Author Interviews, JAMA, Outcomes & Safety, Surgical Research, University of Michigan / 15.08.2019

MedicalResearch.com Interview with: [caption id="attachment_50705" align="alignleft" width="160"]Kyle Sheetz, MD, MSc Research Fellow Center for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy University of Michigan Dr. Sheetz[/caption] Kyle Sheetz, MD, MSc Research Fellow Center for Healthcare Outcomes and Policy University of Michigan MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings? Response: Various patient safety organizations and clinical societies continue to advocate for volume thresholds as a means to improve the short-term safety and overall effectiveness of high risk cancer surgeries in the United States. We asked two questions with this study: 1) What proportion of U.S. hospitals meet discretionary volume standards? 2) Do these standards differentiate hospitals based on short-term safety outcomes (mortality and complications)? We found that a relatively low proportion of hospitals meet even modest volume standards put forth by the Leapfrog Group. These standards did not differentiate hospitals based on outcomes for 3 of 4 high risk cancer operations reported by the Leapfrog Group. However, using higher thresholds, we were able to demonstrate a significant relationship between higher hospital volume and better outcomes, which has been reported numerous times.
Author Interviews, Health Care Systems, Outcomes & Safety, University of Pennsylvania / 01.04.2019

MedicalResearch.com Interview with: [caption id="attachment_48306" align="alignleft" width="148"]Kira L. Ryskina  MD MSAssistant Professor Of MedicineDivision of General Internal MedicinePerelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Dr. Ryskina[/caption] Kira L. Ryskina  MD MS Assistant Professor Of Medicine Division of General Internal Medicine Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania  MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?  Response: Post-acute care in skilled nursing facilities (SNF or sometimes called subacute rehab) is a very common discharge destination after a hospital stay. Patients discharged to these facilities represent more clinically complex and high-need patients than patients discharged home. We wanted to understand how soon after discharge from the hospital to a skilled nursing facility are patients seen by a physician. We found that first visits by a physician or advanced practitioner (a nurse practitioner or physician assistant) for initial medical assessment occurred within four days of SNF admission in 71.5 percent of the stays. However, there was considerable variation in days to first visit at the regional, facility, and patient levels. One in five initial physician visits occurred more than 4 days after admission to skilled nursing facilities.  In 10.4 percent of stays there was no physician or advanced practitioner visit. Much of the variability in visit timing had to do with SNF characteristics and geography compared to patient clinical or demographic characteristics. Patients who did not receive a physician visit had nearly double the rates of readmissions or deaths compared to patients who were seen. 
Author Interviews, Cost of Health Care, JAMA, Outcomes & Safety / 01.03.2019

MedicalResearch.com Interview with: [caption id="attachment_47659" align="alignleft" width="150"]Mr. Tim Badgery-Parker ELS, BSc(Hons), MBiostatResearch Fellow,Value in Health Care Division,Menzies Centre for Health Policy Mr. Badgery-Parker[/caption] Mr. Tim Badgery-Parker ELS, BSc(Hons), MBiostat Research Fellow,Value in Health Care Division Menzies Centre for Health Policy MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? Response: This is part of a large program of work at the Menzies Centre for Health Policy on low-value care in the Australian health system. We have previously published rates of low-value care in public hospitals in Australia’s most populous state, New South Wales, and a report on rates in the Australian private health insurance population is due for publication shortly. We have also done similar analyses for other Australian state health systems. This particular paper extends the basic measurement work to focus on what we call the ‘cascade’ effects. That is, looking beyond how much low-value care occurs to examine the consequence for patients and the health system of providing these low-value procedures.
Author Interviews, BMJ, Outcomes & Safety, Surgical Research, UCLA / 03.05.2018

MedicalResearch.com Interview with: “Untitled” by Marcin Wichary is licensed under CC BY 2.0Yusuke Tsugawa, MD, MPH, PhD Assistant professor Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research David Geffen School of Medicine at UCL Los Angeles, CA  MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings? Response: We studied whether patients’ mortality rate differ based on age and sex of surgeons who performed surgical procedures. Using a nationally representative data of Medicare beneficiaries aged 65-99 years who underwent one of 20 major non-elective surgeries, we found that patients treated by older surgeons have lower mortality than those cared for by younger surgeons, whereas there was no difference in patient mortality between male and female surgeons. When we studied age and sex together, we found that female surgeons at their 50s had the lowest patient mortality across all groups.
Author Interviews, JAMA, Kidney Disease, Surgical Research / 25.10.2017

