BACKGROUND: This study was designed to determine risk factors and potential harm associated with medication errors at hospital admission.

No abstract

The Columbia University Informatics for Diabetes Education and Telemedicine (IDEATel) Project is a four-year demonstration project funded by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services with the overall goals of evaluating the feasibility, acceptability, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of telemedicine in the management of older patients with diabetes. The study is designed as a randomized controlled trial and is being conducted by a state-wide consortium in New York. Eligibility requires that participants have diabetes, are Medicare beneficiaries, and reside in federally designated medically underserved areas. A total of 1,500 participants will be randomized, half in New York City and half in other areas of the state. Intervention participants receive a home telemedicine unit that provides synchronous videoconferencing with a project-based nurse, electronic transmission of home fingerstick glucose and blood pressure data, and Web access to a project Web site. End points include glycosylated hemoglobin, blood pressure, and lipid levels; patient satisfaction; health care service utilization; and costs. The project is intended to provide data to help inform regulatory and reimbursement policies for electronically delivered health care services.

BACKGROUND:Deficits in information transfer between inpatient and outpatient physicians are common and potentially dangerous.OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the effect of a newly‐created electronic discharge summary.DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS:Pre‐post evaluation of discharge summaries using a survey of outpatient physicians and a medical records review.MEASUREMENTS:Outpatient physicians' ratings of satisfaction with discharge summaries before and after implementation of an electronic discharge summary using a 5‐point Likert scale (1 = very dissatisfied; 5 = very satisfied). Additionally, 196 randomly selected discharge summaries before and after implementation were rated for timeliness and presence of 16 key content areas by 3 internists.RESULTS:Two hundred and twenty‐six of 416 (54%) and 256 of 397 (64%) outpatient physicians completed the baseline and postimplementation surveys. Satisfaction with quality and timeliness of discharge summaries improved with the use of the electronic discharge summary (mean quality rating 3.04 versus 3.64; P < 0.001, mean timeliness rating 2.59 versus 3.34; P < 0.001). A higher percentage of electronic discharge summaries were completed within 3 days of discharge as compared with dictated discharge summaries (44.8% versus 74.1%; P < 0.001). Several elements of the discharge summary were present more often with the electronic discharge summary, including discussion of follow‐up issues (52.0% versus 75.8%; P = 0.001), pending test results (13.9% versus 46.3%; P < 0.001), and information provided to the patient and/or family (85.1% versus 95.8%; P = 0.01).CONCLUSIONS:The use of an electronic discharge summary significantly improved the quality and timeliness of discharge summaries. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2009;4:219–225. © 2009 Society of Hospital Medicine.

IMPORTANCE Understanding cardiovascular outcomes of initiating second-line antidiabetic medications (ADMs) may help inform treatment decisions after metformin alone is not sufficient or not tolerated. To date, no studies have compared the cardiovascular effects of all major second-line ADMs during this early decision point in the pharmacologic management of type 2 diabetes. OBJECTIVE To examine the association of second-line ADM classes with major adverse cardiovascular events. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Retrospective cohort study among 132 737 insured adults with type 2 diabetes who started therapy with a second-line ADM after taking either metformin alone or no prior ADM. This study used 2011-2015 US nationwide administrative claims data. Data analysis was performed from January 2017 to October 2018. EXPOSURES Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors, thiazolidinediones (TZDs), basal insulin, and sulfonylureas or meglitinides (both referred to as sulfonylureas hereafter). The DPP-4 inhibitors served as the comparison group in all analyses. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was time to first cardiovascular event after starting the second-line ADM. This composite outcome was based on hospitalization for the following cardiovascular conditions: congestive heart failure, stroke, ischemic heart disease, or peripheral artery disease. RESULTS Among 132 737 insured adult patients with type 2 diabetes (men, 55%; aged 45-64 years, 58%; white, 63%), there were 3480 incident cardiovascular events during 169 384 person-years of follow-up. Patients were censored after the first cardiovascular event, discontinuation of insurance coverage, transition from International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) to end of ICD-9 coding, or 2 years of follow-up. After adjusting for patient, prescriber, and health plan characteristics, the risk of composite cardiovascular events after starting GLP-1 receptor agonists was lower than DPP-4 inhibitors (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.63-0.96), but this finding was not significant in all sensitivity analyses. Cardiovascular event rates after starting treatment with SGLT-2 inhibitors (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.57-1.53) and TZDs (HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.76-1.11) were not statistically different from DPP-4 inhibitors. The comparative risk of cardiovascular events was higher after starting treatment with sulfonylureas (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.23-1.49) or basal insulin (HR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.81-2.27) than DPP-4 inhibitors.

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the weight loss effectiveness of a ‘YMCA Model’ for the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP) lifestyle intervention METHODS 509 overweight/obese, low-income, non-diabetic, adult primary care patients with elevated blood glucose were individually randomized to (1) standard care plus brief lifestyle counseling (SC); or (2) being offered a group-based adaption of the DPP offered free-of-charge by the YMCA (YDPP). Primary outcome was mean difference in weight loss at 12 months. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analyses used longitudinal linear or logistic regression, with missing observations multiply imputed. Instrumental variables (IV) regression estimated weight loss effectiveness among participants completing ≥9 intervention lessons. RESULTS In the YDPP arm, 161 (62.6%) participants attended ≥1 lesson and 103 (40.0%) completed ≥9 lessons. In ITT analysis, mean 12-month weight loss was 2.3 kg (95% CI 1.1 to 3.4 kg) more for YDPP arm participants, compared to SC. In IV analyses, persons attending ≥9 lessons had a 5.3 kg (95% CI, 2.8 to 7.9 kg) greater weight loss than with standard care alone. CONCLUSIONS The YMCA model for DPP delivery achieves meaningful weight losses at 12 months among low income adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION National Clinical Trials Registry (NCT00656682)

INTRODUCTION:Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates are low among vulnerable populations. Fecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are one screening modality with few barriers. Studies have shown that outreach can improve CRC screening, but little is known about its effectiveness among individuals with no CRC screening history. We sought to determine whether outreach increases FIT uptake among patients with no CRC screening history compared to usual care. METHODS: This study was a patient-level randomized controlled trial, including 420 patients who had never completed CRC screening and were eligible for FIT; 66 % were female, 62.1 % were Latino, and 70.7 % were uninsured. The main outcome measure was FIT completion within 6 months of the randomization date. We assessed FIT completion at different time points corresponding to receipt of outreach components. All analyses were re-run with 12-month data. RESULTS: Patients who received outreach were more likely to complete FIT than those in usual care (36.7 % vs. 14.8 %; p<0.001). FIT completion was more common among patients with increased clinic visits. The difference in FIT completion between the outreach and usual care groups decreased over time. DISCUSSION: The intervention improved FIT uptake among patients with no CRC screening history. However, the intervention was less effective than in a previous trial targeting patients due for repeat screening. Additional research is needed to determine the best methods for improving CRC screening among this hard-to-reach group.KEY WORDS: health disparities; cancer prevention; care delivery system.

The dual perspectives of practice leaders and practice facilitators provide a more holistic picture of enablers and barriers to program implementation. There may be greater opportunities to assist small practices through simple, targeted practice facilitator-supported efforts rather than larger, comprehensive quality improvement projects.