Clinical disparity of primary antibody deficiency patients at a safety net hospital.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Wallace LJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8277688 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Clinical disparity of primary antibody deficiency patients at a safety net hospital.
Wallace Luke J LJ Ware Matthew S MS Cunningham-Rundles Charlotte C Fuleihan Ramsay L RL Maglione Paul J PJ
The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice 20210323 7
Similar Datasets
Project description:Importance:While the proportion of adults who smoke cigarettes has declined substantially in the past decade, socioeconomic disparities in cigarette smoking remain. Few interventions have targeted low socioeconomic status (SES) and minority smokers in primary care settings. Objective:To evaluate a multicomponent intervention to promote smoking cessation among low-SES and minority smokers. Design, Setting, and Participants:For this prospective, unblinded, randomized clinical trial conducted between May 1, 2015, and September 4, 2017, adults 18 years and older who spoke English, smoked 10 or more cigarettes per day in the past week, were contemplating or preparing to quit smoking, and had a primary care clinician were recruited from general internal medicine and family medicine practices at 1 large safety-net hospital in Boston, Massachusetts. Interventions:Patients were randomized to a control group that received an enhancement of usual care (n = 175 participants) or to an intervention group that received up to 4 hours of patient navigation delivered over 6 months in addition to usual care, as well as financial incentives for biochemically confirmed smoking cessation at 6 and 12 months following enrollment (n = 177 participants). Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome determined a priori was biochemically confirmed smoking cessation at 12 months. Results:Among 352 patients who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 50.0 [11.0] years; 191 women [54.3%]; 197 participants who identified as non-Hispanic black [56.0%]; 40 participants who identified as Hispanic of any race [11.4%]), all were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. At 12 months following enrollment, 21 participants [11.9%] in the navigation and incentives group, compared with 4 participants [2.3%] in the control group, had quit smoking (odds ratio, 5.8; 95% CI, 1.9-17.1; number needed to treat, 10.4; P < .001). In prespecified subgroup analyses, the intervention was particularly beneficial for older participants (19 [19.8%] vs 1 [1.0%]; P < .001), women (17 [16.8%] vs 2 [2.2%]; P < .001), participants with household yearly income of $20 000 or less (15 [15.5%] vs 3 [3.1%]; P = .003), and nonwhite participants (21 [15.2%] vs 4 [3.0%]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance:In this study of adult daily smokers at 1 large urban safety-net hospital, patient navigation and financial incentives for smoking cessation significantly increased the rates of smoking cessation. Trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02351609.
| S-EPMC5820724 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe diagnostic delay of primary antibody deficiencies (PADs) is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. Therefore, a screening algorithm was previously developed for the early detection of patients at risk of PAD in primary care. We aimed to clinically validate and optimize the PAD screening algorithm by applying it to a primary care database in the Netherlands.MethodsThe algorithm was applied to a data set of 61,172 electronic health records (EHRs). Four hundred high-scoring EHRs were screened for exclusion criteria, and remaining patients were invited for serum immunoglobulin analysis and referred if clinically necessary.ResultsOf the 104 patients eligible for inclusion, 16 were referred by their general practitioner for suspected PAD, of whom 10 had a PAD diagnosis. In patients selected by the screening algorithm and included for laboratory analysis, prevalence of PAD was ~ 1:10 versus 1:1700-1:25,000 in the general population. To optimize efficiency of the screening process, we refitted the algorithm with the subset of high-risk patients, which improved the area under the curve-receiver operating characteristics curve value to 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.63-0.97). We propose a two-step screening process, first applying the original algorithm to distinguish high-risk from low-risk patients, then applying the optimized algorithm to select high-risk patients for serum immunoglobulin analysis.ConclusionUsing the screening algorithm, we were able to identify 10 new PAD patients from a primary care population, thus reducing diagnostic delay. Future studies should address further validation in other populations and full cost-effectiveness analyses.RegistrationClinicaltrials.gov record number NCT05310604, first submitted 25 March 2022.