MedicalResearch.com Interview with: In Gab Jeong, MD Associate Professor Department of Urology, Asan Medical Center University of Ulsan College of Medicine Seoul, Korea MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings? Response: Use of robotic surgery has increased in urological practice over the last decade especially for the surgery that was difficult to perform with laparoscopic techniques such as radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer or partial resection of kidney cancer. However, the use, outcomes, and costs of robotic nephrectomy are unknown. We examined the trend in use of robotic-assisted operations for radical nephrectomy in the United States and compared the perioperative outcomes and costs with laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. The proportion of radical nephrectomies using robotic-assisted operations increased from 1.5% in 2003 to 27.0% in 2015. Although there was no significant difference between robotic-assisted vs laparoscopic radical nephrectomy in major postoperative complications, robotic-assisted procedures were associated with longer operating time and higher direct hospital costs. The rate of prolonged operating time (>4 hours) for patients undergoing the robotic-assisted procedure was higher than for patients receiving the laparoscopic procedure (46.3% vs 25.8%; risk difference, 20.5%; 95% CI, 14.2% to 26.8%). Robotic-assisted radical nephrectomy was associated with higher mean 90-day direct hospital costs ($19530 vs $16851; difference, $2678; 95% CI, $838 to $4519).
Author Interviews, C. difficile, Critical Care - Intensive Care - ICUs, Infections, JAMA, Outcomes & Safety / 18.10.2017

MedicalResearch.com Interview with: [caption id="attachment_37568" align="alignleft" width="130"]Dr. Robert Hiensch MD Assistant Professor, Medicine, Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai Dr. Hiensch[/caption] Dr. Robert Hiensch MD Assistant Professor, Medicine, Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings? Response: New sepsis guidelines that recommend screening and early treatment for sepsis cases appear to have significant positive impacts on patient outcomes. Less research has been published on what potential side effects may result from these guidelines. Antibiotics are a cornerstone of sepsis treatment and early antibiotic administration is strongly recommended.  We examined whether the introduction of an electronic based sepsis initiative changed antibiotic prescribing patterns at our hospital. Antibiotics, even when appropriate, contribute to hospital onset Clostridium difficile infections (HO CDIs).  While the authors do not dispute the importance of antibiotic administration in sepsis, it is valuable to know whether the sepsis initiative coincided with both increased antibiotic administration and HO CDIs.
Author Interviews, BMJ / 07.10.2017

MedicalResearch.com Interview with: Dr Mark A Green BA (Hons), MSc, PhD, AFHEA Lecturer in Health Geography University of Liverpool MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings? Response: Between Dec 2013 and Dec 2015 there was an increase of 41% in the number of acute patients delayed being discharged from hospital. If we compare the previous year of data –Dec 2012- Dec 2014 – there was only a 10% increase. 2015 saw one of the largest annual spikes in mortality rates for almost 50 years – we wanted to explore if there was any correlation between these two trends.
Author Interviews, BMJ, Cost of Health Care, Nursing, Outcomes & Safety, University of Pennsylvania / 16.11.2016

MedicalResearch.com Interview with: [caption id="attachment_29710" align="alignleft" width="200"]Dr Linda H Aiken PhD, FAAN, FRCN, RN Claire M. Fagin Leadership Professor in Nursing Professor of Sociology, School of Arts & Sciences Director, Center for Health Outcomes and Policy Research University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing Center for Health Outcomes and Policy Research Philadelphia, PA 19104 Dr Linda H Aiken[/caption] Dr Linda H Aiken PhD, FAAN, FRCN, RN Claire M. Fagin Leadership Professor in Nursing Professor of Sociology, School of Arts & Sciences Director, Center for Health Outcomes and Policy Research University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing Center for Health Outcomes and Policy Research Philadelphia, PA 19104 MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? Response: The idea that adding lower skilled and lower wage caregivers to hospitals instead of increasing the number of professional nurses could save money without adversely affecting care outcomes is intuitively appealing to mangers and policymakers but evidence is lacking on whether this strategy is safe or saves money.
Author Interviews, Outcomes & Safety, Surgical Research / 18.10.2016

MedicalResearch.com Interview with: Vishal Sarwahi, MD, senior author Associate Surgeon-in-Chief Chief, Spinal Deformity and Pediatric Orthopaedics Billie and George Ross center for Advanced Pediatric Orthopaedics and Minimally Invasive Spinal Surgery Cohen's Children Medical Center Northwell Hofstra School of Medicine and [caption id="attachment_28960" align="alignleft" width="125"]Stephen F. Wendolowski Research Assistant Pediatric Orthopaedics Cohen Children’s Medical Center New Hyde Park, NY, 11040 Stephen F. Wendolowski[/caption] Stephen F. Wendolowski Research Assistant Pediatric Orthopaedics Cohen Children’s Medical Center New Hyde Park, NY, 11040 MedicalResearch.com: What is LEAN? Response: LEAN is a management principle that supports the concept of continuous improvement through small incremental changes to not only improve efficiency, but also quality. Particularly, we took interest in the 5S’s – Sort, Simplify, Sweep, Standardize, and Self-Discipline. We felt that Sort, Simplify, and Standardize were the most relevant to surgery.
Author Interviews, JAMA, Outcomes & Safety / 17.10.2016

MedicalResearch.com Interview with: [caption id="attachment_28930" align="alignleft" width="180"]David Michael Levine M.D.,M.A. Division of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care Brigham and Women’s Hospital Boston, Massachusetts Dr. David Levine[/caption] David Michael Levine M.D.,M.A. Division of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care Brigham and Women’s Hospital Boston, Massachusetts MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings? Response: About a decade ago, researchers showed that Americans only received half of recommended health care. Since then, national, regional, and local initiatives have attempted to improve quality and patient experience, but there is incomplete information about whether such efforts have been successful. We found that over the past decade the quality of outpatient care has not consistently improved, while patient experience has improved.
Author Interviews, Education, Health Care Systems, Outcomes & Safety / 15.07.2016

MedicalResearch.com Interview with: [caption id="attachment_26186" align="alignleft" width="142"]Dr. Susan Moffatt-Bruce, MD PhD Cardiothoracic surgeon Associate professor of surgery and assistant professor of molecular virology, immunology and medical genetics The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center Columbus, OH Dr. Moffatt-Bruce[/caption] Dr. Susan Moffatt-Bruce, MD PhD Cardiothoracic surgeon Associate professor of surgery and assistant professor of molecular virology, immunology and medical genetics The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center Columbus, OH MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings? Response: Crew Resource Management (CRM), a training for all health care providers, including doctors, nurses, staff and students, focusing on team communication, leadership, and decision-making practices, was implemented throughout a large academic health system - across eight departments spanning three hospitals and two campuses. All those in the health system, inclusive of those that took the training, took a survey measuring perceptions of workplace patient safety culture both before CRM implementation and about 2 years after. Safety culture was significantly improved after Crew Resource Management training, with the strongest effects in participant perception of teamwork and communication. This study was the first health-system wide CRM implementation reported in the literature.
Author Interviews, CHEST, Critical Care - Intensive Care - ICUs, Heart Disease, University of Michigan / 29.06.2016

MedicalResearch.com Interview with: [caption id="attachment_25694" align="alignleft" width="186"]Thomas Valley, MD, MSc Fellow, Pulmonary and Critical Care University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2800 Dr. Thomas Valley[/caption] Thomas Valley, MD, MSc Fellow, Pulmonary and Critical Care University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48109-2800 MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings? Response: Hospitalizations for cardiovascular condition such as acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and heart failure (HF) are incredibly common and costly. Yet, about 20% of hospitalized patients with these conditions receive substandard care. We assessed whether there was an association between the quality of care a hospital provided for AMI or heart failure and how frequently a hospital used the ICU. We found that hospitals with the highest rates of ICU use for AMI or HF delivered worse quality of care and had higher 30-day mortality for these conditions.
Author Interviews, Heart Disease, Outcomes & Safety / 17.06.2016

MedicalResearch.com Interview with: [caption id="attachment_25270" align="alignleft" width="133"]Sahil Agrawal MD, Heart and Vascular Center St. Luke’s University Health Network Bethlehem, PA 18015 Dr. Sahil Agrawal[/caption] Sahil Agrawal MD, MD Heart and Vascular Center St. Luke’s University Health Network Bethlehem, PA 18015 MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? Dr. Agrawal: Patients admitted on a weekend have previously been known to have poorer outcomes compared to patients admitted on weekdays for various acute illnesses. With the advent of early fibrinolytic therapy and subsequently, emergent primary percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), such discrepancies in outcomes have been largely resolved for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctions (STEMI). In contrast, treatment of non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) has remained less stringent such that invasive coronary angiography and potential intervention is often delayed for those presenting on a weekend rather than a week day. According to current ACC/AHA guidelines for NSTEMI, an early invasive strategy (EIS) is the preferred method of management unless barred by presence of contraindications (comorbid conditions) or patients’ preference. We were interested in investigating differences in utilization of EIS between patients admitted on a weekend versus those admitted on a weekday for an NSTEMI, and to evaluate the impact of such differences on in-hospital mortality in such patients.
Author Interviews, Baylor College of Medicine Houston, CHEST, Medical Imaging, Outcomes & Safety, Radiology / 01.06.2016

