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.

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.

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.

Project description:Dalbavancin is a second-generation lipoglycopeptide antibiotic with activity against Gram-positive organisms. Dalbavancin is Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved for acute bacterial skin and soft tissue infections (ABSSTIs). There is a lack of substantial data on dalbavancin in more invasive infections, particularly in high-risk populations (patients with intravenous drug use and unstable living conditions). In this retrospective observational study, we reviewed all patients that received at least one dose of dalbavancin in an inpatient or outpatient setting at Parkland Hospital from February of 2019 to August of 2021. The demographics, type of infection, and rationale for dalbavancin were collected at the baseline. Clinical failure was measured by an avoidance of emergency department (ED) visits or hospital readmission at 30, 60, and 90 days. A separate analysis was conducted to estimate hospital, rehabilitation, or nursing facility days saved based on the projected length of treatment. 40 patients were included, and the majority were uninsured (85%), experiencing homelessness (60%), or had intravenous drug use (IDU) (57.5%). Indications for use included ABSSTIs (45%), bloodstream infection (67.5%), osteomyelitis (40%), infective endocarditis (10%), and septic arthritis (10%). Clinical failure was observed in 5 of the 40 patients (12.5%). Nonadherence to medical recommendations, a lack of source control, and ongoing IDU increased the risk of failure. Dalbavancin saved a total of 566 days of inpatient, rehabilitation, and nursing facility stays. Dalbavancin is a reasonable alternative to the standard of care in an at-risk population, offering decreased lengths of stays and cost savings. The uses of second-generation lipoglycopeptides are desirable alternatives to traditional outpatient parenteral antibiotic therapies for patients who otherwise would not qualify or for patients who desire less hospital contact in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. IMPORTANCE This study contributes additional experience to the literature of dalbavancin use in off-label indications, particularly for patients who do not qualify for outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy. The majority of the patient population were people who inject drugs and the uninsured. There is difficulty in tracking outcomes in this patient population, given their outpatient follow-up rates; however, we were able to track emergency room visits and readmissions throughout the majority of the local metroplex. The clinical use of dalbavancin at our institution also increased in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic in an effort to preserve hospital resources and limit health care exposure. In addition, we are able to provide institution-specific cost-saving data with the use of dalbavancin.

Project description:Although brief intervention is effective for reducing problem alcohol use, few data exist on its effectiveness for reducing problem drug use, a common issue in disadvantaged populations seeking care in safety-net medical settings (hospitals and community health clinics serving low-income patients with limited or no insurance).To determine whether brief intervention improves drug use outcomes compared with enhanced care as usual.A randomized clinical trial with blinded assessments at baseline and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months conducted in 7 safety-net primary care clinics in Washington State. Of 1621 eligible patients reporting any problem drug use in the past 90 days, 868 consented and were randomized between April 2009 and September 2012. Follow-up participation was more than 87% at all points.Participants received a single brief intervention using motivational interviewing, a handout and list of substance abuse resources, and an attempted 10-minute telephone booster within 2 weeks (n?=?435) or enhanced care as usual, which included a handout and list of substance abuse resources (n?=?433).The primary outcomes were self-reported days of problem drug use in the past 30 days and Addiction Severity Index-Lite (ASI) Drug Use composite score. Secondary outcomes were admission to substance abuse treatment; ASI composite scores for medical, psychiatric, social, and legal domains; emergency department and inpatient hospital admissions, arrests, mortality, and human immunodeficiency virus risk behavior.Mean days used of the most common problem drug at baseline were 14.40 (SD, 11.29) (brief intervention) and 13.25 (SD, 10.69) (enhanced care as usual); at 3 months postintervention, means were 11.87 (SD, 12.13) (brief intervention) and 9.84 (SD, 10.64) (enhanced care as usual) and not significantly different (difference in differences, ??=?0.89 [95% CI, -0.49 to 2.26]). Mean ASI Drug Use composite score at baseline was 0.11 (SD, 0.10) (brief intervention) and 0.11 (SD, 0.10) (enhanced care as usual) and at 3 months was 0.10 (SD, 0.09) (brief intervention) and 0.09 (SD, 0.09) (enhanced care as usual) and not significantly different (difference in differences, ??=?0.008 [95% CI, -0.006 to 0.021]). During the 12 months following intervention, no significant treatment differences were found for either variable. No significant differences were found for secondary outcomes.A one-time brief intervention with attempted telephone booster had no effect on drug use in patients seen in safety-net primary care settings. This finding suggests a need for caution in promoting widespread adoption of this intervention for drug use in primary care.clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00877331.

Dataset Information

Clinical disparity of primary antibody deficiency patients at a safety net hospital.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets