Search

Importance Studies of public hospitals have reported increasing incidence of emergency department (ED) transfers of uninsured patients for hospitalization, which is perceived to be associated with financial incentives. Objective To examine the differences in risk-adjusted transfer and discharge rates by patient insurance status among hospitals capable of providing critical care. Design, Setting, and Participants A cross-sectional analysis of the 2015 National Emergency Department Sample was conducted, including visits between January 2015 and December 2015. Adult ED visits throughout 2015 (n = 215 028) for the 3 common medical conditions of pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and asthma, at hospitals with intensive care capabilities were included. Only hospitals with advanced critical care capabilities for pulmonary care were included. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcomes were patient-level and hospital-level risk-adjusted ED discharges, ED transfers, and hospital admissions. Adjusted odds of discharge or transfer compared with admission among uninsured patients, Medicaid and Medicare beneficiaries, and privately insured patients are reported. Hospital ownership status was used for the secondary analysis. Results Of the 30 542 691 ED visits to 953 hospitals included in the 2015 National Emergency Department Sample, 215 028 visits (0.7%) were for acute pulmonary diseases to 160 intensive care–capable hospitals. These visits were made by patients with a median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 55 (40-71) years and who were predominantly female (124 931 [58.1%]). Substantial variation in unadjusted and risk-standardized ED discharge, ED transfer, and hospital admission rates was found across EDs. Compared with privately insured patients, uninsured patients were more likely to be discharged (odds ratio [OR], 1.66; 95% CI, 1.57-1.76) and transferred (adjusted OR [aOR], 2.41; 95% CI, 2.08-2.79). Medicaid beneficiaries had comparable odds of discharge (aOR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.97-1.04) but higher odds of transfer (aOR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.05-1.33). Conclusions and Relevance After accounting for hospital critical care capability and patient case mix, the study found that uninsured patients and Medicaid beneficiaries with common medical conditions appeared to have higher odds of interhospital transfer.

Importance Measurement of delirium severity has been recognized as highly important for tracking prognosis, monitoring response to treatment, and estimating burden of care for patients both during and after hospitalization. Rather than simply rating delirium as present or absent, the ability to quantify its severity would enable development and monitoring of more effective treatment approaches for the condition. Objectives To present a comprehensive review of delirium severity instruments, conduct a methodologic quality rating of the original validation study of the most commonly used instruments, and select a group of top-rated instruments. Evidence Review This systematic review was conducted using literature from Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, from January 1, 1974, through March 31, 2017, with the key wordsdelirium,severity,tests,measures, andintensity. Inclusion criteria were original articles assessing delirium severity and using a delirium-specific severity instrument. Final listings of articles were supplemented with hand searches of reference listings to ensure completeness. At least 2 reviewers independently completed each step of the review process: article selection, data extraction, and methodologic quality assessment of relevant articles using a validated rating scale. All discrepancies between raters were resolved by consensus. Findings Of 9409 articles identified, 228 underwent full text review, and we identified 42 different instruments of delirium severity. Eleven of the 42 tools were multidomain, delirium-specific instruments providing a quantitative rating of delirium severity; these instruments underwent a methodologic quality review. Applying prespecified criteria related to frequency of use, methodologic quality, construct or predictive validity, and broad domain coverage, an expert panel used an iterative modified Delphi process to select 6 final high-quality instruments meeting these criteria: the Confusion Assessment Method–Severity Score, Confusional State Examination, Delirium-O-Meter, Delirium Observation Scale, Delirium Rating Scale, and Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale. Conclusions and Relevance The 6 instruments identified may enable accurate measurement of delirium severity to improve clinical care for patients with this condition. This work may stimulate increased usage and head-to-head comparison of these instruments.

