No abstract

Background The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) promulgated regulations commencing October 1, 2008, which deny payment for selected conditions occurring during the hospital stay and are not present on admission. Three of the 10 hospital-acquired conditions covered by the new CMS policy involve healthcare-associated infections, which are a common, expensive, and often preventable cause of inpatient morbidity and mortality. Objective To outline a research agenda on the impact of CMS’s payment policy on the healthcare system and the prevention of healthcare-associated infections. Methods An invitational daylong conference was convened in April 2009. Including the planning committee and speakers there were 41 conference participants who were national experts and senior researchers. Results Building upon a behavioral model and organizational theory and management research a conceptual framework was applied to organize the wide range of issues that arose. A broad array of research topics was identified. Thirty-two research agenda items were organized in the areas of incentives, environmental factors, organizational factors, clinical outcomes, staff outcomes, and financial outcomes. Methodological challenges are also discussed. Conclusions This policy is a first significant step to move output-based inpatient funding to outcome-based funding, and this agenda is applicable to all hospital-acquired conditions. Studies beginning soon will have the best hope of capturing data for the years preceding the policy change, a key element in nonexperimental research. The CMS payment policy offers an excellent opportunity to understand and influence the use of financial incentives for improving patient safety.

In 2008 Medicare stopped reimbursing hospitals for treating eight avoidable hospital-acquired conditions. Using 2006 California data, we modeled the financial impact of this policy on six such conditions. Hospital-acquired conditions were present in 0.11 percent of acute inpatient Medicare discharges; only 3 percent of these were affected by the policy. Payment reductions were negligible (0.001 percent, or $0.1 million-equivalent to $1.1 million nationwide) and are unlikely to encourage providers to improve quality. Options to strengthen the incentives include further payment modifications for hospital-acquired conditions or expanding the hospital-acquired condition policy to exclude payment for consequences, additional procedures, and readmissions.

This is the first demonstration of T cell reactivity to a proinsulin-specific peptide. In addition, it is the first example of reactivity to a minimal peptide region shared between two human autoimmune disease-associated self antigens. Mimicry between these similar peptides may provide a molecular basis for the conjoint autoantigenicity of proinsulin and GAD in IDDM.

Lymphocytopenia in hospital patients is most frequently reversible, and due to acute illness, notably sepsis and trauma (including surgery). Malignancy, with or without chemotherapy, and steroid use are also common causes, but HIV infection is a relatively uncommon cause in our hospital.

Objectives: To determine the utility of various autoantibodies in predicting progression to clinical diabetes in first‐degree relatives of patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus. Participants: 3315 first‐degree relatives of patients with type 1 diabetes (1161 parents, 1206 siblings and 948 offspring) recruited through diabetes clinics, private endocrinologists, Diabetes Australia and the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation. Main outcome measures: Prevalence of islet cell antibodies (ICA) levels ≥20 JDFu, insulin autoantibodies (IAA) levels > 100nU/ml, and antibodies to glutamic acid decarboxylase (GADAb) and tyrosine phosphatase IA2 (IA2Ab); change in cell function over time; and development of clinical diabetes. Results: 2.6% of relatives had elevated ICA levels, 1.3% had elevated IAA levels and 0.3% had both. High ICA levels were significantly more frequent in siblings than in offspring or parents, and were more frequent in relatives younger than 20 years. GADAb were detected in 68% and IA2Ab in 57% of relatives with elevated ICA and/or IAA levels. Diabetes developed in 33 relatives (25 siblings, 2 offspring and 6 parents). Before diagnosis of clinical diabetes, high ICA levels were detected in 18 (58%), high IAA levels in 7 (23%), both in 5 (15%), and either in 19 (61%); GADAb were detected in 26 (84%), IA2Ab in 13 (42%), both in 11 (35%), and either in 28 (90%). First phase insulin release (FPIR) less than 50mU/L was very strongly associated with progression to diabetes. In relatives with FPIR initially greater than 50mU/L who eventually developed diabetes, there was a gradual and continuous reduction in FPIR over time before diagnosis. Conclusions: Type 1 diabetes can be diagnosed in the preclinical stage. The recently described antibodies to glutamic acid decarboxylase and tyrosine phosphatase IA2 appear superior to ICA as screening tools for the preclinical diagnosis of type 1 diabetes.

On 1 July 1993 Victoria became the first Australian state to use casemix information to set budgets for its public hospitals commencing with casemix funding for inpatient services. Victoria's casemix funding approach now embraces inpatient, outpatient and rehabilitation services.

Routinely collected data are valuable in obtaining information on complication types associated with elective surgery. International Classification of Diseases codes and surgical procedure "blocks" allow very sophisticated investigation of types of complications and differences in complication rates for different surgical approaches. The usefulness of such data relies on good documentation in the medical record, thorough coding and periodic data audit. The limitations of the method described here include the lack of follow-up after discharge, variable coding standards between institutions and over time (potentially distorting information on rates), lack of information on the causative factors for some adverse events, and a limited capacity to support investigation of particular cases. Hospitals should consider monitoring complication rates for individual elective procedures or blocks of similar procedures, and comparing adverse event rates over time and with peer hospitals as an integral part of their patient safety programs.