 9.9% versus 7.0% (p <0.0001), and pneumonia 18.4% versus 13.2% (p <0.0001)., Conclusion: The presence of ≥2 comorbidities identified almost all patients as multimorbid. In contrast, our new QCS-based definitions selected more specific combinations of comorbidities associated with substantial excess risk in older patients admitted for AMI, HF, and pneumonia. Thus, our new definitions offer a better approach to identifying multimorbid patients, allowing physicians, hospitals, and policymakers to more effectively use such information to consider focused interventions for these vulnerable patients., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Society of General Internal Medicine.)

Background: Multimorbidity in surgery is common and associated with worse postoperative outcomes. However, conventional multimorbidity definitions (≥2 comorbidities) label the vast majority of older patients as multimorbid, limiting clinical usefulness. We sought to develop and validate better surgical specialty-specific multimorbidity definitions based on distinct comorbidity combinations., Study Design: We used Medicare claims for patients aged 66 to 90 years undergoing inpatient general, orthopaedic, or vascular surgery. Using 2016 to 2017 data, we identified all comorbidity combinations associated with at least 2-fold (general/orthopaedic) or 1.5-fold (vascular) greater risk of 30-day mortality compared with the overall population undergoing the same procedure; we called these combinations qualifying comorbidity sets. We applied them to 2018 to 2019 data (general = 230,410 patients, orthopaedic = 778,131 patients, vascular = 146,570 patients) to obtain 30-day mortality estimates. For further validation, we tested whether multimorbidity status was associated with differential outcomes for patients at better-resourced (based on nursing skill-mix, surgical volume, teaching status) hospitals vs all other hospitals using multivariate matching., Results: Compared with conventional multimorbidity definitions, the new definitions labeled far fewer patients as multimorbid: general = 85.0% (conventional) vs 55.9% (new) (p < 0.0001); orthopaedic = 66.6% vs 40.2% (p < 0.0001); and vascular = 96.2% vs 52.7% (p < 0.0001). Thirty-day mortality was higher by the new definitions: general = 3.96% (conventional) vs 5.64% (new) (p < 0.0001); orthopaedic = 0.13% vs 1.68% (p < 0.0001); and vascular = 4.43% vs 7.00% (p < 0.0001). Better-resourced hospitals offered significantly larger mortality benefits than all other hospitals for multimorbid vs nonmultimorbid general and orthopaedic, but not vascular, patients (general surgery difference-in-difference = -0.94% [-1.36%, -0.52%], p < 0.0001; orthopaedic = -0.20% [-0.34%, -0.05%], p = 0.0087; and vascular = -0.12% [-0.69%, 0.45%], p = 0.6795)., Conclusions: Our new multimorbidity definitions identified far more specific, higher-risk pools of patients than conventional definitions, potentially aiding clinical decision-making., (Copyright © 2023 by the American College of Surgeons. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Surgery for older Americans is increasingly being performed at ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) rather than hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs), while rates of multimorbidity have increased., Objective: To determine whether there are differential outcomes in older patients undergoing surgical procedures at ASCs versus HOPDs., Research Design: Matched cohort study., Subjects: Of Medicare patients, 30,958 were treated in 2018 and 2019 at an ASC undergoing herniorrhaphy, cholecystectomy, or open breast procedures, matched to similar HOPD patients, and another 32,702 matched pairs undergoing higher-risk procedures., Measures: Seven and 30-day revisit and complication rates., Results: For the same procedures, HOPD patients displayed a higher baseline predicted risk of 30-day revisits than ASC patients (13.09% vs 8.47%, P < 0.0001), suggesting the presence of considerable selection on the part of surgeons. In matched Medicare patients with or without multimorbidity, we observed worse outcomes in HOPD patients: 30-day revisit rates were 8.1% in HOPD patients versus 6.2% in ASC patients ( P < 0.0001), and complication rates were 41.3% versus 28.8%, P < 0.0001. Similar patterns were also found for 7-day outcomes and in higher-risk procedures examined in a secondary analysis. Similar patterns were also observed when analyzing patients with and without multimorbidity separately., Conclusions: The rates of revisits and complications for ASC patients were far lower than for closely matched HOPD patients. The observed initial baseline risk in HOPD patients was much higher than the baseline risk for the same procedures performed at the ASC, suggesting that surgeons are appropriately selecting their riskier patients to be treated at the HOPD rather than the ASC., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has been reporting hospital star ratings since 2016. Some stakeholders have criticized the star ratings methodology for not adjusting for social risk factors. We examined the relationship between 2021 star rating scores and hospitals' proportion of Medicare patients dually eligible for Medicaid. We found that, on average, hospitals caring for a greater proportion of dually eligible patients had lower star ratings, but there was significant overlap in performance among hospitals when we stratified them by quintile of dually eligible patients. Hospitals in the highest quintile (those with the greatest proportion of dually eligible patients) had the best mean mortality scores (0.28) but the worst readmission (-0.44) and patient experience (-0.78) scores. We assigned star ratings after stratifying the readmission measure group by proportion of dually eligible patients and found that a total of 142 hospitals gained a star and 161 hospitals lost a star, of which 126 (89 percent) and 1 (<1 percent) were in the highest quintile, respectively. Adjusting public reporting tools such as star ratings for social risk factors is ultimately a policy decision, and views on the appropriateness of accounting for factors such as proportion of dually eligible patients are mixed, depending on the organization and stakeholder.

