Citations

Objectives Highly visible hospital quality reporting stakeholders in the USA such as the US News & World Report (USNWR) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) play an important health systems role via their transparent public reporting of hospital outcomes and performance. However, during the pandemic, many such quality measurement stakeholders and pay-for-performance programmes in the USA and Europe have eschewed the traditional risk adjustment paradigm, instead choosing to pre-emptively exclude months or years of pandemic era performance data due largely to hospitals’ perceived COVID-19 burdens. These data exclusions may lead patients to draw misleading conclusions about where to seek care, while also masking genuine improvements or deteriorations in hospital quality that may have occurred during the pandemic. Here, we assessed to what extent hospitals’ COVID-19 burdens (proportion of hospitalised patients with COVID-19) were associated with their non-COVID 30-day mortality rates from March through November 2020 to inform whether inclusion of pandemic-era data may still be appropriate. Design This was a retrospective cohort study using the 100% CMS Inpatient Standard Analytic File and Master Beneficiary Summary File to include all US Medicare inpatient encounters with admission dates from 1 April 2020 through 30 November 2020, excluding COVID-19 encounters. Using linear regression, we modelled the association between hospitals’ COVID-19 proportions and observed/expected (O/E) ratios, testing whether the relationship was non-linear. We calculated alternative hospital O/E ratios after selective pandemic data exclusions mirroring the USNWR data exclusion methodology. Setting and participants We analysed 4 182 226 consecutive Medicare inpatient encounters from across 2601 US hospitals. Results The association between hospital COVID-19 proportion and non-COVID O/E 30-day mortality was statistically significant (p<0.0001), but weakly correlated (r2=0.06). The median (IQR) pairwise relative difference in hospital O/E ratios comparing the alternative analysis with the original analysis was +3.7% (−2.5%, +6.7%), with 1908/2571 (74.2%) of hospitals having relative differences within ±10%. Conclusions For non-COVID patient outcomes such as mortality, evidence-based inclusion of pandemic-era data is methodologically plausible and must be explored rather than exclusion of months or years of relevant patient outcomes data.

Background: Cerebrovascular disease is a life-threatening neurological event and a leading cause of long-term disability and death worldwide. Early detection of characteristic behavioral and physiological changes associated with cerebrovascular disease is critical to improving patient outcomes and quality of life measures. The growing prevalence of remote monitoring tools, from wearable devices to smartphone applications, that facilitate in situ observation of patients and the environments of daily life holds promise for more timely recognition and possible prevention of cerebrovascular accidents (CVA) like stroke. Objective: The goal of this scoping review is to examine and establish categories of innovation with digital sensors that monitor physiological and behavioral variables in situ to augment the current screening and diagnostic processes for patients with cerebrovascular disease. Methods: Guided by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist, a robust search strategy for spanning multiple databases from 2012 to September 30, 2022, excluding review articles, articles including interventions, and articles not published in English, was implemented. Among the databases searched were Web of Science; Scopus; Ovid Embase; Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; and Ovid MEDLINE and Epub ahead of print, in-process and other nonindexed citations, and daily. Results: This search strategy aggregated 689 articles, of which 101 (14.7%) articles met the inclusion criteria for this scoping review. Articles were divided into two categories based on their focus: physiological and behavioral. Articles with a physiological focus were sorted into one of nine subcategories according to the signal(s) monitored: motor function, heart rhythm, heart rate, kinematic analysis, physical activity, blood pressure, sensory deficit, electrodermal activity, and intracranial pressure. Articles focusing on behavioral variables were sorted into two subcategories: mood and fatigue. Most studies used an ECG-enabled smartwatch, like an Apple Watch 3, or passive smartphone sensors. Conclusions: This scoping review identified disparate methods and conclusions associated with the use of digital sensors for in situ physiological and behavioral monitoring of cerebrovascular disease patients. While most articles evaluated pilot validation and feasibility trials, the lack of randomized controlled trials is a critical literature gap specific to this evolving research area.