MedicalResearch.com Interview with: [caption id="attachment_24835" align="alignleft" width="132"]Daniel R. Murphy, M.D., M.B.A. Assistant Professor - Interim Director of GIM at Baylor Clinic Department of Medicine Health Svc Research & General Internal Medicine Baylor College of Medicine Houston, TX Dr. Daniel Murphy[/caption] Daniel R. Murphy, M.D., M.B.A. Assistant Professor - Interim Director of GIM at Baylor Clinic Department of Medicine Health Svc Research & General Internal Medicine Baylor College of Medicine Houston, TX MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings? Dr. Murphy: Electronic health records (EHRs) have improved communication in health care, but they have not eliminated the problem of patients failing to receive appropriate and timely follow up after abnormal test results. For example, after a chest x-ray result where a radiologist identifies a potentially cancerous mass and suggests additional evaluation, about 8% of patients do not receive follow-up imaging or have a visit with an appropriate specialist within 30 days. Identifying patients experiencing a delay with traditional methods, like randomly reviewing charts, is not practical. Fortunately, EHRs collect large amounts of data each day that can be useful in automating the process of identifying such patients. We evaluated whether an electronic “trigger” algorithm designed to detect delays in follow up of abnormal lung imaging tests could help medical facilities identify patients likely to have experienced a delay. Of 40,218 imaging tests performed, the trigger found 655 with a possible delay. Reviewing a subset of these records showed that 61% were truly delays in care that required action. We also found that the trigger had a sensitivity of 99%, indicating that it missed very few actual delays.
Author Interviews, JAMA, Outcomes & Safety / 31.05.2016

MedicalResearch.com Interview with: Cynthia J. Brown, MD, MSPH, AGSF Parrish Professor of Medicine and Director, Division of Gerontology, Geriatrics, and Palliative Care Comprehensive Center for Healthy Aging University of Alabama at Birmingham Birmingham, Alabama 35294 MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings? Dr. Brown: Low mobility is common during hospitalization and associated with loss of activities of daily living ability and community mobility. The objective of this study was to examine the impact of an in-hospital mobility program on post-hospital function and community mobility. Brown and colleagues, using a single blind randomized trial design, found that a mobility program that included offering assistance with ambulation linked with a behavioral intervention that focused on goal setting and addressing mobility barriers prevented loss of community mobility one month after hospital discharge. Those who received usual care experienced a clinically significant decline in community mobility. Functional status as measured by activities of daily living was not significantly different between the usual care and mobility program groups either before or after the hospitalization. Because low mobility in the hospital is associated with adverse outcomes including functional decline and nursing home placement even after controlling for illness severity and comorbid illness, these findings have potentially significant clinical implications.
Author Interviews, Hospital Acquired, Infections / 14.05.2016

MedicalResearch.com Interview with: [caption id="attachment_24356" align="alignleft" width="100"]Gabriele Messina, MD  Dr.PH  MSc Research Professor of Public Health University of Siena Department of Molecular and Developmental Medicine Area of Public Health. Room: 2057 Siena, Italy Dr. Gabriele Messina[/caption] Gabriele Messina, MD  Dr.PH  MSc Research Professor of Public Health University of Siena Department of Molecular and Developmental Medicine Area of Public Health. Room: 2057 Siena, Italy MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? Dr. Messina:  Studies conducted in the 1970s and 1980s conferred to environmental surfaces a marginal role in the transmission of health care associated infections (HAIs). Today, it is demonstrated that several pathogens such as C. difficile, VRE (Vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus) and MRSA (Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) can survive even for months on inanimate surfaces. Up to 40% of HAIs can be spread by the hands of doctors and hospital staff after touching infected patient and/or contaminated surfaces; furthermore, people hospitalized in rooms previously occupied by patients infected by microorganism that can persist on surfaces present an increased  risk to develop HAIs.
Author Interviews, BMJ, Johns Hopkins, Outcomes & Safety / 05.05.2016

MedicalResearch.com Interview with: [caption id="attachment_24109" align="alignleft" width="142"]Michael Daniel The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine M.D. Candidate 2016 Michael Daniel[/caption] Michael Daniel The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine M.D. Candidate 2016 Michael G. Daniel is a graduating medical student at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. He will be attending the Osler Internal Medicine Residency Training Program next year at the Johns Hopkins Hospital. His research focus is on Patient Safety, Quality, and Outcomes improvement. Summary: Medical error ranks as the third leading cause of death in the United States, but is not recognized in national vital statistics because of a flawed reporting process. Using recent studies on preventable medical error and extrapolating the results to the 2013 U.S. hospital admissions we calculated a mortality rate or 251,454 deaths per year. MedicalResearch.com: What made you want to research this topic? Response: I decided to study medicine because I wanted to improve patient health. However, I realized that improving patient health is not only about curing a disease but is sometimes about fixing the way we deliver healthcare. MedicalResearch.com: Is this news surprising to you? Response: Yes, because all previous estimates of medical error were much lower and when I started the research I couldn’t use the CDC statistics to get current data.
Author Interviews, Breast Cancer, JAMA, Outcomes & Safety, Surgical Research / 17.02.2016