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine whether surgery and anesthesia in the elderly may promote Alzheimer disease and related dementias (ADRD)., Background: There is a substantial conflicting literature concerning the hypothesis that surgery and anesthesia promotes ADRD. Much of the literature is confounded by indications for surgery or has small sample size. This study examines elderly patients with appendicitis, a common condition that strikes mostly at random after controlling for some known associations., Methods: A matched natural experiment of patients undergoing appendectomy for appendicitis versus control patients without appendicitis using Medicare data from 2002 to 2017, examining 54,996 patients without previous diagnoses of ADRD, cognitive impairment, or neurological degeneration, who developed appendicitis between ages 68 through 77 years and underwent an appendectomy (the ''Appendectomy'' treated group), matching them 5:1 to 274,980 controls, examining the subsequent hazard for developing ADRD., Results: The hazard ratio (HR) for developing ADRD or death was lower in the Appendectomy group than controls: HR = 0.96 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94-0.98], P < 0.0001, (28.2% in Appendectomy vs 29.1% in controls, at 7.5 years). The HR for death was 0.97 (95% CI 0.95-0.99), P = 0.002, (22.7% vs 23.1% at 7.5 years). The HR for developing ADRD alone was 0.89 (95% CI 0.86-0.92), P < 0.0001, (7.6% in Appendectomy vs 8.6% in controls, at 7.5 years). No subgroup analyses found significantly elevated rates of ADRD in the Appendectomy group., Conclusion: In this natural experiment involving 329,976 elderly patients, exposure to appendectomy surgery and anesthesia did not increase the subsequent rate of ADRD., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest ., (Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Hip fracture often represents a major transition in patients' health, with a 1-year mortality rate between 25% and 30% and a challenging recovery course. Caring for hip fracture patients presents opportunities for goals of care discussions that include prognostic information and guidance about functional dependence., Methods: We conducted qualitative, semi-structured interviews with 23 attending physicians involved with the care of hip fracture patients, including orthopedic surgeons, anesthesiologists, internists, and geriatricians, across 13 health systems in the United States and Canada. Questions addressed knowledge and interpretation of prognosis, discussing prognosis and goals of care, and timing and prioritization of surgery. Interviews were analyzed using a constructivist grounded theory approach to identify themes and develop a coding taxonomy., Results: Physicians agreed that hip fracture had a considerable 1-year mortality, felt that it was important to discuss prognostic outcomes and the recovery process, wanted to elucidate patients' priorities, and often promoted timely surgery. Physicians perceived challenges when discussing mortality data with new patients in an acute setting. They more easily discussed outcomes related to functional dependence and quality of life. Some physicians used iterative communication as a strategy to have in-depth conversations in a busy perioperative setting., Conclusion: Providing timely, compassionate care for hip fracture patients is challenging. There are opportunities to study iterative communication to encourage dialogue at key points of patient care to better discuss prognosis and recovery and bolster coordinated multidisciplinary care that focuses on patients' goals and values., (© 2022 The American Geriatrics Society.)

