No abstract

BACKGROUND Questions persist concerning the comparative effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG). The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) collaborated to compare the rates of long-term survival after PCI and CABG. METHODS We linked the ACCF National Cardiovascular Data Registry and the STS Adult Cardiac Surgery Database to claims data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for the years 2004 through 2008. Outcomes were compared with the use of propensity scores and inverse-probability-weighting adjustment to reduce treatment-selection bias. RESULTS Among patients 65 years of age or older who had two-vessel or three-vessel coronary artery disease without acute myocardial infarction, 86,244 underwent CABG and 103,549 underwent PCI. The median follow-up period was 2.67 years. At 1 year, there was no significant difference in adjusted mortality between the groups (6.24% in the CABG group as compared with 6.55% in the PCI group; risk ratio, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90 to 1.00). At 4 years, there was lower mortality with CABG than with PCI (16.4% vs. 20.8%; risk ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.82). Similar results were noted in multiple subgroups and with the use of several different analytic methods. Residual confounding was assessed by means of a sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSIONS In this observational study, we found that, among older patients with multivessel coronary disease that did not require emergency treatment, there was a long-term survival advantage among patients who underwent CABG as compared with patients who underwent PCI. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.)

BACKGROUND: Patients' ability to manage medications is critical to chronic disease control. Also known as medication management capacity (MMC), it includes the ability to correctly identify medications and describe how they should be taken. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of low literacy, medication regimen complexity, and sociodemographic characteristics on MMC. DESIGN: Cross‐sectional analysis of enrollment data from participants in a randomized trial. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with coronary heart disease in an inner‐city clinic. MEASUREMENTS: Medication management capacity was measured with the Drug Regimen Unassisted Grading Scale (DRUGS), which scores subjects' ability to identify, open, describe the dose, and describe the timing of their medications. DRUGS overall and component scores were compared by literacy, Mini Mental State Exam score, regimen complexity (number of prescription medications), and sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: Most of the 152 participants were elderly (mean age 65.4 years), women (54.6%), and African American (94.1%). Approximately half (50.7%) had inadequate literacy skills, and 28.9% had marginal skills. In univariate analysis, MMC was significantly associated with literacy (P<.001), and this effect was driven by the ability to identify medications. In multivariable models, patients with inadequate literacy skills had 10 to 18 times the odds of being unable to identify all of their medications, compared with those with adequate literacy skills (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: Adults with inadequate literacy skills have less ability to identify their medications. Techniques are needed to better educate low‐literacy patients about their medications, as a potential strategy to enhance adherence.

No abstract

ospital medicine is the fastest growing medical specialty in the United States. 1,2 A major driver of this growth has been empirical evidence suggesting that hospitalists provide inpatient care that is more efficient, less costly, and of equal or higher quality than traditional models of care. 3,4 Currently, hospitalist programs face growing pressure to increase productivity to compensate for declining revenue or to meet operational demands resulting from policy and practice changes, such as limitations on resident work hours, specialty comanagement, and decreased presence of primary care physicians in the hospital. [5][6][7] Increased workloads for nurses and resident physicians have been associated 6,8 with adverse events, leading to mandated workload reductions, but there is little empirical evidence illuminating the association of hospitalist workload and clinical outcomes.Historically, benchmark recommendations for US hospitalist workload range from 10 to 15 patient encounters per day, but these figures lack empirical support. 9 In a recent national survey of hospitalists, 10 40% of respondents reported exceeding what they perceived as a safe workload at least monthly and that increased workload led to delays in care, poor communication between physicians and patients, delivery of unnecessary care, medication errors, and complications of care, including death. Although the correlations between these physician perceptions and patient outcomes are not known, increasing productivity requirements for hospitalists could un-IMPORTANCE Hospitalist physicians face increasing pressure to maximize productivity, which may undermine the efficiency and quality of care.OBJECTIVE To determine the association between hospitalist workload and the efficiency and quality of inpatient care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of 20 241 admissions of inpatients cared for by a private hospitalist group at a large academic community hospital system between February 1, 2008, and January 31, 2011.EXPOSURES Daily hospitalist workload as measured by relative value units and patient encounters from the hospitalist billing records. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe main outcomes were length of stay (LOS), cost, rapid response team activation, in-hospital mortality, patient satisfaction, and 30-day readmission rates. Key covariates included hospital occupancy and patient-level characteristics. RESULTSThe LOS increased as workload increased, particularly at lower hospital occupancy. For hospital occupancies less than 75%, LOS increased from 5.5 to 7.5 days as workload increased. For occupancies of 75% to 85%, LOS increased exponentially above a daily relative value unit of approximately 25 and a census value of approximately 15. At high occupancy (>85%), LOS was J-shaped, with significant increases at higher ranges of workload. After controlling for LOS, cost increased by $111 for each 1-unit increase in relative value unit and $205 for each 1-unit increase in census across the range of values. Changes i...