The availability of large state and federally run administrative health-care databases provides potentially comprehensive population-wide information that can dramatically impact both medical and health-policy decision-making. Specific opportunities and important limitations exist with all administrative databases based on what information is collected and how reliably specific data elements are reported. Access to patient identifiable-level information can be critical for certain long-term outcome studies but can be difficult (although not impossible) due to patient privacy protections, while more easily available de-identified information can provide important insights that may be more than sufficient for some short-term operative or in-hospital outcome questions. The first section of this paper by Sarah K. Meier and Benjamin D. Pollock discusses Medicare and the different data files available to health-care researchers. They describe what is and is not generally available from even the most granular Medicare Standard Analytic Files, and provide an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of Medicare administrative data as well as the resulting best and inappropriate uses of these data. In the second section, the Nationwide Inpatient Sample and complementary State Inpatient Database programs are reviewed by Steven M. Kurtz and Edmund Lau, with insights into the origins of these programs, the data elements that are recorded relating to the operative procedure and hospital stay, and examples of the types of studies that optimally utilize these data sources. They also detail the limitations of these databases and identify studies that they are not well-suited for, especially those involving linkage or longitudinal studies over time. Both sections provide useful guidance on the best uses and pitfalls related to these important large representative national administrative data sources.

US hospital quality rankings and ratings use disparate methodologies and are weakly correlated. This causes confusion for patients and hospital quality staff. At the authors’ institution, a Composite Hospital Quality Index (CHQI) was developed to combine hospital quality ratings. This approach is described and a calculator is shared here for other health systems to explore their performance. Among the US News and World Report Top 50 Hospitals, hospital-specific numeric summary scores were aggregated from the 2021 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Hospital Overall Star Rating, the Spring 2021 Leapfrog Safety Grade, and the April 2021 Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Star Rating. The CHQI is the hospital-specific sum of the national percentile-rankings across these 3 ratings. In this example, mean (SD) percentiles were as follows: CMS Stars 74 (19), Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems 63 (19), Leapfrog 65 (24), with mean (SD) CHQI of 202 (49). The CHQI is used at the authors’ institution to identify improvement opportunities and ensure that high-quality care is delivered across the health system.

AbstractBackgroundPatient Safety Indicator (PSI)‐12, a hospital quality measure designed by Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to capture potentially preventable adverse events, captures perioperative venous thromboembolism (VTE). It is unclear how COVID‐19 has affected PSI‐12 performance.ObjectiveWe sought to compare the cumulative incidence of PSI‐12 in patients with and without acute COVID‐19 infection.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis was a retrospective cohort study including PSI‐12‐eligible events at three Mayo Clinic medical centers (4/1/2020‐10/5/2021).Exposure, Main Outcomes, and MeasuresWe compared the unadjusted rate and adjusted risk ratio (aRR) for PSI‐12 events among patients with and without COVID‐19 infection using Fisher's exact χ2 test and the AHRQ risk‐adjustment software, respectively. We summarized the clinical outcomes of COVID‐19 patients with a PSI‐12 event.ResultsOur cohort included 50,400 consecutive hospitalizations. Rates of PSI‐12 events were significantly higher among patients with acute COVID‐19 infection (8/257 [3.11%; 95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.35%–6.04%]) compared to patients without COVID‐19 (210/50,143 [0.42%; 95% CI, 0.36%–0.48%]) with a PSI‐12 event during the encounter (p < .001). The risk‐adjusted rate of PSI‐12 was significantly higher in patients with acute COVID‐19 infection (1.50% vs. 0.38%; aRR, 3.90; 95% CI, 2.12–7.17; p < .001). All COVID‐19 patients with PSI‐12 events had severe disease and 4 died. The most common procedure was tracheostomy (75%); the mean (SD) days from surgical procedure to VTE were 0.12 (7.32) days.ConclusionPatients with acute COVID‐19 infection are at higher risk for PSI‐12. The present definition of PSI‐12 does not account for COVID‐19. This may impact hospitals' quality performance if COVID‐19 infection is not accounted for by exclusion or risk adjustment.