Abstract: In this commentary, we provide an overview about the surge of telemedicine services during the COVID-19 pandemic, describe the cancer care continuum and existing evidence regarding the use of telemedicine across the continuum, and offer our perspective on existing opportunities to advance the use of telemedicine in clinical care, research, and policy. While research implications are relevant to an international audience, our focus pertains specifically to health care delivery and policy in the United States., (Copyright © 2022 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To evaluate if facility-level vaccination after an initial vaccination clinic was independently associated with COVID-19 incidence adjusted for other factors in January 2021 among nursing home residents., Design: Ecological analysis of data from the CDC's National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) and from the CDC's Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program., Setting and Participants: CMS-certified nursing homes participating in both NHSN and the Pharmacy Partnership for Long-Term Care Program., Methods: A multivariable, random intercepts, negative binomial model was applied to contrast COVID-19 incidence rates among residents living in facilities with an initial vaccination clinic during the week ending January 3, 2021 (n = 2843), vs those living in facilities with no vaccination clinic reported up to and including the week ending January 10, 2021 (n = 3216). Model covariates included bed size, resident SARS-CoV-2 testing, staff with COVID-19, cumulative COVID-19 among residents, residents admitted with COVID-19, community county incidence, and county social vulnerability index (SVI)., Results: In December 2020 and January 2021, incidence of COVID-19 among nursing home residents declined to the lowest point since reporting began in May, diverged from the pattern in community cases, and began dropping before vaccination occurred. Comparing week 3 following an initial vaccination clinic vs week 2, the adjusted reduction in COVID-19 rate in vaccinated facilities was 27% greater than the reduction in facilities where vaccination clinics had not yet occurred (95% confidence interval: 14%-38%, P < .05)., Conclusions and Implications: Vaccination of residents contributed to the decline in COVID-19 incidence in nursing homes; however, other factors also contributed. The decline in COVID-19 was evident prior to widespread vaccination, highlighting the benefit of a multifaced approach to prevention including continued use of recommended screening, testing, and infection prevention practices as well as vaccination to keep residents in nursing homes safe., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has severely affected nursing home residents. Given the continued high incidence of COVID-19, and the likelihood that new variants and other infectious agents may cause future outbreaks, we sought to understand the relationship of nursing home quality ratings and measures of COVID-19 outbreak severity and persistence., Design: We analyzed nursing home facility-level data on COVID-19 cases and deaths, county-level COVID-19 rates, and nursing home data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), including ratings from the CMS Nursing Home Five-Star Quality Rating System. We used regression analysis to examine the association between star ratings and cumulative COVID-19 incidence and mortality as well as persistent high resident incidence., Setting: All nursing homes in the CMS COVID-19 Nursing Home Dataset reporting data that passed quality assurance checks for at least 20 weeks and that were included in the January 2021 Nursing Home Care Compare update., Participants: Residents of the included nursing homes., Measurements: Cumulative resident COVID-19 incidence and mortality through January 10, 2021; number of weeks with weekly resident incidence of COVID-19 in the top decile nationally., Results: As of January 10, 2021, nearly all nursing homes (93.6%) had reported at least one case of COVID-19 among their residents, more than three-quarters (76.9%) had reported at least one resident death, and most (83.5%) had experienced at least 1 week in the top decile of weekly incidence. In analyses adjusted for facility and county-level characteristics, we found generally consistent relationships between higher nursing home quality ratings and lower COVID-19 incidence and mortality, as well as with fewer high-incidence weeks., Conclusion: Nursing home quality ratings are associated with COVID-19 incidence, mortality, and persistence. Nursing homes receiving five-star ratings, for overall quality as well as for each domain, had lower COVID-19 rates among their residents., (© 2021 The American Geriatrics Society.)

