GIM services care for a markedly heterogeneous population but the most common conditions were similar across 7 hospitals. The diversity of conditions cared for in GIM may be challenging for healthcare delivery and quality improvement. Initiatives that cut across individual diseases to address processes of care, patient experience, and functional outcomes may be more relevant to a greater proportion of the GIM population than disease-specific efforts.
Objective Large clinical databases are increasingly used for research and quality improvement. We describe an approach to data quality assessment from the General Medicine Inpatient Initiative (GEMINI), which collects and standardizes administrative and clinical data from hospitals. Methods The GEMINI database contained 245 559 patient admissions at 7 hospitals in Ontario, Canada from 2010 to 2017. We performed 7 computational data quality checks and iteratively re-extracted data from hospitals to correct problems. Thereafter, GEMINI data were compared to data that were manually abstracted from the hospital’s electronic medical record for 23 419 selected data points on a sample of 7488 patients. Results Computational checks flagged 103 potential data quality issues, which were either corrected or documented to inform future analysis. For example, we identified the inclusion of canceled radiology tests, a time shift of transfusion data, and mistakenly processing the chemical symbol for sodium (“Na”) as a missing value. Manual validation identified 1 important data quality issue that was not detected by computational checks: transfusion dates and times at 1 site were unreliable. Apart from that single issue, across all data tables, GEMINI data had high overall accuracy (ranging from 98%–100%), sensitivity (95%–100%), specificity (99%–100%), positive predictive value (93%–100%), and negative predictive value (99%–100%) compared to the gold standard. Discussion and Conclusion Computational data quality checks with iterative re-extraction facilitated reliable data collection from hospitals but missed 1 critical quality issue. Combining computational and manual approaches may be optimal for assessing the quality of large multisite clinical databases.
IMPORTANCE Trauma of hospitalization refers to the depersonalizing and stressful experience of a hospital admission and is hypothesized to increase the risk of readmission after discharge. OBJECTIVES To characterize the trauma of hospitalization by measuring patient-reported disturbances in sleep, mobility, nutrition, and mood among medical inpatients, and to examine the association between these disturbances and the risk of unplanned return to hospital after discharge. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This prospective cohort study enrolled participants between September 1, 2016, and September 1, 2017, at 2 academic hospitals in Toronto, Canada. Participants were adults admitted to the internal medicine ward for more than 48 hours. Participants were interviewed before discharge using a standardized questionnaire to assess sleep, mobility, nutrition, and mood. Responses for each domain were dichotomized as disturbance or no disturbance. Disturbance in 3 or 4 domains (the upper tertile) was considered high trauma of hospitalization, and disturbance in 0 to 2 domains (the lower 2 tertiles) was considered low trauma. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES The primary outcome was readmission or emergency department visit within 30 days of discharge. The association between trauma of hospitalization and the primary outcome was examined using logistic regression, adjusted for age; sex; length of stay; Charlson Comorbidity Index Score; Laboratory-Based Acute Physiology Score; and baseline disturbances in sleep, mobility, nutrition, and mood. RESULTS A total of 207 patients participated, of whom 82 (39.6%) were women and 125 (60.4%) were men, with a mean (SD) age of 60.3 (16.8) years. Among the 207 participants, 75 (36.2%) reported sleep disturbance, 162 (78.3%) reported mobility disturbance, 114 (55.1%) reported nutrition disturbance, and 48 (23.2%) reported mood disturbance. Nearly all participants (192 [92.8%]) described a disturbance in at least 1 domain, and 61 participants (29.5%) had high trauma exposure. A statistically significant 15.8% greater absolute risk of readmission or emergency department visit was found in participants with high trauma (37.7%; 95% CI, 25.9%-51.1%) compared with those with low trauma (21.9%; 95% CI, 15.7%-29.7%), which remained statistically significant after adjusting for baseline characteristics (adjusted odds ratio, 2.52; 95% CI, 1.24-5.17; P = .01) and propensity score matching (odds ratio, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.11-5.73; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Disturbances in sleep, mobility, nutrition, and mood were common in medical inpatients; such trauma of hospitalization may be associated with a greater risk of 30-day readmission or emergency department visit after hospital discharge.
Drs Verma and Masoom had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Drs Verma and Masoom are co-first authors.
BackgroundVariations in inpatient medical care are typically attributed to system, hospital or patient factors. Little is known about variations at the physician level within hospitals. We described the physician-level variation in clinical outcomes and resource use in general internal medicine (GIM).MethodsThis was an observational study of all emergency admissions to GIM at seven hospitals in Ontario, Canada, over a 5-year period between 2010 and 2015. Physician-level variations in inpatient mortality, hospital length of stay, 30-day readmission and use of ‘advanced imaging’ (CT, MRI or ultrasound scans) were measured. Physicians were categorised into quartiles within each hospital for each outcome and then quartiles were pooled across all hospitals (eg, physicians in the highest quartile at each hospital were grouped together). We report absolute differences between physicians in the highest and lowest quartiles after matching admissions based on propensity scores to account for patient-level variation.ResultsThe sample included 103 085 admissions to 135 attending physicians. After propensity score matching, the difference between physicians in the highest and lowest quartiles for in-hospital mortality was 2.4% (95% CI 0.6% to 4.3%, p<0.01); for readmission was 3.3% (95% CI 0.7% to 5.9%, p<0.01); for advanced imaging was 0.32 tests per admission (95% CI 0.12 to 0.52, p<0.01); and for hospital length of stay was 1.2 additional days per admission (95% CI 0.5 to 1.9, p<0.01). Physician-level differences in length of stay and imaging use were consistent across numerous sensitivity analyses and stable over time. Differences in mortality and readmission were consistent across most sensitivity analyses but were not stable over time and estimates were limited by sample size.ConclusionsPatient outcomes and resource use in inpatient medical care varied substantially across physicians in this study. Physician-level variations in length of stay and imaging use were unlikely to be explained by patient factors whereas differences in mortality and readmission should be interpreted with caution and could be explained by unmeasured confounders. Physician-level variations may represent practice differences that highlight quality improvement opportunities.
Leptin is a peptide hormone produced by adipose tissue and acts in brain centers to control critical physiological functions. Leptin receptors are especially abundant in the hypothalamus and trigger specific neuronal subpopulations, and activate several intracellular signaling events, including the JAK/STAT, MAPK, PI3K, and mTOR pathway. Although most studies focus on its role in energy intake and expenditure, leptin also plays a critical role in many central nervous system diseases.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.