| S-EPMC10660978 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In 2010, payment for some of Hennepin County Medical Center's highest need patients changed from fee for service to a per capita formula. This financial stress led the institution to employ a population health lens that revealed a significant concentration of spending on a small segment of the population. Finding high rates of potentially avoidable inpatient and emergency care, an organizational effort was initiated to attempt to manage this high-need, high-cost population more effectively. A freestanding interdisciplinary intensive primary care clinic was developed. Nurses led a risk stratification process to identify eligible patients for co-located medical, care coordination, and social services from multidisciplinary care teams. Workflows to engage the population were designed to reduce readmissions and inappropriate use of emergency services. Soon after opening, the clinic added mental health and substance use professionals. For people entering the clinic between January 2010 and July 2017, utilization and financial data were collected for the year before (pre) and after (post) enrollment (n = 487). Bivariate statistics and outlier analyses facilitated comparisons between pre/post enrollment. Patients visited the new clinic twice per month on average and outpatient costs almost doubled. Overall costs were 16% lower, with the largest decrease seen in inpatient costs. This experience has led to ongoing investment, replication, and expansion of the model. An interdisciplinary intensive primary care clinic for high-utilizing, underserved patients is a promising intervention. Multidisciplinary teams and ongoing institutional support are critical to program success. Payment reform is essential to the development of such programs.
| S-EPMC7074919 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesPatients with Covid-19 and obesity have worse clinical outcomes which may be driven by increased inflammation. This study aimed to characterize the association between clinical outcomes in patients with obesity and inflammatory markers.MethodsWe analyzed data for patients aged ≥18 years admitted with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. We used multivariate logistic regression to determine the association between BMI and intensive care unit (ICU) transfer and all-cause mortality. Inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein [CRP], lactate dehydrogenase [LDH], ferritin, and D-dimer) were compared between patients with and without obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥30 kg/m2).ResultsOf 791 patients with Covid-19, 361 (45.6%) had obesity. In multivariate analyses, BMI ≥35 was associated with a higher odds of ICU transfer (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.388 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.074-5.310) and hospital mortality (aOR = 4.3, 95% CI: 1.69-10.82). Compared to those with BMI<30, patients with obesity had lower ferritin (444 vs 637 ng/mL; p<0.001) and lower D-dimer (293 vs 350 mcg/mL; p = 0.009), non-significant differences in CRP (72.8 vs 84.1 mg/L, p = 0.099), and higher LDH (375 vs 340, p = 0.009) on the first hospital day.ConclusionsPatients with obesity were more likely to have poor outcomes even without increased inflammation.
| S-EPMC7744045 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundQuality metrics, pay for performance (P4P), and value-based payments are prominent aspects of the current and future American healthcare system. However, linking clinic payment to clinic quality measures may financially disadvantage safety-net clinics and their patient population because safety-net clinics often have worse quality metric scores than non-safety net clinics. The Minnesota Safety Net Coalition's Quality Measurement Enhancement Project sought to collect data from primary care providers' (PCPs) experiences, which could assist Minnesota policymakers and state agencies as they create a new P4P system. Our research study aims are to identify PCPs' perspectives about 1) quality metrics at safety net clinics and non-safety net clinics, 2) how clinic quality measures affect patients and patient care, and 3) how payment for quality measures may influence healthcare.MethodsQualitative interviews with 14 PCPs (4 individual interviews and 3 focus groups) who had worked at both safety net and non-safety net primary care clinics in Minneapolis-St Paul Minnesota USA metropolitan area. Qualitative analyses identified major themes.ResultsThree themes with sub-themes emerged. Theme #1: Minnesota's current clinic quality scores are influenced more by patients and clinic systems than by clinicians. Theme #2: Collecting data for a set of specific quality measures is not the same as measuring quality healthcare. Subtheme #2.1: Current quality measures are not aligned with how patients and clinicians define quality healthcare. Theme #3: Current quality measures are a product of and embedded in social and structural inequities in the American health care system. Subtheme #3.1: The current inequitable healthcare system should not be reinforced with financial payments. Subtheme #3.2: Health equity requires new metrics and a new healthcare system. Overall, PCPs felt that the current inequitable quality metrics should be replaced by different metrics along with major changes to the healthcare system that could produce greater health equity.ConclusionAligning payment with the current quality metrics could perpetuate and exacerbate social inequities and health disparities. Policymakers should consider PCPs' perspectives and create a quality-payment framework that does not disadvantage patients who are affected by social and structural inequities as well as the clinics and providers who serve them.