Background: Calls to better involve patients in decisions about anesthesia-e.g., through shared decision-making-are intensifying. However, several features of anesthesia consultation make it unclear how patients should participate in decisions. Evaluating the feasibility and desirability of carrying out shared decision-making in anesthesia requires better understanding of preoperative conversations. The objective of this qualitative study was to characterize how preoperative consultations for primary knee arthroplasty arrived at decisions about primary anesthesia., Methods: This focused ethnography was performed at a U.S. academic medical center. The authors audio-recorded consultations of 36 primary knee arthroplasty patients with eight anesthesiologists. Patients and anesthesiologists also participated in semi-structured interviews. Consultation and interview transcripts were coded in an iterative process to develop an explanation of how anesthesiologists and patients made decisions about primary anesthesia., Results: The authors found variation across accounts of anesthesiologists and patients as to whether the consultation was a collaborative decision-making scenario or simply meant to inform patients. Consultations displayed a number of decision-making patterns, from the anesthesiologist not disclosing options to the anesthesiologist strictly adhering to a position of equipoise; however, most consultations fell between these poles, with the anesthesiologist presenting options, recommending one, and persuading hesitant patients to accept it. Anesthesiologists made patients feel more comfortable with their proposed approach through extensive comparisons to more familiar experiences., Conclusions: Anesthesia consultations are multifaceted encounters that serve several functions. In some cases, the involvement of patients in determining the anesthetic approach might not be the most important of these functions. Broad consideration should be given to both the applicability and feasibility of shared decision-making in anesthesia consultation. The potential benefits of interventions designed to enhance patient involvement in decision-making should be weighed against their potential to pull anesthesiologists' attention away from important humanistic aspects of communication such as decreasing patients' anxiety., (Copyright © 2021, the American Society of Anesthesiologists. All Rights Reserved.)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in large-scale healthcare restrictions to control viral spread, reducing operating room censuses to include only medically necessary surgeries. The impact of restrictions on which patients undergo surgical procedures and their perioperative outcomes is less understood., Methods: Adult patients who underwent medically necessary surgical procedures at our institution during a restricted operative period due to the COVID-19 pandemic (March 23-April 24, 2020) were compared to patients undergoing procedures during a similar time period in the pre-COVID-19 era (March 25-April 26, 2019). Cardinal matching and differences in means were utilized to analyze perioperative outcomes., Results: 857 patients had surgery in 2019 (pre-COVID-19) and 212 patients had surgery in 2020 (COVID-19). The COVID-19 era cohort had a higher proportion of patients who were male (61.3% vs. 44.5%, P < 0.0001), were White (83.5% vs. 68.7%, P < 0.001), had private insurance (62.7% vs. 54.3%, p 0.05), were ASA classification 4 (10.9% vs. 3%, P < 0.0001), and underwent oncologic procedures (69.3% vs. 42.7%, P < 0.0001). Following 1:1 cardinal matching, COVID-19 era patients (N = 157) had a decreased likelihood of discharge to a nursing facility (risk difference-8.3, P < 0.0001) and shorter median length of stay (risk difference-0.6, p 0.04) compared to pre-COVID-19 era patients. There was no difference between the two patient cohorts in overall morbidity and 30-day readmission., Conclusions: COVID-19 restrictions on surgical operations were associated with a change in the racial and insurance demographics in patients undergoing medically necessary surgical procedures but were not associated with worse postoperative morbidity. Further study is necessary to better identify the causes for patient demographic differences.

During the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, nursing homes were identified as congregate settings at high risk for outbreaks of COVID-19 (1,2). Their residents also are at higher risk than the general population for morbidity and mortality associated with infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, in light of the association of severe outcomes with older age and certain underlying medical conditions (1,3). CDC's National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) launched nationwide, facility-level COVID-19 nursing home surveillance on April 26, 2020. A federal mandate issued by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), required nursing homes to commence enrollment and routine reporting of COVID-19 cases among residents and staff members by May 25, 2020. This report uses the NHSN nursing home COVID-19 data reported during May 25-November 22, 2020, to describe COVID-19 rates among nursing home residents and staff members and compares these with rates in surrounding communities by corresponding U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) region.* COVID-19 cases among nursing home residents increased during June and July 2020, reaching 11.5 cases per 1,000 resident-weeks (calculated as the total number of occupied beds on the day that weekly data were reported) (week of July 26). By mid-September, rates had declined to 6.3 per 1,000 resident-weeks (week of September 13) before increasing again, reaching 23.2 cases per 1,000 resident-weeks by late November (week of November 22). COVID-19 cases among nursing home staff members also increased during June and July (week of July 26 = 10.9 cases per 1,000 resident-weeks) before declining during August-September (week of September 13 = 6.3 per 1,000 resident-weeks); rates increased by late November (week of November 22 = 21.3 cases per 1,000 resident-weeks). Rates of COVID-19 in the surrounding communities followed similar trends. Increases in community rates might be associated with increases in nursing home COVID-19 incidence, and nursing home mitigation strategies need to include a comprehensive plan to monitor local SARS-CoV-2 transmission and minimize high-risk exposures within facilities., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: The authors completed the ICMJE Unified Competing Interest form (available upon request from the corresponding author), and declare no conflicts of interest.

