Search

Length of stay (LOS) and readmissions are common measures to evaluate quality of health care. The objective of this study was to evaluate factors related to hospital LOS and readmission within 90 days following carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in patients who have not had a stroke.Using a single institution database, patients who underwent CEA for carotid stenosis between 2014 and 2019 were identified. Asymptomatic carotid stenosis (no history of any stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) within 6 months prior to CEA), and patients who had a TIA without stroke were included. Demographic and perioperative factors were collected. Primary outcomes analyzed were increased LOS (1 day) and readmission within 90 days after surgery.There were 125 patients identified who underwent CEA for 133 carotid stenosis, and 8 patients had bilateral CEA; of which 36.8% were asymptomatic carotid stenosis with the remaining being operated on for TIA without any stroke. The mean age was 68 years old and 36.1% of cases were female. The median postoperative LOS was 2 days. Increased LOS occurred in 81 cases (60.9%). Increased LOS, compared to no increased LOS, occurred more often in patients with diabetes (48.1% vs. 30.8%, P = 0.047), in those with operations starting after 12:00 pm (45.7% vs. 21.2%, P = 0.004) and those with any minor complications such as neck swelling, neck pain, and urinary retention (30.9% vs. 15.4%, P = 0.044). Readmission within 90 days after CEA occurred in 24 (18%) of cases. Readmission within 90 days, compared to no readmission within 90 days, occurred more often in patients with a history of coronary artery disease (58.3% vs. 27.5%, P = 0.004), congestive heart failure (37.5% vs. 11%, P = 0.001), and atrial fibrillation (29.2% vs. 8.3%, P = 0.004).More than half of patients undergoing CEA for carotid stenosis were discharged after postoperative day 1. Interventions on modifiable clinical risk factors, such as morning CEA scheduling and management of comorbidities, may decrease LOS and 90-day readmission rates.

Limited English proficiency (LEP) is common among hospitalized patients and may impact clinical care and outcomes. This study aimed to examine the relationship between LEP and clinical oncological outcomes for patients with head and neck cancer (HNC).A single center retrospective review was conducted including adult patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck who received treatment with curative intent between January 1, 2014 and July 1, 2019. Clinical data collected included patient demographics and clinical variables. Univariate and multivariate analysis was performed to determine whether there was an association between LEP and demographic and clinical factors.There were 477 patients included in the study; 426 (81%) were English proficient (EP) while 51 (10.7%) were LEP. The LEP patients were diagnosed with cancer at a later overall stage (p = 0.03) and less frequently treated with surgery alone compared to English speaking patients (p 0.001). After adjusting for overall stage and primary site, LEP patients were significantly more likely to receive primary surgical management compared to primary non-surgical management [OR = 2.29 95% CI (0.93, 5.58), p = 0.008]. There was also a significant association between LEP and primary site of tumor (p 0.01). Kaplan-Meyer curves for overall survival and disease specific survival showed no significant differences between the two cohorts (p = 0.8063 and p = 0.4986, respectively).LEP may impact access to care resulting in more advanced overall tumor stage at presentation and treatment with primary surgery compared to non-surgical management after adjusting for tumor stage and primary site. Interventions to provide better access to care, awareness of HNC in the LEP populations, and earlier detection may improve outcomes for LEP patients.

ICD codes are used to identify patients with appendicitis and to classify disease severity for reimbursement and research purposes. We sought to compare the accuracy of ICD-9 vs ICD-10 codes in classifying appendicitis as uncomplicated vs complicated (defined as perforated, necrotic, or abscess) compared with the clinical gold standard: surgeon characterization of the appendix in the operative report.This is a retrospective review of operative reports and discharge ICD-9/10 codes for patients 18 years or older who underwent noninterval, nonincidental appendectomy from January 2012 to December 2019 at a tertiary referral center. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value were calculated for ICD-9/10 codes to classify appendicitis as complicated when compared with surgeon description. Chi-square testing was used to compare agreement between ICD-9/10 codes and surgeon description.A total of 1,585 patients underwent appendectomy. ICD-9 codes had higher sensitivity than ICD-10 codes for complicated appendicitis (sensitivity 0.84 and 0.54, respectively) and a similar positive predictive value (0.77 and 0.76, respectively). Overall, 91% of ICD-9 codes agreed with surgical description of disease, but 84.4% of ICD-10 codes agreed with surgical description (p0.01). Among cases classified as complicated by the surgeon, 84% (79/94) had an accurate ICD-9 code for complicated disease, but only 53.8% (57/106) of cases had an accurate ICD-10 code (p0.01).Compared with ICD-9 codes, ICD-10 codes were less accurate in characterizing severity of appendicitis. The ICD-10 coding schema does not provide an accurate representation of disease severity. Until this system is improved, significant caution is needed for people who rely on these data for billing, quality improvement, and research purposes.