| S-EPMC6222992 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceNo consensus exists on how to define safety-net hospitals (SNHs) for research or policy decision-making. Identifying which types of hospitals are classified as SNHs under different definitions is key to assessing policies that affect SNH funding.ObjectiveTo examine characteristics of SNHs as classified under 3 common definitions.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional analysis includes noncritical-access hospitals in the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Databases from 47 US states for fiscal year 2015, linked to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hospital Cost Reports and to the American Hospital Association Annual Survey. Data were analyzed from March 1 through September 30, 2018.ExposuresHospital characteristics including organizational characteristics, scope of services provided, and financial attributes.Main outcomes and measuresDefinitions of SNH based on Medicaid and Medicare Supplemental Security Income inpatient days historically used to determine Medicare Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) payments; Medicaid and uninsured caseload; and uncompensated care costs. For each measure, SNHs were defined as those within the top quartile for each state.ResultsThe 2066 hospitals in this study were distributed across the Northeast (340 [16.5%]), Midwest (587 [28.4%]), South (790 [38.2%]), and West (349 [16.9%]). Concordance between definitions was low; 269 hospitals (13.0%) or fewer were identified as SNHs under any 2 definitions. Uncompensated care captured smaller (200 of 523 [38.2%]) and more rural (65 of 523 [12.4%]) SNHs, whereas DSH index and Medicaid and uncompensated caseload identified SNHs that were larger (264 of 518 [51.0%] and 158 of 487 [32.4%], respectively) and teaching facilities (337 of 518 [65.1%] and 229 of 487 [47.0%], respectively) that provided more essential services than non-SNHs. Uncompensated care also distinguished remarkable financial differences between SNHs and non-SNHs. Under the uncompensated care definition, median (interquartile range [IQR]) bad debt ($27.1 [$15.5-$44.3] vs $12.8 [$6.7-$21.6] per $1000 of operating expenses; P < .001) and charity care ($19.9 [$9.3-$34.1] vs $9.1 [$4.0-$18.7] per $1000 of operating expenses) were twice as high and median (IQR) unreimbursed costs ($32.6 [$12.4-$55.4] vs $23.6 [$9.0-$42.7] per $1000 of operating expenses; P < .001) were 38% higher for SNHs than for non-SNHs. Safety-net hospitals defined by uncompensated care burden had lower median (IQR) total (4.7% [0%-9.9%] vs 5.8% [1.2%-11.2%]; P = .003) and operating (0.3% [-8.0% to 7.2%] vs 2.3% [-3.9% to 8.9%]; P < .001) margins than their non-SNH counterparts, whereas differences between SNH and non-SNH profit margins generally were not statistically significant under the other 2 definitions.Conclusions and relevanceDifferent SNH definitions identify hospitals with different characteristics and financial conditions. The new DSH formula, which accounts for uncompensated care, may lead to redistributed payments across hospitals. Our results may inform which types of hospitals will experience funding changes as DSH payment policies evolve.
| S-EPMC6686776 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective:The aim of this study was to uncover possible psychosocial underpinnings of pain and sleep disturbance in a safety-net primary care sample. Methods:Patients (n?=?210) awaiting care in a safety-net primary care clinic waiting room completed measures of cynical hostility, social support, mental health, sleep disturbance, and pain. This study was cross-sectional and observational. Results:A structural equation model suggested that higher cynical hostility was associated with lower social support, which in turn was associated with poorer mental health, which then corresponded with higher pain and sleep disturbance. All possible indirect (mediational) effects within this model were statistically significant, suggesting a possible route through which cynical hostility may shape pain and sleep, two common presenting problems in primary care. Conclusions:These findings illustrate the interplay of psychosocial factors with chronic pain and sleep disturbance in a sample of low-income, predominantly African-American patients seeking care at a safety-net primary care clinic. The findings support integrated primary care as a way to target not only behavioral health issues but also the psychosocial factors entangled with physical health.