Context: Residency programmes invest considerable time and resources in candidate interviews as a result of their perceived ability to reveal important social traits. However, studies examining the ability of interviews to predict resident performance have shown mixed findings, and the role of the interview in candidate evaluation remains unclear. This mixed-methods study, conducted in an anaesthesiology residency programme at a large academic medical centre, examined how interviews contributed to candidate assessment and whether the addition of behavioural questions to interviews altered their role in the evaluation process., Methods: During the 2018-2019 residency selection season in the Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care at the University of Pennsylvania, independent ratings for each interviewee were collected from faculty interviewers. Consensus ratings subsequently established by committee were also collected. Committee meetings were audiorecorded and transcribed for qualitative analysis. Behavioural questions were integrated into half of interview days. Ratings of candidates interviewed on behavioural question days were compared statistically with those of candidates interviewed on non-behavioural question days., Results: Qualitative analysis showed that interviewers heavily emphasised candidates' application files in evaluating the interviews. Interviewers focused on candidates' academic records and favoured candidates whose interview behaviours were consistent with their applications and whose applications demonstrated similarities to interviewers' traits. The addition of behavioural questions demonstrated little ability to alter these dynamics. Quantitatively, there were no significant differences in candidate rating outcomes between behavioural and non-behavioural interviewing days, whereas a higher medical school rating and higher score on the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 were associated with a more favourable consensus rating., Conclusions: Residency candidates' application files predisposed interviewers' experience and evaluation of interviews, preventing the interviews from providing discrete assessments of interpersonal qualities, even when behavioural questions were included. In the continued effort to perform well-rounded assessments of residency candidates, further research and reflection on the role of interviewing in evaluation are necessary., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and The Association for the Study of Medical Education.)

Background/objective: Risk-stratification tools for cardiac complications after noncardiac surgery based on preoperative risk factors are used to inform postoperative management. However, there is limited evidence on whether risk stratification can be improved by incorporating data collected intraoperatively, particularly for low-risk patients., Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults who underwent noncardiac surgery between 2014 and 2018 at four hospitals in the United States. Logistic regression with elastic net selection was used to classify in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) using preoperative and intraoperative data ("perioperative model"). We compared model performance to standard risk stratification tools and professional society guidelines that do not use intraoperative data., Results: Of 72,909 patients, 558 (0.77%) experienced MACE. Those with MACE were older and less likely to be female. The perioperative model demonstrated an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.88 (95% CI, 0.85-0.92). This was higher than the Lee Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI) AUC of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.74-0.84; P < .001 for AUC comparison). There were more MACE complications in the top decile (n = 1,465) of the perioperative model's predicted risk compared with that of the RCRI model (n = 58 vs 43). Additionally, the perioperative model identified 2,341 of 7,597 (31%) patients as low risk who did not experience MACE but were recommended to receive postoperative biomarker testing by a risk factor-based guideline algorithm., Conclusions: Addition of intraoperative data to preoperative data improved prediction of cardiovascular complication outcomes after noncardiac surgery and could potentially help reduce unnecessary postoperative testing.

Postoperative delirium is a geriatric syndrome that manifests as changes in cognition, attention, and levels of consciousness after surgery. It occurs in up to 50% of patients after major surgery and is associated with adverse outcomes, including increased hospital length of stay, higher cost of care, higher rates of institutionalization after discharge, and higher rates of readmission. Furthermore, it is associated with functional decline and cognitive impairments after surgery. As the age and medical complexity of our surgical population increases, practitioners need the skills to identify and prevent delirium in this high-risk population. Because delirium is a common and consequential postoperative complication, there has been an abundance of recent research focused on delirium, conducted by clinicians from a variety of specialties. There have also been several reviews and recommendation statements; however, these have not been based on robust evidence. The Sixth Perioperative Quality Initiative (POQI-6) consensus conference brought together a team of multidisciplinary experts to formally survey and evaluate the literature on postoperative delirium prevention and provide evidence-based recommendations using an iterative Delphi process and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Criteria for evaluating biomedical literature.