MedicalResearch.com Interview with: [caption id="attachment_21646" align="alignleft" width="144"]Dr. Art Sedrakyan MD PhD ScD Professor of Healthcare Policy and Research in Cardiothoracic Surgery Department of Public Health Weill Cornell Medical College Dr. Art Sedrakyan[/caption] Dr. Art Sedrakyan MD PhD ScD Professor of Healthcare Policy and Research in Cardiothoracic Surgery Department of Public Health Weill Cornell Medical College  Medical Research: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings? Dr. Sedrakyan: In the most recent years available to us for research(2011-2013) one in four women underwent repeat surgery within 90 days after breast conserving approach to cancer removal. Patients operated by higher volume physicians had lower chance of undergoing repeat surgery.Uniform guidelines and increased surgical training are needed to standardize the breast conserving surgery to reduce the high rate of repeat surgery.
AHRQ, Author Interviews, Electronic Records, Outcomes & Safety / 11.02.2016

MedicalResearch.com Interview with: [caption id="attachment_21535" align="alignleft" width="147"]Mr. Noel Eldridge Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Mr. Noel Eldridge[/caption] Mr. Noel Eldridge Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Medical Research: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings? Mr. Eldridge: We used existing data on adverse events from the Medicare Patient Safety Monitoring System, which AHRQ, CMS, and Qualidigm have been analyzing for years, and focused on the question as to whether rates of the adverse event measures were higher or lower in patients whose charts indicated that they had been treated with a full electronic health record (EHR) or a partial EHR during their inpatient stay. The main finding was that the adverse event rates were lower in the full EHR patients. We saw three different diagnosis groups of patients (cardiovascular, pneumonia, and major surgery), and looked at combined rates for all adverse event types, as well as for four combined subtypes separately: hospital-acquired infections, adverse drug events, post-procedural events, and falls and pressure ulcers combined. Not all of our findings were what people unfamiliar with our measures would have expected.
AHA Journals, Author Interviews, Duke, Outcomes & Safety, Stroke, Surgical Research / 04.11.2015

MedicalResearch.com Interview with: Soko Setoguchi-Iwata, M.D MPH Adjunct Associate Professor Department of Medicine Duke Clinical Research Institute Medical Research: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings? Dr. Setoguchi: Medicare made a decision to cover Carotid Artery Stenting (CAS) in 2005 after publication of SAPPHIRE, which demonstrated the efficacy of Carotid Artery Stenting vs Carotid Endarterectomy in high risk patients for CEA. Despite the data showing increased carotid artery stenting dissemination following the 2005 National Coverage Determination, peri-procedural and long-term outcomes have not been described among Medicare beneficiaries, who are quite different from trial patients, older and with more comorbidities in general population. Understanding the outcomes in these population is particularly important in the light of more recent study, the Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial (CREST), which established CAS as a safe and efficacious alternative to CEA among non-high-surgical risk patients that also expanded the clinical indication of carotid artery stenting. Another motivation to study ‘real world outcomes in the general population is expected differences in the proficiency of physicians performing stenting in trial setting vs. real world practice setting. SAPPHIRE and CREST physicians were enrolled only after having demonstrated  Carotid Artery Stenting proficiency with low complication rates whereas hands-on experience and patient outcomes among real-world physicians and hospitals is likely to be more diverse. We found that unadjusted mortality risks over study period of 5 years with an mean of 2 years of follow-up in our population was 32%.  Much higher mortality risks observed among certain subgroups with older age, symptomatic patients and non-elective hospitalizations.  
Author Interviews, Cost of Health Care, JAMA, Surgical Research / 16.10.2015

