Aljabri, Duaa

Background: Managing the safety climate in health care is a promising tool for improving employee and patient safety in the health care work environment. Gaps in the theoretical and conceptual underpinnings of safety climate, as well as the evidence base for its practical application in health care remain. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the number of work injuries occurring in health care work units and associated safety climate beliefs. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted utilizing organizational staff survey data collected by a large medical hospital in the Midwest in 2015. Employees ( n = 32,327) were invited to identify safety climate perceptions via survey. Injuries, days restricted, and days absent were identified through the Hospital’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) log. Zero inflated negative binomial regressions used injuries as dependent variables and safety climate perceptions as independent variables. Findings: In all, 23,599 employees completed the survey (73% response rate) across 1,805 employee work units which were defined as groupings of employees reporting to a single supervisor. We found that there was an association between fewer injuries and health care workers indicating that they share responsibility for compliance with safety rules and procedures (relative risk [RR] = 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.98, 0.99]). Conclusion/Application to Practice: This study supports the use of a safety climate measure to assess working units’ perceptions of employee safety. A continued focus on the health and safety of employees who interact directly with patients is warranted, as well as employees who do not provide direct patient care.

PURPOSE: Quality payment programs aim to adjust payments on the basis of quality and cost; however, few quality metrics exist in radiation oncology. This study evaluates and predicts the top spenders (TS) after radiation therapy (RT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patient characteristics, cancer details, treatments, toxicity, and survival data were collected for patients treated with RT at Mayo Clinic from 2007 to 2016. Standardized costs were obtained and adjusted for inflation. TSs were identified as those with greater than 93rd percentile costs (≥ $120,812). Prediction models were developed to predict TSs using training and validation sets using information available at consultation, after RT, and at last follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 15,131 patients were included and 1,065 TSs identified. Mean cost overall was $55,290 (median, $39,996) for all patients. Prediction models 1, 2, and 3 had concordance statistics of 0.83 to 0.83, 0.85 to 0.85, and 0.87 to 0.88, respectively in training and validation, indicating excellent prediction of TSs. Factors that were most predictive of TSs included stage N/A and stage 4 ( v stage 0; odds ratio [OR], 18.23 and 8.44, respectively; P < .001); hematologic, upper GI, skin and lung cancers ( v breast; OR, 11.45, 7.69, 3.81, and 2.43, respectively; P < .01); immunotherapy, surgery, and chemotherapy use (OR, 4.36, 2.51, and 1.61, respectively; P < .01); hospitalizations within 90 days of RT (OR, 2.26; P < .01); or death during the episode (OR, 1.56; P < .01). CONCLUSION: This is the first study of its kind to predict with high accuracy the highest spenders in radiation oncology. These patients may benefit from pre-emptive management to mitigate costs, or may require exclusion or adjustment from quality payment programs.

Abstract Objectives To determine whether use of a patient portal during hospitalization is associated with improvement in hospital outcomes, 30-day readmissions, inpatient mortality, and 30-day mortality. Materials and Methods We performed a retrospective propensity score–matched study that included all adult patients admitted to Mayo Clinic Hospital in Jacksonville, Florida, from August 1, 2012, to July 31, 2014, who had signed up for a patient portal account prior to hospitalization (N = 7538). Results Out of the admitted patients with a portal account, 1566 (20.8%) accessed the portal while in the hospital. Compared to patients who did not access the portal, patients who accessed the portal were younger (58.8 years vs 62.3 years), had fewer elective admissions (54.2% vs 64.1%), were more frequently admitted to medical services (45.8% vs 35.2%), and were more likely to have liver disease (21.9% vs 12.9%) and higher disease severity scores (0.653 vs 0.456). After propensity score matching, there was no statistically significant difference between the 2 cohorts with respect to 30-day readmission (P = .13), inpatient mortality (P = .82), or 30-day mortality (P = .082). Conclusion Use of the patient portal in the inpatient setting may not improve hospital outcomes. Future research should examine the association of portal use with more immediate inpatient health outcomes such as patient experience, patient engagement, medication reconciliation, and prevention of adverse events.