The use of coronary catheterization and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is increasing in China, but, to date, there are no nationally representative assessments of the quality of care and outcomes in patients undergoing these procedures.To assess the quality of care and outcomes of patients undergoing coronary catheterization and PCI in China.In a clinical observational study (China PEACE [Patient-Centered Evaluative Assessment of Cardiac Events]-Retrospective CathPCI Study), we used a 2-stage, random sampling strategy to create a nationally representative sample of 11 241 patients undergoing coronary catheterization and PCI at 55 urban Chinese hospitals in calendar years 2001, 2006, and 2011. Data analysis was performed from July 11, 2014, to November 20, 2015.Patient characteristics, treatment patterns, quality of care, and outcomes associated with these procedures and changes over time.Of the 11 241 patients included in the study, the samples included, for 2001, 285 women (weighted percentage, 28.6%); for 2006, 826 women (weighted percentage, 32.2%), and for 2011, 2588 women (weighted percentage, 35.7%). Mean (SD) ages were 58 (8), 60 (11), and 61 (11) years, respectively. Between 2001 and 2011, estimated national rates of hospitalizations for coronary catheterization increased from 26 570 to 452 784 and for PCI, from 9678 to 208 954 (17-fold and 21-fold), respectively. More than half of stable patients undergoing coronary catheterization had nonobstructive coronary artery disease; this amount did not change significantly over time (2001: 60.3% [95% CI, 56.1%-64.5%]; 2011: 57.5% [95% CI, 55.8%-59.3%], P = .05 for trend). The proportion of PCI procedures performed via radial approach increased from 3.5% (95% CI, 1.7%-5.3%) in 2001 to 79.0% (95% CI, 77.7%-80.3%) in 2011 (P . 001 for trend). The use of drug-eluting stents (DESs) increased from 18.0% (95% CI, 14.2%-21.7%) in 2001 to 97.3% (95% CI, 96.9%-97.7%) in 2011 (P .001 for trend) largely owing to increased use of domestic DESs. The median length of stay decreased from 14 days (interquartile range [IQR], 9-20) in 2001 to 10 days (IQR, 7-14) in 2011 (P .001 for trend). In-hospital mortality did not change significantly, but both adjusted risk of any bleeding (odds ratio [OR], 0.53 [95% CI, 0.36-0.79], P .001 for trend) and access bleeding (OR, 0.23 [95% CI, 0.12-0.43], P .001) were decreased between 2001 and 2011. The medical records lacked documentation needed to calculate commonly used process metrics including door to balloon times for primary PCI and the prescription of evidence-based medications at discharge.Although the use of catheterization and PCI in China has increased dramatically, we identified critical quality and documentation gaps that represent opportunities to improve care. Our findings can serve as a foundation to guide future quality improvement initiatives in China.

IMPORTANCE Current guidelines allow substantial discretion in use of noninvasive cardiac imaging for patients without acute myocardial infarction (AMI) who are being evaluated for ischemia. Imaging use may affect downstream testing and outcomes. OBJECTIVE To characterize hospital variation in use of noninvasive cardiac imaging and the association of imaging use with downstream testing, interventions, and outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Cross-sectional study of hospitals using 2010 administrative data from Premier, Inc, including patients with suspected ischemia on initial evaluation who were seen in the emergency department, observation unit, or inpatient ward; received at least 1 cardiac biomarker test on day 0 or 1; and had a principal discharge diagnosis for a common cause of chest discomfort, a sign or symptom of cardiac ischemia, and/or a comorbidity associated with coronary disease. We excluded patients with AMI. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES At each hospital, the proportion of patients who received noninvasive imaging to identify cardiac ischemia and the subsequent rates of admission, coronary angiography, and revascularization procedures. RESULTS We identified 549,078 patients at 224 hospitals. The median (interquartile range) hospital noninvasive imaging rate was 19.8% (10.9%-27.7%); range, 0.2% to 55.7%. Median hospital imaging rates by quartile were Q1, 6.0%; Q2, 15.9%; Q3, 23.5%; Q4, 34.8%. Compared with Q1, Q4 hospitals had higher rates of admission (Q1, 32.1% vs Q4, 40.0%), downstream coronary angiogram (Q1, 1.2% vs Q4, 4.9%), and revascularization procedures (Q1, 0.5% vs Q4, 1.9%). Hospitals in Q4 had a lower yield of revascularization for noninvasive imaging (Q1, 7.6% vs Q4, 5.4%) and for angiograms (Q1, 41.2% vs Q4, 38.8%). P.001 for all comparisons. Readmission rates to the same hospital for AMI within 2 months were not different by quartiles (P = .51). Approximately 23% of variation in imaging use was attributable to the behavior of individual hospitals. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Hospitals vary in their use of noninvasive cardiac imaging in patients with suspected ischemia who do not have AMI. Hospitals with higher imaging rates did not have substantially different rates of therapeutic interventions or lower readmission rates for AMI but were more likely to admit patients and perform angiography.