Richard S. Hoehn, MD Division of Transplant Surgery Department of Surgery, University of Cincinnati School of Medicine Cincinnati, OHMedicalResearch.com Interview with: Richard S. Hoehn, MD Division of Transplant Surgery Department of Surgery University of Cincinnati School of Medicine Cincinnati, OH Medical Research: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings? Dr. Hoehn: Safety-net hospitals are hospitals that either have a stated purpose of maintaining an “open door policy” to all patients, regardless of their ability to pay, or simply have a significantly high burden of patients with Medicaid or no insurance. As healthcare policy and reimbursement change to focus on both “quality” metrics as well as cost containment, these hospitals may find themselves in a precarious situation. Current literature suggests that increased safety-net burden corresponds to inferior surgical outcomes. If this is true, safety-net hospitals will have inferior outcomes and suffer more financial penalties than other centers. This decrease in resources may adversely affect patient care, leading to even worse outcomes and further financial penalties, potentially creating a downward spiral that exacerbates disparities in surgical care that already exist in our country. Medical Research: What are the main findings? Dr. Hoehn: Our study analyzed 9 major surgical operations using the University HealthSystem Consortium clinical database, which represents 95% of academic medical centers in the United States. We sought to determine the effect of patient and hospital characteristics on the inferior outcomes at safety-net hospitals. As expected, we found that safety-net hospitals had higher rates of patients who were of black race, of lowest socioeconomic status, had government insurance, had extreme severity of illness, and needed emergent operations. They also had the highest rates of post-operative mortality, 30-day readmissions, and highest costs associated with care. Next we performed a multivariate analysis controlling for patient age, race, socioeconomic status, and severity of illness, as well as hospital procedure-specific volume. Using this model, we found that the increased mortality and readmission rates at safety-net hospitals were somewhat reduced, but the increased costs were not affected. Safety-net hospitals still provided surgical care that was 23-35% more expensive, despite controlling for patient characteristics. This suggests that intrinsic hospital characteristics may be responsible for the increased costs at safety-net hospitals. To further investigate this finding, we analyzed Medicare Hospital Compare data and found that safety-net hospitals performed worse on Surgical Care Improvement Project (SCIP) measures, had higher rates of reported surgical complications, and also had much slower measures of emergency department throughput (time from arrival to evaluation, treatment, admission, etc). This corresponded with our finding that hospital characteristics may be driving increased costs at safety-net hospitals.
Author Interviews, Health Care Systems, Outcomes & Safety / 12.09.2015

Megan Colleen McHugh, PhD Research Assistant Professor Center for Healthcare Studies Institute for Public Health and Medicine and Emergency Medicine Northwestern UniversityMedicalResearch.com Interview with: Megan Colleen McHugh, PhD Research Assistant Professor Center for Healthcare Studies Feinberg Institute for Public Health and Medicine and Emergency Medicine Northwestern University   Medical Research: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings? Dr. McHugh: There have been many large efforts to improve the delivery of health care in the U.S., for example, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Aligning Forces for Quality Program and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement’s 100,000 Lives Campaign.  One of the challenges to understanding whether these programs work is that the intervention “dose” – the quality and quantity of the intervention – often varies across different participating sites. As evaluators of multi-site quality improvement programs, we want to better understand how to measure the dose of a quality improvement intervention at participating sites.  We identified four different approaches to measuring dose.  These approaches resulted in different conclusions about which sites are “low dose” and “high dose” intervention sites. Medical Research: What should clinicians and patients take away from your report? Dr. McHugh: The main audience for this paper is program evaluators.  They should take away the following: 1) Variation in dose scores across intervention sites suggests that dose may be a contributor to the effectiveness of a quality improvement intervention. 2) It is feasible to measure the dose of a quality improvement intervention, but measuring QI dose presents many challenges, including subjective decisions about which approach to measurement to use and the need for extensive data collection.
Annals Thoracic Surgery, Author Interviews, Heart Disease, Outcomes & Safety / 02.09.2015

Dr. Ansar Hassan MD PhD Department of Cardiac Surgery New Brunswick Heart Centre Saint John Regional Hospital Saint John, New BrunswicMedicalResearch.com Interview with: Dr. Ansar Hassan MD PhD Department of Cardiac Surgery New Brunswick Heart Centre Saint John Regional Hospital Saint John, New Brunswick Medical Research: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings? Dr. Hassan: For years, geographic place of residence and one’s proximity to a tertiary care center has been identified as a predictor for access to care.   Little is known regarding the effect of geography on patient outcomes.   The purpose of this study was to explore the relationship between geography and in-hospital / 30-day outcomes among patients undergoing cardiac surgery.  What we found was that despite there being no relationship between geography and in-hospital outcomes, those who lived further away from hospital clearly had worse 30-day outcomes. Medical Research: What should clinicians and patients take away from your report? Dr. Hassan: While patients from a differing geographic places of residence appear to have similar in-hospital outcomes following cardiac surgery, their clinical courses following discharge from hospital differ considerably.   Clinicians and patients need to realize that where one lives is tremendously important as it relates to his or her health and that particular attention needs to be paid to cardiac surgery patients who live further away from their tertiary care center, especially within the first 30 days following surgery.
Author Interviews, Lung Cancer, Outcomes & Safety, Surgical Research, University of Michigan / 15.08.2015