Background: Despite recommendations regarding the use of intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), there is no randomized evidence to support its use in cardiac valve surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing open cardiac valve repair or replacement surgery with and without transesophageal echocardiographic monitoring. The hypothesis was that transesophageal echocardiographic monitoring would be associated with lower 30-day mortality and shorter length of hospitalization., Methods: In this observational retrospective cohort study, Medicare claims were used to test the association between perioperative TEE and 30-day all-cause mortality and length of hospitalization among patients undergoing open cardiac valve repair or replacement surgery between January 1, 2010, and October 1, 2015. Baseline characteristics were defined by inpatient and outpatient claims. Medicare death records were used to ascertain 30-day mortality. Statistical analyses included regression models and propensity score matching., Results: A total of 219,238 patients underwent open cardiac valve surgery, of whom 85% underwent TEE. Patients who underwent TEE were significantly older and had greater comorbidities. After adjusting for patient demographics, clinical comorbidities, surgical characteristics, and hospital factors, including annual surgical volume, the TEE group had a lower adjusted odds of 30-day mortality (odds ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.82; P < .001), with no difference in length of hospitalization (<0.01%; 95% CI, -0.61% to 0.62%; P = .99). Results were similar across all analyses, including a propensity score-matched cohort., Conclusions: Transesophageal echocardiographic monitoring in cardiac valve repair or replacement surgery was associated with lower 30-day risk-adjusted mortality, without a significant increase in length of hospitalization. These findings support the use of TEE as routine practice in open cardiac valve repair or replacement surgery., (Copyright © 2020 American Society of Echocardiography. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Teaching hospitals typically pioneer investment in new technology and cultivate workforce characteristics generally associated with better quality, but the value of this extra investment is unclear., Objective: Compare outcomes and costs between major teaching and non-teaching hospitals by closely matching on patient characteristics., Design: Medicare patients at 339 major teaching hospitals (resident-to-bed (RTB) ratios ≥ 0.25); matched patient controls from 2439 non-teaching hospitals (RTB ratios < 0.05)., Participants: Forty-three thousand nine hundred ninety pairs of patients (one from a major teaching hospital and one from a non-teaching hospital) admitted for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), 84,985 pairs admitted for heart failure (HF), and 74,947 pairs admitted for pneumonia (PNA)., Exposure: Treatment at major teaching hospitals versus non-teaching hospitals., Main Measures: Thirty-day all-cause mortality, readmissions, ICU utilization, costs, payments, and value expressed as extra cost for a 1% improvement in survival., Key Results: Thirty-day mortality was lower in teaching than non-teaching hospitals (10.7% versus 12.0%, difference = - 1.3%, P < 0.0001). The paired cost difference (teaching - non-teaching) was $273 (P < 0.0001), yielding $211 per 1% mortality improvement. For the quintile of pairs with highest risk on admission, mortality differences were larger (24.6% versus 27.6%, difference = - 3.0%, P < 0.0001), and paired cost difference = $1289 (P < 0.0001), yielding $427 per 1% mortality improvement at 30 days. Readmissions and ICU utilization were lower in teaching hospitals (both P < 0.0001), but length of stay was longer (5.5 versus 5.1 days, P < 0.0001). Finally, individual results for AMI, HF, and PNA showed similar findings as in the combined results., Conclusions and Relevance: Among Medicare patients admitted for common medical conditions, as admission risk of mortality increased, the absolute mortality benefit of treatment at teaching hospitals also increased, though accompanied by marginally higher cost. Major teaching hospitals appear to return good value for the extra resources used.

Objective: To compare outcomes and costs between major teaching and nonteaching hospitals on a national scale by closely matching on patient procedures and characteristics., Background: Teaching hospitals have been shown to often have better quality than nonteaching hospitals, but cost and value associated with teaching hospitals remains unclear., Methods: A study of Medicare patients at 340 teaching hospitals (resident-to-bed ratios ≥ 0.25) and matched patient controls from 2444 nonteaching hospitals (resident-to-bed ratios < 0.05).We studied 86,751 pairs admitted for general surgery (GS), 214,302 pairs of patients admitted for orthopedic surgery, and 52,025 pairs of patients admitted for vascular surgery., Results: In GS, mortality was 4.62% in teaching hospitals versus 5.57%, (a difference of -0.95%, <0.0001), and overall paired cost difference = $915 (P < 0.0001). For the GS quintile of pairs with highest risk on admission, mortality differences were larger (15.94% versus 18.18%, difference = -2.24%, P < 0.0001), and paired cost difference = $3773 (P < 0.0001), yielding $1682 per 1% mortality improvement at 30 days. Patterns for vascular surgery outcomes resembled general surgery; however, orthopedics outcomes did not show significant differences in mortality across teaching and nonteaching environments, though costs were higher at teaching hospitals., Conclusions: Among Medicare patients, as admission risk of mortality increased, the absolute mortality benefit of treatment at teaching hospitals also increased, though accompanied by marginally higher cost. Major teaching hospitals appear to return good value for the extra resources used in general surgery, and to some extent vascular surgery, but this was not apparent in orthopedic surgery.