International Classification of Disease, ninth/tenth revision codes are used to identify patients with appendicitis and classify severity of disease for research and hospital reimbursement. We sought to determine accuracy of International Classification of Disease, ninth/tenth revision codes in classifying appendicitis as uncomplicated versus complicated (defined as perforated, necrotic, or abscess) compared with the clinical gold standard: surgeon characterization of the appendix in the operative report.Retrospective review of operative reports and discharge International Classification of Disease, ninth/tenth revision codes for patients ≥18 years old who underwent noninterval, nonincidental appendectomy between January 2012 and December 2019 at a tertiary referral center. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value were calculated for International Classification of Disease, ninth/tenth revision codes to classify appendicitis accurately as complicated compared with surgeon description. ICD-9/10 codes and surgeon description were categorized into complicated/uncomplicated based on the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma grading system.In the study, 1,495 patients with acute appendicitis underwent appendectomy. Per surgeon description, 200 (13%) were complicated and 1,295 (87%) uncomplicated. Compared with surgeon description, discharge International Classification of Disease, ninth/tenth revision codes did not accurately identify complicated appendicitis: sensitivity = 0.68, positive predictive value = 0.77. As a sensitivity analysis, the cohort was stratified by public versus private payers, and the results did not change.International Classification of Disease, ninth/tenth revision codes do not accurately identify surgeon-described complicated appendicitis. Nearly one-third of the cases of complicated appendicitis were coded as uncomplicated. Such misclassification negatively impacts reimbursement for complicated appendicitis care and could lead to misleading results in research and quality improvement activities that rely on these codes.

BACKGROUND: Limited English proficiency (LEP) is common among hospitalized patients and may impact care. We synthesized the literature comparing clinical outcomes after in-hospital care for English-proficient(EP) versus LEP patients. METHODS: This systematic review searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science from database inception through June 7, 2020, to identify research investigating clinical outcomes in patients receiving hospital-based care (in the emergency department, inpatient ward, surgical/procedural suite, or intensive care unit) that compared patients with LEP to an EP group. We assessed mortality, length of stay (LOS), readmissions/revisits, and complications. Study quality was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies met eligibility criteria. Study settings and populations were heterogeneous. Determination of primary language varied; a majority of studies (16/26) used patient self-report directly or via hospital records. Of 16 studies examining LEP and all-cause mortality, 13 found no significant association. Of 17 studies measuring LOS, 9 found no difference, 4 found longer LOS, 3 found shorter LOS, and 1 had mixed LOS results among patients with LEP. Several investigations suggested that LOS differences may be mediated at the hospital level. Nine studies evaluated inpatient readmissions. Among patients with LEP, there was evidence for increased readmissions in the setting of chronic medical conditions such as heart failure, but no evidence for increased readmissions among cohorts undergoing surgeries/procedures or with acute medical conditions. Five studies evaluated complications or harm related to a hospitalization, and no differences were found between language groups. DISCUSSION: The research community lacks a standardized definition of LEP. Most studies did not find an association between English proficiency and mortality or complications. LOS findings were mixed and may be influenced at the hospital level. Differences in readmissions by language were concentrated in chronic medical conditions. Given the paucity of studies examining LEP populations, additional research is imperative. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020143477 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-021-07348-6.

We present a plasmid-based system in which upstream trans-splicing efficiently generates mRNAs that encode head-to-tail protein multimers. In this system, trans-splicing occurs between one of two downstream splice donors in the sequence encoding a C-terminal V5 epitope tag and an upstream splice acceptor in the 5′ region of the pCS2(+) host plasmid. Using deletion and fusion constructs of the DUX4 protein as an example, we found that this system produced trans-spliced mRNAs in which coding regions from independent transcripts were fused in phase such that covalent head-to-tail protein multimers were translated. For a cDNA of ~450 bp, about half of the expressed proteins were multimeric, with the efficiency of trans-splicing and extent of multimer expression decreasing as cDNA length increased. This system generated covalent heterodimeric proteins upon co-transfections of plasmids encoding separate proteins and did not require a long complementary binding domain to position mRNAs for trans-splicing. This plasmid-based trans-splicing system is adaptable to multiple gene delivery systems, and it presents new opportunities for investigating molecular mechanisms of trans-splicing, generating covalent protein multimers with novel functions within cells, and producing mRNAs encoding large proteins from split precursors.