Tyler Grenda, MD House Officer VI Section of General Surgery Department of Surgery University of Michigan MedicalResearch.com Interview with: Tyler Grenda, MD House Officer VI Section of General Surgery Department of Surgery University of Michigan   Medical Research: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings? Dr. Grenda: The main purpose for this study was to better understand the factors underlying differences in mortality rates for hospitals performing lung cancer resection.  The methodology we used included only the highest and lowest mortality hospitals (Commission on Cancer accredited cancer programs) so the sampling frame was specific. There are wide variations in mortality rates across hospitals performing lung cancer resection (overall unadjusted mortality rates were 10.8% vs. 1.6%, respectively.
AHA Journals, Author Interviews, Heart Disease, Outcomes & Safety / 10.08.2015

Helle Søholm, MD, PhDDepartment of Cardiology Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet Denmark MedicalResearch.com Interview with: Helle Søholm, MD, PhD Department of Cardiology Copenhagen University Hospital Rigshospitalet Denmark Medical Research: What is the background for this study? Dr. Søholm: The background of the current study is that previous studies have found higher survival rates after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and admission to tertiary heart centres for post-resuscitaton care compared with nontertiary hospitals, however the reasons for this difference has only been speculative. The aim of the study was to examine the level-of post-resuscitation care at tertiary heart centers compared with nontertiary hospitals and to associate this with outcome. Only patients without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction was examined to avoid referral bias. Medical Research: What are the main findings? Dr. Søholm: The main findings of the study of 1.078 patients was that the survival in patients admitted to tertiary heart centers was significantly higher compared with survival in patients admitted to nontertiary hospitals even after adjustment for known risk markers including pre-arrest co-morbidity. We found that the adjusted odds of predefined markers of level-of-care differed in both the acute phase after admission, during the intensive care admission and in the workup prior to hospital discharge. The odds of admission to an intensive care unit was 1.8 for patients admitted to a tertiary heart centre. During the intensive care admission the odds of a temporay pacemaker was 6.4, use of vasoactive agents 1.5, acute and late coronary angiography was 10 and 3.8 respectively, neurophysiological examination 1.8, brain computed tomography 1.9, whereas no difference in the odds of therapeutic hypothermia was found. Prior to hospital discharge the odds of a consultation by a cardiologist was 8.6, having an echocardiography was 2.9, and survivors more often had an implantable cardioverter defibrillator implanted (odds 2.1) as compared with patients admitted to nontertiary hospitals.
Author Interviews, Heart Disease, Medicare, Outcomes & Safety / 05.08.2015

MedicalResearch.com Interview with: Philip G. Cotterill PhD Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Baltimore, MD Medical Research: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings? Dr. Cotterill: Chest pain is one of those elusive complaints where patients can seem initially low-risk based on symptoms or risk factors, and subsequently have an acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or die in a short period of time. Using combinations of history and physical examination findings to discriminate patients with serious causes of chest pain is often not possible. In our study, we demonstrated wide variation in the decision to hospitalize Medicare beneficiaries with chest pain – nearly two fold between the lowest (38%) and highest (81%) quintile of hospitals – and that patients treated in hospitals with higher admission rates for chest pain are less likely to have an acute myocardial infarction within 30-days of the index event and less likely to die. While the findings were statistically significant – differences in outcomes were small: 4 fewer AMIs and 3 fewer deaths per 1,000 patients comparing the highest and lowest admission quintiles. Stated differently, these numbers suggest that if low admitting hospitals were to behave more like high admitting hospitals, 250 patients would need to be admitted to prevent one AMI and 333 cases to prevent one death.
AHA Journals, Author Interviews, Clots - Coagulation, Outcomes & Safety, Surgical Research / 27.07.2015