OBJECTIVE -Management of diabetes is frequently suboptimal in primary care settings, where providers often fail to intensify therapy when glucose levels are high, a problem known as clinical inertia. We asked whether interventions targeting clinical inertia can improve outcomes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS -A controlled trial over a 3-year period was conducted in a municipal hospital primary care clinic in a large academic medical center. We studied all patients (4,138) with type 2 diabetes who were seen in continuity clinics by 345 internal medicine residents and were randomized to be control subjects or to receive one of three interventions. Instead of consultative advice, the interventions were hard copy computerized reminders that provided patient-specific recommendations for management at the time of each patient's visit, individual face-to-face feedback on performance for 5 min every 2 weeks, or both.RESULTS -Over an average patient follow-up of 15 months within the intervention site, improvements in and final HbA 1c (A1C) with feedback ϩ reminders (⌬A1C 0.6%, final A1C 7.46%) were significantly better than control (⌬A1C 0.2%, final A1C 7.84%, P Ͻ 0.02); changes were smaller with feedback only and reminders only (P ϭ NS vs. control). Trends were similar but not significant with systolic blood pressure (sBP) and LDL cholesterol. Multivariable analysis showed that the feedback intervention independently facilitated attainment of American Diabetes Association goals for both A1C and sBP. Over a 2-year period, overall glycemic control improved in the intervention site but did not change in other primary care sites (final A1C 7.5 vs. 8.2%, P Ͻ 0.001).CONCLUSIONS -Feedback on performance aimed at overcoming clinical inertia and given to internal medicine resident primary care providers improves glycemic control. Partnering generalists with diabetes specialists may be important to enhance diabetes management in other primary care settings. Diabetes Care 28:2352-2360, 2005T ype 2 diabetes is a public health pandemic with devastating impact on morbidity, mortality, and cost. In the U.S., the prevalence of diabetes increased from 4.9% of the population in 1990 to 7.9% in 2001 (1-4), and prevalence is projected to rise to 30 million Americans in 2030 (5). The lifetime risk of diabetes is currently projected at 33 and 38% for American men and women, respectively, born in 2000 (6), with accompanying decrease in life expectancy (6 -8). Diabetes increases the risk of both microvascular (9,10) and macrovascular disease (11), and diabetes is now the sixth leading cause of death in the U.S (12). Diabetes accounted for ϳ11% of total U.S. health care expenditures in 2002 ($92 billion) (13), but better metabolic control can reduce costs (14).Most diabetes management in the U.S. takes place in primary care settings, where measures of both process and outcome indicate that care is often suboptimal. Surveys in the early 1990s revealed that many Medicare beneficiaries had limited evaluation of levels of HbA 1c (A1C), cholesterol, o...

To develop a tool for precisely assessing dementia severity, items should be selected according to their relationship to the overall progression of the disease. Using an item characteristic curve analysis (ICC), items were examined from the Folstein Mini-Mental State Exam (MMSE), a useful clinical tool for evaluating dementia. MMSE data were available for 86 patients who met DSM-III criteria for primary degenerative dementia -- possible or probable Alzheimer's disease (AD). A logistic regression analysis of the probability of correct performance on an item, given the total MMSE score, yielded statistics for difficulty and discrimination. These statistics were interpreted respectively as indicators of the point in the progression of the illness at which the mental function tested by that item is lost and the rapidity of that loss. The data indicated a systematic progression of the development of symptoms in AD related to decline of memory function. Temporal orientation was lost before spatial and object orientation, and recollection of words was lost before ability to repeat them. ICC can help to delineate the loss of mental functions during the course of AD.

No abstract