| S-EPMC7206878 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10483314 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe Hospital-Acquired Condition Reduction Program (HACRP) evaluates acute care hospitals on the occurrence of patient safety events and health care-associated infections. Since its implementation, several studies have raised concerns about the overpenalization of teaching and safety-net hospitals, and although several changes in the program's methodology have been applied in the last few years, whether these changes reversed the overpenalization of teaching and safety-net hospitals is unknown.ObjectiveTo determine hospital characteristics associated with HACRP penalization and penalization reversal.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cross-sectional study assessed data from 3117 acute care hospitals participating in the HACRP. The HACRP penalization and hospital characteristics were obtained from Hospital Compare (2020 and 2021), the Inpatient Prospective Payment System impact file (2020), and the American Hospital Association annual survey (2018).ExposuresHospital characteristics, including safety-net status and teaching intensity (no teaching and very minor, minor, major, and very major teaching levels).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was HACRP penalization (ie, hospitals that fell within the worst quartile of the program's performance). Multivariable models initially included all covariates, and then backward stepwise variable selection was used.ResultsOf 3117 hospitals that participated in HACRP in 2020, 779 (25.0%) were safety-net hospitals and 1090 (35.0%) were teaching institutions. In total, 771 hospitals (24.7%) were penalized. The HACRP penalization was associated with safety-net status (odds ratio [OR], 1.41 [95% CI, 1.16-1.71]) and very major teaching intensity (OR, 1.94 [95% CI, 1.15-3.28]). In addition, non-federal government hospitals were more likely to be penalized than for-profit hospitals (OR, 1.62 [95% CI, 1.23-2.14]), as were level I trauma centers (OR, 2.05 [95% CI, 1.43-2.96]) and hospitals located in the New England region (OR, 1.65 [95% CI, 1.12-2.43]). Safety-net hospitals with major teaching levels were twice as likely to be penalized as non-safety-net nonteaching hospitals (OR, 2.15 [95% CI, 1.14-4.03]). Furthermore, safety-net hospitals penalized in 2020 were less likely (OR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.43-0.96]) to revert their HACRP penalization status in 2021.Conclusions and relevanceFindings from this cross-sectional study indicated that teaching and safety-net hospital status continued to be associated with overpenalization in the HACRP despite recent changes in its methodology. Most of these hospitals were also less likely to revert their penalization status. A reevaluation of the program methodology is needed to avoid depleting resources of hospitals caring for underserved populations.
| S-EPMC10873765 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesMindfulness is effective for reducing anxiety and depression and increasing chronic disease self-management. An accessible, insurance-reimbursable model for implementation in patient-centered medical homes within US healthcare systems has promise for patients with multi-morbid conditions. Clarifying both the dose needed to impact anxiety, depression and self-management, and the design requirements for accessible primary care implementation, is essential.MethodsWe tested feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of Mindfulness Training for Primary Care (MTPC), an 8-week, referral-based, insurance-reimbursable mindfulness program integrated within primary care, compared with a Low-Dose Comparator (LDC), consisting of a 60-minute mindfulness introduction plus referral to community and digital resources. Outcome measures were assessed at baseline and 8 weeks. MTPC is trauma-informed, incorporates mindfulness-oriented behavior change skills, and is designed to target anxiety, depression, stress, and chronic illness selfmanagement. Participants schedule a PCP visit to co-create a self-management action plan during week 6.ResultsPrimary care providers (PCP) referred 344 patients over 14 months. Eighty-one participants with DSM-V anxiety disorders, depressive disorders, trauma- and stress-related disorders participated in this pilot randomized-controlled comparative effectiveness trial [MTPC (n=54); LDC (n=27)]. These data suggest that MTPC was more effective than LDC for reducing anxiety (p=0.01), enhancing mindfulness (p=0.02) and self-compassion (p=0.001), and for catalyzing selfmanagement behavior change through action plan initiation (OR=4.34, p=0.03).ConclusionsMTPC was successfully integrated into a health system, was billed to insurance, and was acceptable to a diverse primary care population. Replication with a larger study and further accessibility adaptations are needed to confirm and expand these pilot results.
| S-EPMC7009938 | biostudies-literature