Riyaz Bashir MD, FACC, RVTProfessor of Medicine Director, Vascular and Endovascular Medicine Department of Medicine Division of Cardiovascular Diseases Temple University Hospital Philadelphia, PA 19140MedicalResearch.com Interview with: Riyaz Bashir MD, FACC, RVT Professor of Medicine Director, Vascular and Endovascular Medicine Department of Medicine Division of Cardiovascular Diseases Temple University Hospital Philadelphia, PA 19140 Medical Research: What is the background for this study? Dr. Bashir: Catheter-based thrombus removal also known as Catheter Directed Thrombolysis (CDT) is a minimally invasive therapeutic intervention that has evolved over the past two decades to reduce the incidence of post thrombotic syndrome (PTS), a very frequent and disabling complication of proximal deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Catheter-based thrombus removal has been shown to reduce this lifestyle limiting complication of DVT and as a result we have observed a significant increase in the utilization rates of CDT across United States. Recent nationwide observational data suggests that higher adverse events such as intracranial hemorrhage rates and need for blood transfusions are seen with CDT use. Nonetheless specific reasons for these findings have not been explored prior to this study. Thread veins, also known as spider veins, are small veins which can appear on your face, thighs or calves and are an issue that many patients want help with. However, they are a cosmetic issue rather than a medical problem. People who suffer from the spider veins often feel that they affect their appearance and confidence and question why do we get thread veins? Medical Research: What are the main findings? Dr. Bashir: This study showed a significant inverse relationship between the institutional Catheter-based thrombus removal volumes and safety outcomes like death and intracranial hemorrhage. The institutions with higher volume of CDT cases annually (greater than or equal to 6 cases) were associated with lower in-hospital mortality rates and lower intracranial hemorrhage rates as compared to institutions, which performed less than 6 cases annually. This study also showed that at high volume institutions there was no difference in terms of death or intracranial bleeding rates between CDT plus anticoagulation versus anticoagulation alone.
Author Interviews, Brain Injury, JAMA, Outcomes & Safety, UCLA / 23.07.2015

Aaron J. Dawes, MD Fellow, VA/RWJF Clinical Scholars Program Division of Health Services Research, University of California Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA 90024MedicalResearch.com Interview with: Aaron J. Dawes, MD Fellow, VA/RWJF Clinical Scholars Program Division of Health Services Research, University of California Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA 90024 Medical Research: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings? Dr. Dawes: In the fall of 2013, we formed the Los Angeles County Trauma Consortium, building upon a prior administrative relationship between LA County’s 14 trauma centers. We added health research researchers from UCLA and USC, and shifted the focus of the group from logistical issues to quality improvement. As a first project, our hospitals wanted to know if there was any variation in how traumatic brain injury patients are cared for across the county. Traumatic brain injury accounts for over 1/3 of all injury-related deaths in the U.S. and is the number one reason for ambulance transport to a trauma center in LA County. When we looked at the data, we found widespread variation in both how these patients were cared for at different hospitals and what happened to them as a result of that care. After adjusting for important differences in patient mix, we found that mortality rates varied by hospital from roughly 25% to 55%. As we tried to explain this variation, we looked into how often hospitals complied with two evidence-based guidelines from the Brain Trauma Foundation, hoping that we could eventually develop an intervention to boost compliance with these recommended care practices. While compliance rates varied even more widely than mortality—from 10 to 65% for intracranial pressure monitoring and 7 to 76% for craniotomy—they did not appear to be associated with risk-adjusted mortality rates. Put simply, we found no connection between how often hospitals complied with the guidelines and how likely their patients were to survive.
Author Interviews, Education, Outcomes & Safety, Surgical Research / 10.07.2015

Judy A. Tjoe, MD, FACS Breast Oncology Surgeon Aurora Health Care Milwaukee, WIMedicalResearch.com Interview with: Judy A. Tjoe, MD, FACS Breast Oncology Surgeon Aurora Health Care Milwaukee, WI Medical Research: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings? Dr. Tjoe: Numerous national health organizations have confirmed minimally invasive breast biopsy (MIBB), which uses a percutaneous core needle as opposed to open surgical techniques, as the biopsy procedure of choice when a patient’s diagnostic test reveals a breast lesion suggestive of malignancy. Unfortunately, despite the overwhelming evidence supporting use of MIBB, open breast biopsy rates in the United States remain as high as 24-39%. Our study was designed to determine if measuring individual practice patterns and providing subsequent feedback to surgeons across a large, multihospital healthcare system would improve their adherence to the quality metric of using minimally invasive breast biopsy to diagnose indeterminate breast lesions. We found that the proportion of studied surgeons (n=46) appropriately adhering to the MIBB quality metric in every instance (i.e. those who achieved 100% adherence) significantly improved from 80.4% to 95.7% (p=0.0196) after receiving feedback on not only their own practice patterns, but those of their blinded peers. As might be expected, the handful of breast-dedicated surgeons (n=4) who cared for nearly half of the analyzed patient population achieved perfect adherence throughout the study, but interestingly, the gains made in total adherence were driven by the general surgeons (n=42), showing that the study’s direct educational efforts were effective in changing practice patterns for the better. These efforts included sending letters describing adherence to the quality metric to individual surgeons and organizational leadership.