Objective We examined the association between stay-at-home order implementation and the incidence of COVID-19 infections and deaths in rural versus urban counties of the United States. Design We used an interrupted time-series analysis using a mixed effects zero-inflated Poisson model with random intercept by county and standardised by population to examine the associations between stay-at-home orders and county-level counts of daily new COVID-19 cases and deaths in rural versus urban counties between 22 January 2020 and 10 June 2020. We secondarily examined the association between stay-at-home orders and mobility in rural versus urban counties using Google Community Mobility Reports. Interventions Issuance of stay-at-home orders. Primary and secondary outcome measures Co-primary outcomes were COVID-19 daily incidence of cases (14-day lagged) and mortality (26-day lagged). Secondary outcome was mobility. Results Stay-at-home orders were implemented later (median 30 March 2020 vs 28 March 2020) and were shorter in duration (median 35 vs 54 days) in rural compared with urban counties. Indoor mobility was, on average, 2.6%–6.9% higher in rural than urban counties both during and after stay-at-home orders. Compared with the baseline (pre-stay-at-home) period, the number of new COVID-19 cases increased under stay-at-home by incidence risk ratio (IRR) 1.60 (95% CI, 1.57 to 1.64) in rural and 1.36 (95% CI, 1.30 to 1.42) in urban counties, while the number of new COVID-19 deaths increased by IRR 14.21 (95% CI, 11.02 to 18.34) in rural and IRR 2.93 in urban counties (95% CI, 1.82 to 4.73). For each day under stay-at-home orders, the number of new cases changed by a factor of 0.982 (95% CI, 0.981 to 0.982) in rural and 0.952 (95% CI, 0.951 to 0.953) in urban counties compared with prior to stay-at-home, while number of new deaths changed by a factor of 0.977 (95% CI, 0.976 to 0.977) in rural counties and 0.935 (95% CI, 0.933 to 0.936) in urban counties. Each day after stay-at-home orders expired, the number of new cases changed by a factor of 0.995 (95% CI, 0.994 to 0.995) in rural and 0.997 (95% CI, 0.995 to 0.999) in urban counties compared with prior to stay-at-home, while number of new deaths changed by a factor of 0.969 (95% CI, 0.968 to 0.970) in rural counties and 0.928 (95% CI, 0.926 to 0.929) in urban counties. Conclusion Stay-at-home orders decreased mobility, slowed the spread of COVID-19 and mitigated COVID-19 mortality, but did so less effectively in rural than in urban counties. This necessitates a critical re-evaluation of how stay-at-home orders are designed, communicated and implemented in rural areas.

Abstract We followed 106 349 primary care patients for 22 385 3099 person-days across 21 calendar months and documented 69 breakthrough coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalizations: 65/102,613 (0.06%) among those fully vaccinated, 3/11 047 (0.03%) among those previously infected, and 1/7,313 (0.01%) among those with both statuses. These data give providers real-world context regarding breakthrough COVID-19 hospitalization risk.

AbstractBackgroundWhile COVID‐19 immunization programs attempted to reach targeted rates, cases rose significantly since the emergence of the delta variant. This retrospective cohort study describes the correlation between antispike antibodies and outcomes of hospitalized, breakthrough cases during the delta variant surge.MethodsAll patients with positive SARS‐CoV‐2 polymerase chain reaction hospitalized at Mayo Clinic Florida from 19 June 2021 to 11 November 2021 were considered for analysis. Cases were analyzed by vaccination status. Breakthrough cases were then analyzed by low and high antibody titers against SARS‐CoV‐2 spike protein, with a cut‐off value of ≥132 U/ml. Outcomes included hospital length of stay (LOS), need for intensive care unit (ICU), mechanical ventilation, and mortality. We used 1:1 nearest neighbor propensity score matching without replacement to assess for confounders.ResultsAmong 627 hospitalized patients with COVID‐19, vaccine breakthrough cases were older with more comorbidities compared to unvaccinated. After propensity score matching, the unvaccinated patients had higher mortality (27 [28.4%] vs. 12 [12.6%], p = 0.002) and LOS (7 [1.0–57.0] vs. 5 [1.0–31.0] days, p = 0.011). In breakthrough cases, low‐titer patients were more likely to be solid organ transplant recipients (16 [34.0%] vs. 9 [12.3%], p = 0.006), with higher need for ICU care (24 [51.1%] vs. 22 [11.0%], p = 0.034), longer hospital LOS (median 6 vs. 5 days, p = 0.013), and higher mortality (10 [21.3%] vs. 5 [6.8%], p = 0.025) than high‐titer patients.ConclusionsHospitalized breakthrough cases were more likely to have underlying risk factors than unvaccinated patients. Low‐spike antibody titers may serve as an indicator for poor prognosis in breakthrough cases admitted to the hospital.